Reviews

It seems quite strange to discover this type of film over thirty years after hitting the screen, and yet, somewhat comforting to realize the sense of optimism they convey. This epic depicts homo Americanus from his victory over the sound barrier to the first steps of space conquest, till the end of the Mercury program. For the first time in my life, I have found Dennis Quaid convincing because his ham acting, playing to the gallery, fits the profile of the first astronauts : reckless, and a bit crazy. I particularly find amusing the scene when he is asked by the nurse to fill a tube on purpose of testing « sperm motility factor » ; from now on in my language « S.M.F. » will be the initials of something different from « sick mother... ». But the life of a star voyager does not only deal with the adrenaline surge, the film displays rather cleverly their share of sacrifices and all the money, love and time spent on becoming fearless. The « right stuff » was literally translated into French by « the hero stuff ». Even if the film fails in showing the universality of such a project, it truly demonstrates what makes a hero to humanity, despite the mockeries and hardships one's has to endure : perseverance and uprightness (see the John Glenn character). It is vital to rediscover The Right Stuff when, nowadays, a series of films are trying to revive the optimism of space travel, with different results in terms of quality and political subtexts.

In comparison to all of its predecessors (successors is more relevant), X-Men First Class is the first film in this mutant saga with the power not to bore me. One of the two main reasons for this prowess is probably the absence of pretense and pure demonstration of primal machismo and showing off: that is to say the absence of Wolverine (he appears in a cameo actually). But the first of those reasons is obviously the presence of wits, class, a sense of drama credibility: German performer Michael Fassbender, already seen in Inglourious Basterds, is the great provider for all that as Magneto, real profundity, sheer rage, multilinguality… This prequel purposely almost looks like a (good) James Bond film on the bases of revenge, Cold War, female manipulations and colorful credits at the end. Clichés on solidarity and the value of differences are not too heavy to swallow. Eine Schöne Überaschung.

Some 15 years after its release, this film appears as a minor film in all of Carpenter's work, one director who appears himself to be a minor director in the whole cinema history. Few creative people have the gift to divide between fans and haters like Big John, and in view of my recent re-watching of Escape from LA, I do intend to defend one of my favorite directors. Carpenter is full of superlatives, in my opinion : he is one of the last artisans making his films with low budgets and maximum viewing pleasure, he is not ashamed of his positions : not anti capitalism, not pro socialism, with touches of anarchistic and cynical denunciations, but the purest fans know he is just a free thinker and doesn't give a... about political labels. This film illustrates what he is in the best of ways : shutting down the Earth's technologies instead of favoring one camp or the other ; criticizing our system's superfluity like the surgical failures - whose chief is Bruce Campbell - who have to indulge to some sort of cannibalism to survive ; a resurgence of primitive and tribal ways of life in the midst of nuclear chaos, etc. This film is excellent in that it deals with most of science fiction's classic themes and reveals the so unique all-against-the-grain-not-giving-a-...-about-it attitude that characterizes Carpenter and his alter ego Snake Plissken. I suggest this film should be reinterpreted in our times of crises and rediscovered as one "excellent yet minor piece of cinema"... Get on your couch, grab a can of beer and grow a pair of balls and listen to the Snake Plissken/Carpenter part of you.

Among the few Kaurismaki films I have seen so far, this is the one I think the most accessible and I strongly recommend it. My impression of it is completely vivid as I have just watched it minutes ago from the box I was offered a year ago for my 30's: a great present for movie maniacs. Kaurismaki does not film Helsinki this time, but another capital:London, with the same kind of views, the same urban landscapes, the beauty and the strangeness, the same insisting and passionate obsession than Scorsese with his New York. You still can find the same taciturnity of characters (perfect Kenneth Colley as the killer: I was glad to recognize Admiral Piett from The Empire Strikes Back), the same type of slow narration, though this time, the story is far simpler to understand upon first visualization. It deals with life and its contradictions, the preciosity of it, changes of mind and regrets, how desire between two people can make you see things differently, make you want to live on ; love regardless of social discrimination, that is so beautiful and yet so ideal! Another great point in Kaurismaki's films consists in the appropriate inclusion of a more or less famous rock music: perfect Joe Strummer, RIP. A great moment of poetry in cinema and a perfect film fit for beginners in Kaurismaki.

Waow ! I was so conditioned by the previous Batman animated films that I did not expect such a shock. So brilliant, so fluid, not too much Matrix effects, such fidelity to the graphic original medium : in terms of dramatic continuity, violence, action... Even without Kevin Conroy or Mark Hamill, the film works perfectly, the best of its kind. Not so long ago, a Batman fan such as I had strong reason to doubt the quality of a Batman animated film since The Batman and Gotham Knight, I'm glad to realize I was wrong. Not much more consistent things to say, if you're a Batfan, go for it without the slightest hesitation ! I strongly encourage the producers to adapt again from the comic books.

Beware : this review does not only contain spoilers, but also some far-fetched questions and even sarcastic remarks. When confronted with the task of writing a sequel to a horror movie franchise, writers must come to terms with two types of tricky questions, very much pertaining to the same logic. 1)In the rare cases of ultimate episodes (eg. A Nightmare on Elm Street 6), what way will they find to terminate the evil guy when their audiences have been used to him always rising up ? 2) When the audiences have been convinced of the stalker's death at the end of the previous film, how will they explain anew his «survivability» skills ? That power of conviction is all the more important an effort in Halloween 20 because the killers rises up precisely 20 years after the last we've seen of him in H2. I will not consider H3, 4, 5, 6 because they are so out-of-the-subject and sloppy (I will not even try to review them), despite the talented contribution of late Donald Pleasence. Why 20 years ? Let's be serious, in the first Halloween, Michael Myers was capable of driving without any lessons (that is essentially the only unexplained thing about him in Carpenter's film). Yes, but we also saw him credibly revisiting his childhood playground in Haddonfield, lurking silently behind the bushes and in the shadows, studying thoroughly his victims and the theater of his killings, knowing when to strike best. In H20, Michael Myers reappears without warning, even if Dr Loomis blinded him and burned him at the end of H2. He does not stop his prowesses here : he is as well capable of finding the location of his doctor's former assistant, Mrs Chambers. I guess he looked in the phone book for her address, or maybe he used the Internet, well without any home or computer, how could he ? Perhaps his talkative ways did permit him to enter a cybercafé and asked to browse ? That only confirms Dr Loomis' original hypothesis of an incarnation of the Antichrist, malevolent and omniscient. Harder to believe, he precisely decides to spring from his den 20 years later, and around Halloween. Perhaps some tribe found him in the woods and tried so desperately to cure him than all they could think of was putting him in a cryotube and programmed the alarm clock exactly on Halloween 98 and even included a GPS and complete data about his future preys in his brain ? Every viewer with a bit of judgment knows it is because Jamie Lee Curtis did not want to play in a horror film before, maybe her commercial failure in the Fierce Creatures comedy convinced her to return to the role that made her famous? At least, she was better convinced by producers than they convinced me of the plausibility of this sequel. Apart from those far-fetched considerations, I thank Steve Miner for he had the decency not to find replacement for Donald Pleasence. I also agree with the decision to terminate the slasher and the series, that is good at some point when we realize most films have been disastrous; but it should have been done with better writings, in order to explain the long wait, and so on (read what precedes these lines); a genuine and solid rock trilogy of horror could have been written, if H2 had not ended on November 1st... Back to this film: in a few words, it disappoints me when I rediscover it. Michael's teasing lost much of its scariness. JLC may be good but the kids have nothing as unforgettable as PJ Soles or Nancy Loomis. Everything happens so quickly as if they wanted to kill all was left of the previous films (Mrs Chambers, mainly) apart from Jamie Lee in order to close rapidly the franchise. Mission failed in many ways, the writers may lose their hair finding very improbable, and often stupid, reasons to resurrect the monsters, we are stupider to pay for tickets in theaters when they hit the screen... If I recall correctly, H20 is one of the 2 or 3 last B movie I've seen in theaters with Land of the Dead and some other.

Manhunter and "Lambs" did make an effort not only to concentrate on the fascination for evil and morbidity and really tried to construct an investigation, a plot, something of a certain solidity. Its successor (and last episode of the Hannibal series in chronological order) is nothing but a work of blood. Moreover, even if fascination does work on me, I cannot grant an ounce of realism to the Hannibal character. Forgive this incongruous comparison : Batman is able to do justice because he's neurotic, traumatized by the murder of his parents ans wealthy enough to develop his arsenal on his war on crime ; I could believe in Batman in reality. In Lecter, I cannot. In the pictures, he shows a high sense of refinery in the arts, music and paintings ; he despises those he considers vulgar and low. Yet, the persona of Clarice Starling did manage to reveal his sociable side ; ambiguous love story ? I don't think that even Thomas Harris knows himself. Harris just made an important effort in creating a paradoxical man/monster. What puzzles us is that he's cultivated and capable of the most atrocious crimes of flesh at the same time ; in brief, he's not like the real life serial killers. Is he really a serial killer by the way ? What motivates his murders ? His personal freedom when he butchers those who hold him prisoner, but the others ? On what bases does he kill ? Despise for rudeness ? Bordedom generated by the petty tales his patients tell him ? Simply a hobby ? Even the story of his childhood remains superficial in answer to these mysteries. Hannibal Lecter is just a romanesque serial killer, exactly as James Bond is an idealized secret agent capable of speaking several languages and of many other things. This absence of credibility really makes it impossible for me to enjoy this film. Norman Bates or Leatheface are far from exaggerated, next to him.

An OK film, it raises funnily and cleverly the questions of sex, beauty and the private moments of life. Nevertheless, I have just discovered this film a couple of weeks ago during a visit at the video store and you know what my first thought was after reading the summary of the film on the DVD cover ? "This is Nicholson Baker ! And not a single mention of it !" I read the ""Fermata in 2004 and the book upon the shelves of my library offered the possibility to share views with the help of pieces of paper between the pages, I believe it is what you call book crossing. This book, although I don't read that much, provided a great sensation because in my adolescence, I vividly wanted that kind of freezing power to undress women. Nicholson Baker has had the art of translating a common human (male especially) fantasy, I believe. I know ever since he did it again by imagining a man desirous to kill George W. Bush in "Checkpoint" after seeing the news in Iraq ! Even if many of us had that kind of fantasy, I doubt Sean Ellis was unaware of the Fermata in the process of writing Cashback, therefore, he should have added an ounce of gratitude to Baker. According to what I read on the Internet, I'm not the only one thinking that way.

Since Christopher Nolan has successfully reactivated Batman, there has been an inflation of the superhero in different media. How to separate the good from the bad ? As a fan, we do try not to judge too promptly according to would-be criteria on what should or should not be a character, I personally like different approaches of Batman. Nevertheless, the manga treatment, the super seriousness and the super accuracy of it, in terms of picture and movement, disturb me. See for instance Deadshot master in the art of pinning a mosquito with a toothpick ! This is a pity, the stories in GK are not bad, they just lack what brings viewers a touch of entertainment and lightness. Will do better the next time ?

What I still like after seeing it a couple of times at home is that Christopher Nolan created in cinema what comic fans appreciate in the drawn medium : a sense of continuity. Wayne Manor is still under reconstruction, the Dark Knight has already profoundly left his mark on Gotham, Lieutenant Gordon slowly ascends to Commissioner. But please, give me your light on this : how come he has not confronted the Joker face to face in the one year interval separating the end scenes with the Joker card in Batman Begins from the beginning of TDK ? Given his determination to eradicate crime, such a long wait seems strange. Fans already told everything on TDK so I would just like to express a personal interpretation of what makes such a rare quality in the superhero films genre. The secret resides in Christopher Nolan's pertinent treatment of redundant themes in the Batman's myth.

1) Batman's influence. "You have changed things", says the Joker. There is no coming back, the mantle of the bat has already inspired a large bunch of copycats and given hope to many citizens, he is already an essential part of the city. His legend is firmly installed. But the influence of Batman also brings the egg and chicken question : does Batman exist to stop the criminal element or is it because of his work that criminals as imposing and theatrical as he arise ? The Burmese story of Alfred gives as an echo to the intrigue an interesting point of view on the Joker. He embodies in evil what Batman embodies in good, his pleasure and criminal energy feed on destruction rather than material possessions. A super terrorist, "agent of chaos" as he defines himself. This confrontation breeds doubt in Batman : is it right to burn the whole forest to get rid of one single malignant element ?

2) Batman's ambivalence. He bends the law a little to pursue his quest for justice until one small problem comes : what if he had to break his whole code of morality in the face of madness ? The Joker's interrogation and the violation of privacy through phones show Batman resorting to a certain dose of fascism, that is why fans like him, because he is human and sometimes gets reactionary. He does not always remain the boyscout Superman or friendly neighborhood Spiderman. The story of Two-Face appears in a somewhat shorter version compared to that of the comics, nevertheless with ingenuity. Dent could have been the true hero, "the White Knight", he became instead what Batman could have become if desperation had taken over after his parent's murder : a criminal. Everyone ends in frustration, morally stained with a load of mental tortures in their heads. This is the Batman spirit.

The general critical appreciation largely complete the commercial and deserved success of the film. With the present Batman Begins and Dark Knight diptych, Nolan achieved what Burton didn't, and probably didn't want to : a solid base for a movie serial. Let's hope he will keep his writing and directing quality for the further installments.

The fan I am agree with the different points of view developed here, on the positive and negative sides and in my opinion, the positive slightly takes over. The show is a good surprise because it enables us to see Batman in totally new situations, not only lurking in the dark for the criminal element to rise. Hell, criminals don't always come at night ! In day or at night, in space, on earth and in the sea, why not ? After all, superheroes with or without superpowers were meant to define a modern day mythology, so why should they stick to our or their own particular and gloomy reality ? Batman is a true demigod devoted to justice in every one of its forms, I like the idea of him facing up new challenges, honing his capabilities beyond human perfection everywhere for the cause : as a member of the Green Lantern Corps, as a ghost striving to reanimate his earthly envelope, as a knight in medieval times. About his side-kicks, I particularly like Deadman and Wildcat because of their relative proximity to the universe of Batman in the comic book. Anxious to see Bronze Tiger and the Terrible Trio ! The introduction independent from the rest of the episode reminds of the good old James Bond series. The change of tonality is apparently consistent compared to The Batman, and it was on purpose, contrary to the works of Glen Murakami or Joel Schumacher. This show is an opportunity to rehabilitate old foes from the 60 (a similar choice is being made in the books, King tut recently appeared in Batman Confidential), as well as give more solidity to other DC heroes, it also brings a bit of detachment and lightness from all the darkness of the character, which I like most of the time, but that has gone too far now. A refreshing change.

In light of the recent and quite good Batman the Brave and the Bold, now is the time to bear a fatal blow to that mistake in the life of Batman. Being a huge fan since the first revival by Tim Burton 20 years ago, I have been able to accept different tonalities in the character, dark or campy. This one is just not credible : too many effects, poor intrigues and so few questions. What is great about Batman is the diversity of his skills and aspects of his personality : detective, crime-fighter, playboy, philanthropist etc. The Batman shows him only in his karate days. And by the way, how come the Penguin is capable of such virtuosity when jumping in the air regardless of his corpulence ? And look at the Joker, a mixture of Blanka in Street Fighter 2 and a stereotypical reggae man, what Batman fan could accept such a treason ? Not me anyway. Batman is much better without "The" article in front of his name.

For the rest of the world, at the dawn of a presidential change, Texas will certainly always symbolize the conservative and reactionary side of the USA. Yet, Tobe Hooper was intelligent enough not to put fascist stereotypes in it like the sheriff in the 2003 remake. Instead, he preferred to stress down on a group of working class dead-beat, that is probably one key to the critical success of the film , a horror film in the service of social issues, a horror film paying attention to the dark side of the American dream. Cannibalism may, in this line of thought, be interpreted as a means of survival, who knows, maybe it could become ours providing the economic cataclysm keeps on growing ! "When savage capitalism brings savage measures" could have been TCM's aka. "Texas", this indication of place reveals its importance when compared, for example, with its French translation ; simply "Chainsaw Massacre". Indeed, the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" is evocative of a crime file, which it is in the film, and maybe is actually, considering Ed Gein really did exist. Whereas the "Chainsaw Massacre" in French only suggests a cheap horror film, which it definitely isn't. That is why, I think, the film still suffers from a bad reputation to non-horror fans. They would probably think of it as a good film in general if they had the will to overcome this botchy translation deterrent. Another thing disturbs me when hearing non fans not even wanting to watch or even know it, they all know about Hitchcock and Psycho, but are not even aware of the same source of inspiration. Hitchcock earned his reputation as a renowned director. Tobe Hooper, well, can you know him when your're not a movie-buff yourself ? What would make the history of Norman Bates and his stuffed mother more sacred than that of a poor Texan family feeding on a bunch of rich youths ? In 1995, I was 16 when I first discovered TCM on French television after two decades of censorship. I had seen all of the series of slasher films, but none of them had given me a single true moment of cinema as TCM, quite an impression at a time I was no longer particularly craving for visual sensations. A few years later, I discovered Wes Craven's The Last House on the Left, but even if they contain the same share of realism and classes struggle (plus the presence of a chainsaw), I still don't get to like it. My interest in other horror films has vanished over the years, not in TCM. Maybe because this picture is not only about a killer with a gimmick and an ugly face, maybe it is because it is one of the most constructed of its kind, formally (the documentary point of view) and analytically (the social implications).Simply a masterpiece, fashion and time-proof.