Reviews

The aesthetics of Tollywood films (and many other Indian cinematographies) are in full effect here: actors and actresses constantly overacting, no real sound recording and the sound is reworked unrealistically in the studio (the voices are ridiculous), the bad guys are very bad (and English, the bad guys back up a ton to show they're bad), the good guys are very good, use of slow motion in the action sequences, unsynchronized dubbing during the singing passages (which are distracting), ridiculous moments (the dance contest, or the montage sequence with song about the friendship between the two main characters), ultra-redundant and insistent dialogue, an inability to tell a story through direction, excessive use of CGI porn with no concern for realism (at times, it's a cartoon aesthetic: the tiger sequence, or the series of explosions at the end). Another element that abstracts the film from all realism is the physical abilities of our two main characters, which are unbelievable and worthy of a superhero, or rather that of a super-heroic character who fears nothing.

Ram Charan as Raju, who has a secret quest that we gradually come to understand, especially late in the film. It's a charismatic role.

N. T. Rama Rao Jr. As Bheem, whose quest is clear from the start of the film. He is searching for and must bring back the little girl the English have taken from his village.

As usual, the female characters are a dime a dozen. Here we have Alia Bhatt, her husband's enforcer. And Olivia Morris, who plays the only English character who is not excessively caricatured.

But the film does contain some terrific sequences, such as the capture of the tiger, or the sequence of the bridge and the train bursting into flames.

Even if the pachydermic dramaturgy is still there, Luc Besson introduces subtlety into his cinema. And he writes some fine dialogues for the two main characters, Caleb Landry Jones and Jojo T. Gibbs, i.e. The DogMan of the title and the psychiatrist who interrogates him at the police station, for scenes of dialogue between these two characters, which are very successful. The richness of the film lies in the beautiful scenes in the police station between these two characters. The film is a succession of flashbacks in which Caleb Landry Jones tells his story to the psychiatrist. Also noteworthy are the psychiatrist's dialogues with her mother: a fine performance by Jojo T. Gibbs as the psychiatrist. Very fine writing.

The film is full of emotional moments, with both main characters moving in turn. The screenplay avoids certain clichés (the psychiatrist's tension with her ex could have led to the DogMan dealing with the ex, but it doesn't). As does the ending, which takes the film into a certain unreality.

The film is a pleasant surprise. The richness of the two main characters, the idea of using dogs, the performance of Caleb Landry Jones, all rest on a classicism of form; there's no hysteria about the form. Just a story of his life told by Caleb Landry Jones. His childhood (a rather unsubtle passage, but it's hard to be light-hearted), books and Shakespeare, cabaret and so on.

A calm, thoughtful film.

The choral film is perfectly supported by the format of the TV series, here in the form of ten episodes of fifty to sixty minutes each. The dramatic life of a family - the mother, two sons and a daughter - revolves around the family restaurant, the wait staff, the kitchen staff, the supplies, the competition, everyone's family, and the passage of time (from the forties to the fifties).

The scriptwriters manage the drama perfectly, and the challenge for the viewer is to guess what dramatic event will disrupt the happiness of each of the characters. It's a principle of dramaturgy: as soon as things are going well, they have to go badly. What's going to happen? Who will betray? Who's going to die? Over time, it gets a little boring.

The historical context is the Second World War and the immediate post-war period in Stockholm, and the themes are manifold: adultery, racism, concentration camps, rationing, trade unionism, homosexuality (male and female), the family, capitalism, corruption, feminism, the workings of a kitchen or the dining room of a top restaurant, to name but a few. A multitude of subjects.

The whole is perfectly executed by actors and characters we want to follow, despite the systematic use of parallel editing and the regular occurrence of drama (we know the happiness won't last).

A fine piece of work.

The everyday life of a couple on a trip to Italy, with its problems of visiting and living together. Sophie Letourneur, the director and main female character, composes and creates a bitter-sweet chronicle recounting the little moments of this father and mother in parentheses: the children are always off-screen, in the apartment at home, on the phone when they're on vacation. It's a film without children, in other words, about the couple.

It's a very interesting film, because it shows that it's possible to tell a simple story, with many small dramatic stakes and a certain realism, and thus build something solid and a narrative over time, without being revolutionary, but with a certain passion for knowing how this story will evolve between these two characters.

It's a natural film, or naturalistic, whatever, about the life of a couple on vacation here in Italy. The choice of what to visit, how to get around, whether or not to go for a walk, and the challenges they set each other. For example. It doesn't sound thrilling, but it works, and the acting duo carry the film.

After his foray into Oscar-winning films, Green Book (2018), Peter Farrelly returns to his natural style of humor, with its mix of scatology and sexual obsession, but also elements of poetry, in a well-written form and performed by a successful cast. His masterpieces include There's Something About Mary (1998), Me, Myself And Irene (2000) and Dumb And Dumber (1994). This is a reminder of the heights that can surely no longer be reached. Here we find snatches of impertinence. We're led here by John Cena, who proves himself a relatively chameleonic performer, oscillating here between the grotesque and the moving, as is the film. And we also have Zac Efron and William H. Macy.

This is a tale of sorts, with John Cena finding his princess and his place in a business world. He is the imaginary alibi for three friends' outings. Of course, the entourage demands to see this friend. The three friends hire an amateur actor, John Cena, to play this friend. It's a register of comedy and outrage. John Cena excels. William H. Macy also does a fine job in a pathetic character.

We're not at the level of the aforementioned masterpieces, but this Ricky Stanicky is rather a pleasant surprise, as impertinent films are quite rare.

I'm a cop on the verge of suicide. I was infiltrated into a gang. I got away with it at the expense of my colleague. I'm having trouble coming to terms with it. And when it seems that the gang's former leader has reappeared, I have only one desire and one fear: to find him.

Karyn Kusuma's story is based on this premise, with an overly mechanical combination of present-day sequences in which Nicole Kidman searches for the gang leader, and flashbacks to her time undercover in the gang. The multitude and interweaving of flashbacks reduces the readability of the story.

Nicole Kidman's performance is particularly noteworthy, as she plays a character who is never seductive, banishing all sensuality from her attitude or clothes. A performance that lacks subtlety in the way it shows the character's decay and down-to-earthness. Nicole Kidman's clenched jaw and decay are overdone.

A curiosity.

This third in the franchise takes up the Eddy Murphy character in a way already seen in previous films. But here the film takes place mainly in an amusement center, which limits the film's sets and visuals. Screenwriter Steven E. De Souza says this franchise is like an amusement park, so let's set the plot in an amusement park.

Some elements hint at the style of John Landis. But the graft doesn't work too well overall. Perhaps in terms of pacing, since action films are not John Landis' specialty. On the other hand, John Landis knows how to bring slightly offbeat humor to pre-existing genres.

Although it works, and Eddie Murphy puts on a good show, as do the franchise's secondary roles (Judge Reynolds and Bronson Pinchot), we're left a little disappointed. This third opus is less successful.

Using the pretext of presenting the family life of the head of the Auschwitz concentration camp, Jonathan Glazer tells us about indifference, class relations, the relationship between master and slave, the relationship between the dominant and the dominated, all the while leaving it up to the viewer to grasp what he or she wishes. Of course, all these components have contemporary echoes, and this is the film's strength. By speaking of the past, it speaks of the present. The behaviors shown still exist are still contemporary, and beyond the historical subject and therefore the historical film aspect with re-enactments and research work indicating that all this is very well documented, this is indeed a modern, contemporary film, showing this beginning of the 21st century. The film speaks very well of indifference to others and its consequences, and thus of individualism: Rudolf Höss is an individualist, his wife is an individualist.

Another dimension that makes the film a success is its form. From the impressive work on the soundtrack, the minutes with the black screen at the beginning, the images of the little girl with the apples, to the lushness of the images and the garden that looks like a paradise (as Sandra Huller's character said). Jonahan Glazer has composed an experimental film that is impressive in its form, content and messages. In other words, Jonathan Glazer has made three films in one. The first film is the extremely rich soundtrack, which comes to the fore during the black screen at the start of the film. The second is the one we see, images of these people's everyday lives, and the third is the result of the two, images and sounds.

An unheard-of experience and richness that shows that cinema can be political and societal, with a narrative basis, while at the same time being an experimental film. Well done.

Eddie Murphy returns to Beverly Hills. We're back with the components we loved in the first franchise: the cultural contrasts, the duo of Judge Reinholds and John Ashton. But also the villains we love to hate, Jürgen Prochnow, Brigitte Nielsen and Dean Stockwell in the roles of the villains: superb casting.

The film is co-written by Eddie Murphy. So he put a lot of himself into it. The same recipe with the same ingredients produces the same result, minus the effect of discovery and surprise. A film that aims to be cool, with no real dramatic stakes, but that's easy to follow. This second franchise works, even if the effect of discovery is gone. Perhaps it just lacks the sparkle and exhilaration of the first.

Catherine Breillat has created a powerful film, in terms of both form and subject. Her mise-en-scene tells the story with very little dialogue. The director gets a lot across and tells the story without resorting to explicit dialogue, using only the mise-en-scène, which is, of course, what cinema is all about: telling the story through the mise-en-scène.

The other strength of the film is its theme and subject matter: a family in which father, mother and children are mutually involved in drama. Note that this is a remake of a 2019 Danish film (Dronningen, by May El-Toukhy).

Léa Drucker carries the film, as it is the story of her character, who evolves, or not, over the course of the story, who is the most exciting, central therefore and is the one in every scene. She appears cold in her professional setting, and evolves throughout the film, as she interacts with her son-in-law, the source of the film's main dramatic arc. She's in control, whoever she's talking to: her husband, her daughters, her sister, her son-in-law. Even if he's going to put her in danger.

The advantage of the film is that, as viewers, we may imagine the story's possible evolution, as well as its possible endings, but the script and Catherine Breillat are capable of making the story evolve or conclude in a way we hadn't imagined.

This is the first film in the franchise that starred Eddy Murphy. A mix of police investigation and comedy, Eddy Murphy's character and his two Beverly Hills police sidekicks (Judge Reinhold and John Ashton) provoke cool distancing and humor. The contrast between Eddy Murphy's Detroit police style and the Beverly Hills police is the driving force behind the script: cultural difference and social engineering. Bronson Pinchot also brings in elements of humor. On the villain side, we have Steven Berkoff, perfect. And it's always nice to see the underrated Lisa Eilbacher again.

The dynamic works, with a limited dose of action sequences, but just the right amount. Because here, it's the characters that count and make the flavor. In fact, the film opens with a chase with multiple crumpled metal sheets, which is rather the final sequence of some films. As if to say, that's it, it's done, now we can get on with the characters and the cultural clashes. Harold Faltermeyer's music is also striking. It contributes to the memorial imprint of the film. A manifesto of the aesthetics and perfumes of the 1980s.

A fine detective film in its serial killer variant. With a big twist midway through that heightens the tension even more. Set in the city of Breslau, where a depressed policewoman is investigating a series of highly staged murders by a serial killer. Not helped by the local police (of which she is a member), she is aided by a profiler arriving from the capital, who will take the investigation one step further.

The film contains a fair amount of gore, i.e. Bodies sculpted by our serial killer. There are regularly surprising little elements, followed by dramatic twists and turns that keep viewers on their toes, wondering how things will turn out. Add to this the fact that our depressed policewoman is not at all impressed by the murders, and that the profiler turns out to be rather wacky and obsessive. The result is an original take on the serial killer stalker movie. A variant that incorporates social dimensions, a measured use of digital technology, good-natured black humor and unashamed gore. It ends with a final explanation of the resolution of the investigation and the end of a series of murders that are hard to guess and hard to imagine. Well done. We'll be back for more.

It's the story, inspired by true events, of the creation of Oxford's first dictionary. Mel Gibson's character is in charge of the project. Sean Penn is an inmate of a psychiatric hospital who helps him to compile a collection of words, and both his knowledge of the written word and his madness come in handy. The film interweaves all this with a story of class struggle for Mel Gibson and redemption for Sean Penn. The screenplay is quite skillful in making this story quite captivating. We don't mind that the film is inspired by real events. But the film lacks something to fully engage us, to make us feel concerned.

The acting is unsubtle. The actors believe in their characters. But Sean Penn overdoes it. Mel Gibson is more sober. The technical credits are perfect, it goes without saying: sets, costumes, photography, make-up, everything is top-notch. But we're left wanting more, perhaps for lack of empathy. We have none with Sean Penn's character; we are indifferent to his turpitude. We have a little with Mel Gibson's character. But his character doesn't evolve, stays in the background, doesn't show much proactivity. The fact that it's a true story doesn't guarantee the film's interest.

All in all, it's a curiosity about its main subject, the creation of a first dictionary of the language's words.

We're dealing here with a classic story framework where, after an introduction to establish the background, a major event will bring back the past and turn the film into a thriller.

The ingredients for this storyline are a couple and their child who live in the marshes, living off hunting and what nature has to offer. The father is tyrannical and mistreats his wife. But he teaches his daughter the hard way to live and survive in a world of nature. She will leave her family to lead a normal life. But her past, and especially her father, will come back to haunt her, and she'll have to deal with the situation on her own, on the ground, in the swamps.

Good suspense, fine performance by Daisy Ridley, who carries this film on her shoulders. The father, Ben Mendelsohn, is more of a caricature, monolithic and typical, and therefore unsurprising. And the film as a whole is rather predictable and unsurprising, even if it works. We'll note the very successful sequence where Daisy Ridley suspects that her father is loitering in her house or outside: fine work of interpretation and climate, through the work of photography, care and editing to create tension. Neil Burger knows how to handle this subject. We don't know Divergente (2014), but we like The Illusionist (2006) or The Upside (2017), his successful remake of Intouchables (2011), and his Limitless (2011) is said to have good qualities.

A teenage girl disappears and is found dead after being raped. The investigating prosecutor must confront the prevailing misogyny. The prosecutor is played by Isabella Ragonese. But the investigation also faces the challenge of finding clues. In an age before digital technology and centralized fingerprint files. As a result, finding a culprit from a clue takes a lot of time, a bit of luck and coincidence, persistence and patience.

False leads, an investigation spanning several years, for a detective film in which the investigation progresses in small steps, evolving towards false leads because of the urgent need to find a culprit, but also towards possible leads based on DNA testing and its widespread use. The scriptwriter is a screenwriting veteran: we can say that this is a good story, which captivates the viewer, who wonders whether the killer will be found. The form is that of a Netflix TV movie, in other words, without any ambition. Dispensable in form, but honest on the subject.

Here's a material made up of multiple riches. Nature and marshes, where a little girl lives and grows up. A body is found, and she's accused because it's a former lover. She also has a love affair. She draws and maps the fauna and flora of the marsh. A swamp crime thriller and an ode to nature, plants and animals are the ingredients of this story. With the right messages about respect and the beauty of nature. And with the elements that make the behavior of this environment rub off on his personality and his relationship with other humans.

In terms of scenery and landscapes, the film is very beautiful. The reconstruction is successful - we're in the 50s and 60s - in the South. The chromos, not of the American dream, but of the little people, are present. The cast is excellent: Daisy Edgar-Jones brings out the strength, vigor and fragility of her character. She eclipses the rest of the cast, who seem bland and a mere foil.

Last but not least, the film contains a revelation at the very end that adds spice to the well-orchestrated and well-conducted preceding story, which otherwise began to seem long (125 minutes long, after all).