Change Your Image
Le-Petit-Antoine
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Tolkien (2019)
Karukoski ... has lost so much of the credibility he could've gained through this film
Tolkien (2019) - (M)
Tony Saad - Monday, 17 June, 2019
(STAR), (STAR)
The era of live-action biographies continues with the latest film by Dome Karukoski: Tolkien (2019). Portraying the life of bestselling author J.R.R. Tolkien, the film, focuses heavily on Tolkien's friendships and relationship with Edith Bratt. However, the movie lacks many of the moments that made the life of J.R.R. Tolkien so special.
Set during Tolkien's (Nicholas Hoult) youth (Late 1890s to Early 1910s), the film focuses first on his early life as a child, then as a young budding linguist and artist who falls in love with a young girl named Edith Bratt (Lily Collins. This film evolves quite a bit on their romance, as she is seen a lot in the film.
I like to watch star-crossed lovers myself, but this is not the most interesting aspect in a biography. Sure it's nice to see Tolkien and Edith together at the theatre, but surely there are more interesting things to look at. The film is also criminally unfaithful to Tolkien's life, as very little of it is actually covered in the 120 min biopic. Tolkien tries to be a coming of age story, a love story, an action film but cannot sew them all properly. That said, there does exist a good amount of chemistry between the actors.
Karukoski should've taken the approach that Bharat Nalluri took in his biopic The Man who Invented Christmas starring Dan Stevens. That film focuses on Charles Dickens's life and its inspirations for A Christmas Carol much more fluently than Tolkien did. All the people in Dickens's life were vital to his creative energy, hence why that film is so good.
The World War One scenes were a little surreal, with some claustrophobic moments inside the trenches. The sounds of the war were quite overwhelming, as if I was brought into the real thing, which was impressive to say While WW1 did serve as a creative inspiration for his books, revolving the film around the war scenes did not send their intended messages. Tolkien's friendships are tested at this time, and this worked fine. The war scenes were also cut in between different moments from Tolkien's life in a feeble attempt to suggest that he is reflecting on his experiences. The scenes did, of course, have Lord of the Rings and Hobbit themes and references to them. For instance, Smaug flies around the battlefield spewing fire at him, which turns out to be a hallucination. That was pretty clever use of CGI, but that's it.
Tolkien tries, in vain, to revolve around WW1, rather than the author's most significant aspect: his Catholicism. That is the worst crime that any Tolkien biographer could possibly commit. Did you know, for instance, that it was his Catholic faith that inspired The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings? Did you know that it was Tolkien who converted fellow writer and beloved friend C.S. Lewis to Christianity, or that Tolkien's wife was Anglican? Unless you are a die-hard Tolkien fan, you'd probably be unaware of these amazing facts. At one point in the film, during a World War 1 flashback, there was a cross in the middle of the battlefield. It was cropped out to the right side of the frame, which I find to be the worst mistake a D.O.P can make.
Nowadays, religion is increasingly becoming a taboo subject among many people. I bet if Tolkien lived in our modern society, he would not see much success for his works because of his Catholicism. What happened to open-minded people who listened to all arguments, good and bad? Today, religion is less seen as a guide for good, and more of a nuisance. People must accept that not all our heroes are as we imagine them. As a personal example: Steven Spielberg supports Israel and I am Lebanese.
I am not suggesting that Karukoski focus only on Tolkien's religion, because to do so is to neglect his other angles. The film approaches religion subtly; supposedly like the Lord of the Rings books. But the books are more open about the faith; in fact they are metaphors of Catholicism. Karukoski, I believe, has lost so much of the credibility he could've gained through this film, but this does not inherently make him a vile man. I guess he could've been trying to stay neutral, but in biographies, there is no such thing as neutrality. A biography will always have some form of bias.
Tolkien, as a film, is not too bad; it has good scenery and good chemistry between the characters. As a depiction of the real J.R.R. Tolkien though, it feels somewhat ashamed of itself, and as though it unwillingly touches on some of the most important elements of the author's life. A better biography would be Tolkien: A Biography (1977). That book does a much better job at depicting his life and history than Tolkien could ever hope to.
© Tolkien Film Review, 2019. This film review was produced for the purpose of copyrights in the Lebanese Republic and the Commonwealth of Australia. All Rights Reserved.
Comme un chef (2012)
It is a comedy worth seeing
Le Chef (2012) - (M)
Tony Saad - Thursday, 16 May, 2019
(STAR), (STAR), (STAR)
Don't we love it when a foul-mouthed perfectionist chef meets a low class but talented nobody? Le Chef by Daniel Cohen is exactly that with a pinch of jokes only mature audiences can understand. At the end of the day though, it's obvious that Favreau tries a little too hard, and some moments were as unoriginal as a potato chip. Nevertheless, I had a good laugh and the food looks delicious as well.
Le Chef follows Jacky Bonnot (Michaël Youn), a talented culinary underdog who cannot hold a single job for long. When his wife Beatrice (Raphaëlle Agogué) becomes pregnant, he scrambles to find a solution. Everything changes when he meets 3-Michelin star chef Alexandre Lagarde (Jean Reno), who is struggling with stagnating critical reviews and a fractured relationship with his daughter Amandine (Salomé Stévenin).
The premise is not a new one. I've seen it many times before, but for the sake of historical chronology, I will not be too harsh. Le Chef's plot is quite shallow, and it does not offer anything new or remarkable. And while the story and the stakes do jive together, they do not necessarily push film up the ranks. Jacky is a very cute character, who has constantly been bringing smiles to my face every time I see him. Jean Reno is bombastic and as thick-skinned as his huge belly. The chemistry between the two is perhaps the saving grace of this film.
But in my opinion, the film succeeded mainly because of Daniel Cohen's humour. It relied on jokes, insults and generally being free-spirited rather than being physical. I must admit, French comedy is certainly the best, and today there are more french comedians than there were 10 years ago. Le Chef never takes itself seriously, and only exists for good laughs. Nothing more, but that's not the killing sin in film theory.
No culinary film is ever made without food. Reno's character is a true artist; his dishes are definitively worth the shot. I did pity him, as I am no fan of contemporary cuisine. Of course, he did learn a valuable life lesson that changed him and his cooking.
Le Chef may be thin and unoriginal, but it is a comedy worth seeing. It is not exactly the best buddy film in the world -I've seen better myself- but Cohen is a creative and entertaining director, and I left the theatre with a smile.
© Le Chef Film Review, 2019. This film review was produced for the purpose of copyrights in the Lebanese Republic and the Commonwealth of Australia. All Rights Reserved.
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016)
It ultimately tries too hard at being another Harry Potter
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) - (M)
Tony Saad - Saturday, 19 January, 2019
(STAR), (STAR), (1/2 STAR)
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them aimed to capitalise on the enduring popularity of the Harry Potter series, being the first feature spin-off film of the famous stories. Directed by David Yates, who directed the last four Harry Potter feature films, collaborated with J.K. Rowling -the author of the books, in her screenwriting debut- to create a product stuffed with clever CGI tricks and lots of allusions to the original series. While it does try to live up to its original series, it still leaves quite a lot to be desired. Still, it is not a terrible movie, in fact; I enjoyed it very much, but it sadly does not introduce anything new or memorable to the franchise, and is littered with all sorts of plot-holes.
The film is set in 1926, some 60 years before Harry Potter rose. Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), is a British wizard, who arrives in New York with his magical suitcase filled with... well, Fantastic Beasts! However, he bumps into Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler) a no-maj (or muggle in the states), who mixes up his suitcase for Newt's, and some of the beasts escape. They both end up in the company of Tina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston), a former Auror and grounded witch for the MACUSA (Magical Congress of the United States of America), and her sister Queenie (Alison Sudol, in her feature film debut). The race is on to find the beasts before they cause any trouble, while keeping the wizarding world away from the prying eyes of our world in the 20s. Yes, in 1920s New York, wizards and witches were persecuted by no-majs and lived in hiding from them.
Now, this should make for a thrilling epic magical adventure, but when the whole story revolves around some beasts escaping from a suitcase, you know you're off to a weak start. To up the ante and increase the already low stakes, Rowling and Yates also included a subplot; a destructive phenomenon known as a Obscurus is on the loose, and Grindlewald (Johnny Depp), a notorious criminal, is a suspect.
Personally, I do not see how this 'subplot' in anyway relates to finding Newt's beasts, as it never disturbs the flow of the main plot. What was Grindlewald's relationship with the Obscurus? What exactly was he trying to achieve? Was there something I must've overlooked -if there was, then I should know-? Or did Grindlewald like causing trouble for a hobby? He absolutely plays no real role in undermining Newt and his companions on their search for the beasts. And even then, why would Grindlewald even infiltrate MACUSA? Nobody knows. I don't know. J.K. Rowling doesn't know. Hey! Not even the man himself knows. It really was just a waste of Depp's unique talents.
And that's why I liked lord Voldemort more than Grindlewald. His intentions are clear, and he plays a direct role in Harry's adventures, yet remaining in the shadows in the first half of the series, only slowly revealing himself in the fourth instalment.
The award for the least necessary character in the film goes to (Drumroll please) ... Credence (Ezra Miller)! Yes. Credence is this abused and over-emotional kid who (Spoiler alert) ends up being the Obscurial that was terrorising New York. By the way, I do not mean harm to the actor; he did try hard. Still, like Grindlewald, Credence plays almost no role in Newt's search for his beasts, and somehow has got this strange link to the main antagonist that is too ambiguous for me to understand.
But the characters in Fantastic Beasts are not all terrible, and some are even enjoyable. Dan Fogler's role as Jabob Kowalski was a good comic relief in the film. That said, I think if Kowalski did not bump into Newt, then he would've been of no use. But what Kowalski lacks in purpose, he makes up with his warm and entertaining personality and ability to engage with the audience even in tough situations.
No film made in the last 20 years would be complete without some sort of romance. Enter Queenie, Tina's big-hearted legilimens sister who becomes attracted to Kowalski. Alison Sudol is a charming actress, and took off to a very good start in the feature film industry. Unfortunately, Queenie is just there for show, and that's a great shame. She had a lot of potential that could've been fulfilled in the film, but it never ends up being that way. When she senses that Tina and Newt are in mortal danger, she and Kowalski go searching for them. Except, Newt had a 'Pickett', a sort of mythical cricket that came out of the wizard's pockets to pick his cuffs and allow him to save Tina and himself, making Queenie and Kowalski panic for nothing.
Speaking of Newt and Tina, they are both very compelling characters, but I found Tina to be a little bit dry early on the film. This is the first time I see Eddie Redmayne and Katherine Waterston respectively on screen, and they have both impressed me. They may not be as memorable as Harry, Ron and Hermione, but their collected and complex personalities make them more exciting than most of the other characters.
The point was; there were too many characters and plot-holes for Fantastic Beasts to make sense. It is trying to be the new Harry Potter, going as far as to include the famous character's jingle at the very start. But what this film lacks in stakes, it makes up in sheer dazzling magic.
Fantastic Beasts is a visually satisfying film which manages to closely emulate the magic duels of the original Harry Potter series. Cinematographer Philippe Rousselot (Sherlock Holmes, 2009) presented the most tense and action-packed moments beautifully, almost reminding me of some scenes from Sherlock Holmes, which he filmed. His techniques are backed up through use of CGI that's so effective I was -I must admit- fooled into believing the beasts were actually real. Even then, projection alone does not make a film. If the story department had worked more closely with Rousselot, it would've been possible that the projection would be even more impressive.
The highlight of the entire feature is the brilliant costuming. Really, I was mesmerised by Newt's suit, as it helped reiterate the character's veteran personality searching for, and rescuing beasts around the world. I must admit that New York, along with every other location including Newt's amazing suitcase, look so real to me. Seriously, everything was well built and placed, and looked as though we were really living in 1926. The Model Ts, the small shops, the metro in New York etc. all appear like they're taken from their original locations and used on set. I can say that Fantastic Beasts looks and feels so much more aesthetically pleasing than the original Harry Potter series.
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them tries to imitate its original, by adding fantastic wizard fights and focussing on the aesthetics. But it ultimately tries too hard at being another Harry Potter. The characters lack the complexity of their original counterparts. I think Rowling and Yates were focusing more on making sure here were hidden information for the next few instalments than actually making a product that clearly had something to say. But the film does excel in showcasing the artistic creativities of the decoration and costumes department, and has made the original Harry Potter series a bit of justice to be fair.
© Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them Film Review, 2019. This film review was produced for the purpose of copyrights in the Lebanese Republic and the Commonwealth of Australia. All Rights Reserved.
Howard the Duck (1986)
The worst cases of Plot holes and contrivances I've witnessed in a while
Howard the Duck (1986) - (M)
Tony Saad - Friday, 22 February, 2019
NO STARS
I honestly don't know how Howard the Duck manages to stuff up enough feathers for the big screen. The film is so devoid of bones and stakes, that I just did not care about the action and emotions. The film presents itself as the new George Lucas blockbuster of the decade, when in fact, it has got less originality and creativity than Ducktales (1987-1990). This is the first Marvel comic to be adapted to the big screen, and it doesn't take off that well. But then again, there is always a first time for everything.
The movie is about Howard T. Duck, an anthropomorphic duck who gets teleported from his planet of 'Duckworld' to Earth, and tries to find his way back. You know, like how E.T. gets lost and wants to return home, with some strange Star Wars spices added to it. Here we get a massive 'laser spectroscope' which can teleport people from one place to another. The machine also acts as the portal for the 'Dark Overlord of the Universe' to invade the Earth.
Howard the Duck has got some of the worst cases of Plot holes and contrivances I've witnessed in a film. Who is the 'Dark Overlord of the Universe' -quite a fitting antagonistic name considering how cheesy the narrative is-? Why does the Dark Overlord enter the Earth? Why does he disguise himself as an agent? Why does he need Lea Thompson for his race? What is this... Ghostbusters!? Hey, at least the main antagonist in Ghostbusters has got a reason to possess the hot chick. The film lacks bones and stakes that I just could not care less for Howard anymore.
And the laser spectroscope, even by 1986 standards, is no marvel of engineering (Pun NOT intended!) It breaks down at the most inconvenient timing. Why is the machine aimed at Duckworld? Why does it teleport Howard? The human character are utterly unconvincing. They clearly appear bored and would rather do something else. The weak script and dialogue only make the most lethal problem in film even worse.
I believe our protagonist; Howard T. Duck, must be the lovechild of a Ventriloquist dummy and Donald Duck whom we never met, as he has got trouble showing any facial emotional complexity. The dryness exhibited by the character is awfully obvious whenever he sits at his sofa in front of the TV, and reads the not-playboy magazine in his hands. Oh! and he tries to imitate Donald Duck's voice at one point, coupled with the abhorrent sexual innuendos spattered throughout the film. Those and Howard's lack of feelings for others make him a real lame-duck character (Pun intended). Some critics out there suggest that the film would've been better as an animated movie. Whether a film is animated or live-action, if it has got nothing to tell us, if it fails to make us care for the characters, if it fails to present itself as something, then it has got no right to exist. The lack of inventiveness and originality in this film is obvious. By adding all those George Lucas references like the plot similarities with E.T. and the Star Wars references, Howard the Duck is not allowing itself to be its own film. I am not opposed to pop-culture references in film; in fact, they can be very entertaining depending on the audience and the relevance of the references. But there is nothing concrete to back up the sci-fi in this film, meaning most aspects that rely on pop-culture references in this film are pretty hollow. It takes a lot of effort to go through a terrible film without having your insides throw a tantrum during such a film as Howard the Duck. But when other George Lucas films and Donald Duck find themselves glued together onto bits of 35mm film, I cannot help but to walk out of the film not even an hour into it. Not Good! My advice is to stay clear of that film's path, or you might just get zapped into a painful time with no easy way out.
© Howard the Duck Film Review, 2019. This film review was produced for the purpose of copyrights in the Lebanese Republic and the Commonwealth of Australia. All Rights Reserved.
Whiplash (2014)
It is the wonder of low budget filmmaking
Whiplash (2014) - (MA)
TONY SAAD - MONDAY, 12 JULY 2019
STAR - STAR - STAR - STAR
Music is a key to a memorable satisfying film, and Damien Chazelle's Whiplash is no exception. The energy of double-time swing, and the spontaneity of drum solos really reflect the nature of this film. It is ruthless, and at times painful to watch. The inspiration, and the reality of it all is a testament to how music really shapes our lives even in the slightest of ways. At its simplest, Whiplash is more inspirational than a raging AFL team on a hot Australian summer day.
Whiplash follows the story of Andrew Neiman (Miles Teller), a budding drummer at the prestigious Shaffer Conservatory in New York. He strives to become a world-class drummer like Buddy Rich. The Conservatory is conducted by Terrence Fletcher (J.K Simmons), who will do just about anything to push his students beyond their potential.
This film is all about music and musicians. Andrew joins the Shaffer Conservatory with the hopes to become a professional drummer. His passion directly impacts his relationship with his friends and family. I think Andrew is one of the most dedicated protagonists out there. His story alludes to those of many Jazz artists including Charlie 'Bird' Parker and Hank Levy. But he is not entirely innocent; his relationship with Terence is causing his fall among his friends and family.
This film is also one of the tensest non-horror films I've seen recently. Chazelle took inspiration from old thrillers in developing the story, which was evident in the conflicting emotions of the characters. A Thriller is not a horror film! It is the genre in which no character is innocent i.e. they all engage in abuse of law (Murder, theft, cheating, you name it) and they have got few -if any- allies in their quests. For example, Neiman is our hero, but he intentionally distances himself from his family and breaks up with his girlfriend to work on his drumming. Fletcher is pushing his students very far, but becomes very violent whenever he has a fit. And as a result, his relationship with his students is very toxic. Throughout the film, you cannot help but be on your nerves all the time, because Whiplash is just plain aggressive. It's as if it is forcing us to keep watching in anticipation of what may happen next; who will hurt whom? What will cause the fall of our protagonist?
Of course, the highlight of this film is the music. Whiplash is not an ordinary musical -the characters do not burst into song all the time-. The songs are sourced from famous Jazz artists like Hank Levy, and composed by Justin Hurwitz. I just wish I could watch the Shaffer Conservatory play the OST in front of me, or even better, me playing the drums with Neiman. My favourite pieces were Caravan and Too Hip to Retire, because I could not stop air drumming after having seen tis film.
The film showcases the beauty of music better than The Greatest Showman. While the latter is grandiose and spectacular, it feels like a series of music videos sewn together. Whiplash is better than that. In fact, it is the wonder of low budget filmmaking. Even if it was a series of music videos, it's a lot more entertaining than The Greatest Showman. Through Andrew and Terrence's relationship, Whiplash pays homage to jazz and its artists beautifully. It is also an inspirational story of how a little bit of determination and commitment can make all the difference in the toughest of times.
© Whiplash Film Review, 2019. This film review was produced for the purpose of copyrights in the Lebanese Republic and the Commonwealth of Australia. All Rights Reserved.