raphal Reviews

Lost in Translation (2003)

Sterile and pretentious

[1/10 · 15 September 2004]

Are you familiar with the agony of having to confront most of your friends with your (very) negative assessment of a movie everyone loves? It never hit me so hard as with Lost in Translation, a sad monument to vanity and contempt. Two aspects of that film made it particularly unpleasant: the use of clichés, and the very poor tailoring of scenes.

I suppose the foggy poetry of the title explains the distance with which everything is filmed, and the particularly painful impression that everything taking place on the screen is in fact happening behind a bullet-proof window. Every time something a little significant threatens to occur (physical or verbal contact between the two main characters, a twist in the plot...), the scene is cut short. Now I very well understand that this may be considered a rather clever technique, and I can appreciate the understated aesthetics of it all, but this is going too far, and turns into a farce: we're asked to PRETEND that something meaningful is taking place between the scenes, or inside the character's heads. What a fraud.

Now back to the multitude of clichés that are used throughout the movie, particularly to depict the Japanese, cultural and everyday Japan, but also show-business relationships, what happens after 20 years of marriage, expatriates, the shallow side of young and successful Americans, etc. This is a feature that many people commended, arguing that it was a rather subtle, elegant and ironic treatment of the issue of cultural shock in particular and inter-cultural contact in general. I only see contempt for the world at large, a very crude perception and rendering of other human beings, and a terribly self-indulgent narration technique. No effort of understanding each snapshot, nor any attempt to brush an overall picture: what was the point?!

All in all, I did not enjoy this movie. Except during the very rare moments of humor ("for relaxing time, make it Suntory time"), it was not pleasant at all to watch. 1/10

Clean (I) (2004)

Brilliant

[9/10 · 11 September 2004]

Wonderful characters and beautiful images, on a plot that supports them well, without grabbing too much attention. Assayas shows great skill in timing and in choosing when to pursue and when to cut off a scene, delivering the smoothest storytelling and the most delicate way to bring characters to life. Balibar, Dalle and Tricky provide a rich, clever, contrasting universe where Cheung's brilliant performance and Notle's strong presence can shine. If a bit over-dramatic at times, the use of music is rather moving: no formal perfection, no bland, formatted entertainment, but the sound of real people pouring their life in their songs. Subtlety, sensitivity and humanity in filming life's meanderings make this movie a real treat. 9/10

Shrek 2 (2004)

Blockbuster literacy cannot replace a plot

[3/10 · 7 August 2004]

I am baffled. How can viewers say this is better than the original?! Its plot is thin, twists slow and few, characters hollow and underused... And most of the funnier moments come from the indispensable visual quoting of blockbusters (Alien, Lord of the Rings, etc., prompting a pathetic "did you spot them all" quest), in a poor display of cinema under-literacy. The only positive point is the technical improvement, but who cares about this? Shrek managed to be much, much funnier despite its matchstick people. The welcome infusion of new characters is a wasted effort, as none of them offer more than an inconsistent set of one-liners: the fairy godmother and Puss in boots are particularly disappointing, with only a couple of interesting scenes each, lost in a sea of contradicting and threadbare interaction. Key scenes are embarrassingly low on laughs (come on!, 5 minutes into the movie, the "are we there yet?/no" sequence felt like half an hour! I stopped laughing at such jokes when I was 3!). All in all, I'm very sorry to say that the few amusing moments are not worth the hour-and-a-half session. The original featured complex fun that made it very enjoyable for kids and grown-ups alike; I doubt children will even like this one (too slow, not exciting enough), and adults will hate it. I did. 3/10

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)

Mushy and slow

[2/10 · 25 August 2003]

What a terrible movie!! I give it a two, because Johnny Depp is incredible and makes it ALMOST worth it (not quite, really), but there's only that much good he can do to a movie with a botched plotline, and ferociously dim-witted, unfunny dialogs. It hardly made me laugh: one can't squeeze all that much fun out of uninspired actors left on their own, discarded plot elements, random fights, and a slippery glass eye. It seemed it would go on forever: I enjoyed about 5 minutes of it, and hated the rest. A hopeless waste!

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

A shameful waste.

[3/10 · 25 August 2003]

How is that possible? ONE terrible movie isn't enough, it must be diluted to make TWO installments? That's a shame, because it was quite a challenge to do something both appealing and imaginative after the first Matrix, in storyline as well as visuals. Here on the good side, some eye candy (the multiple Mr Smiths, the "Superman thing", the highway chase), a few funny moments (the French collector, the background images in the final face-off with the architect), a and some really interesting work on what different computer programs would behave and look like in virtual reality. However, those rare good points are drowned in pseudo-suspense, and are only marginally enjoyable, while dangling plot pieces (the kiss with no consequences of any sort, the seraph who's only good enough for a fight), overpresent and boring fights, and positively revolting elements (the induced orgasm, the party, the utterly ridiculous bullet-removal scene) bring acute embarrassment and displeasure. The "to be continued" screen at the end nailed it: that's a serious case of coitus interruptus and throws major disrepute on the film's makers. That's barely worth a 3: yeah, I did have a few laughs.

Bowling for Columbine (2002)

A must-see

[9/10 · 8 November 2002]

The main quality of this movie is that it makes you think: it does not deliver a canned message, ready for thawing, but a series of observations and thoughts, respectful of the viewer's intellect. Not to mean that Moore doesn't have an opinion, or that he doesn't show it, but he does let you think for yourself, and I find this extremely valuable. The movie has fantastic rhythm, great ups (TV reporters recording their talk about some shooting event and talking about their hair style) and downs (footage from Columbine high school) which make it flow through the subject. The different tracks offered as food for thought are varied; I only wish the question of who benefits from weapons violence had been addressed more forcefully, more directly. Another negative point, which makes me give it a 9 instead of a 10, is the fact that Moore loves himself and puts himself in front of the camera all the time. I'm not sure it was indispensable, no matter how much I like him and what he does. Still, GO SEE IT, it's great.

Mat (1990)

Panfilov goes Hollywood

[6/10 · 21 July 2002]

This is by no means a bad movie, but the strength that could be found in Panfilov's previous work is hidden here under unoriginal layers of hollywoodian filmmaking. Inna Churikova's character is beautiful: the evolution gives her room to show her talent, in a very dramatic manner. The book is very dramatic in the first place, but in a way that push the movie towards the flashy. Overall, I found that the film lacks subtlety and complexity.