gregory-joulin Reviews

Dead & Buried (1981)

Strange : the novelization will scare you more than the film

[4/10 · 1 February 2012]

--- SPOILERS ---

"Dead & Buried"... I had read the novelization of this movie when I was a teenager in the mid-eighties and I remember being grossed out the hard way then. The beautiful opening moments, that sexy girl on the beach, the brutal attack occurring suddenly, a village lost in the fog, all those gruesome murders, the shocking final twist... It was a very nice and grabbing horror book written by Chelsea Quinn Yarbro, in a pure Stephen King style.

Jumping on the Blu Ray release of "Dead & Buried" out of nostalgia, I was looking forward to feel the same shock before my screen... well, it didn't happen. That's strange : I feel the novelization of the original script is more frightening than the movie based on that script itself ! How can that happen ?

Well, the movie is, to me, a mixed bag. The book was not, because it focused on the criminal investigation led by Sheriff Dan Gillis (demotivated and implausible TV star James Farentino in the film). In the book, you can feel, page by page, the stubbornness and competence of that sheriff evolving into confusion and anguish because of the strange events occurring .... and because of his wife's odd behavior, turning from loving and chilled out to spooky and unsettling.

The movie doesn't explore this feeling at all. Good horror flicks need to have a sort of "blur" zone where nothing is revealed at once, just suggested. Not here : the movie spoils itself from the very beginning. For example, the point of the film is that the viewer *must* understand after 10 minutes that the town folks are a big part of the problem... OK, no big deal, that's a viable option, but then, why focusing on poor lonely Sheriff Gillis who spend his time driving around the village with his concerned face all day long, going nowhere, picking up dead bodies one after the other and doing nothing serious to keep things moving ? He's even losing a fleeing suspect during an overlong and not scary chase-in-the-dark sequence that leads nowhere.

He doesn't even react professionally to the murder occurring in the hospital room, during the infamous needle-in-the-eye sequence, when every cop on Earth would have locked down the place and call for support to interrogate everybody, patients included. And let's not mention that silly haunted house sequence with the usual "poor lost family from the city".

And the final twist, to mention it briefly without spoiler, so very astonishing and uneasy in the book, happens in the movie to be completely illogical and couldn't make less sense than there.

Ms. Yarbro could handle holes like these in her novelization because, I guess, she could use the number of pages to work it out, fix broken links, put some flesh on things... but in the motion picture, these plot problems tend to invade the screen and bother viewers.

The film has highlights, though. The opening sequence, both erotic and dreadful in the book, is totally grasping on screen, thanks to gorgeous Lisa Blount and an excellent music and cinematography. The city atmosphere is really scary, with all that fog, this big horn sound in the distance, the gray appearance of houses and streets... Shocking gore details still hold up after all those years, thanks to the genius of great Stan Winston.

So my advice would be : go for eBay search engine and try to purchase an old copy of the book, forget about buying the damn thing on DVD or BR.

The Swimmer (1968)

An attempt to explore Ned Merrill's life....

[9/10 · 26 July 2011]

--- Spoilers ---

I love this movie so much it's hard for me to write any kind of in-depth analysis about it.... and the fact that other reviewers did it perfectly well doesn't encourage either.

One of the great strengths of this eerie film is that we'll never be revealed what happened to Ned Merrill and to his family, so that many viewers can figure out their version of the personal background story for Ned. Well, I'd like to try to figure out my own, just for fun.

1- Basic facts, given very early in the picture: Ned's been away for quite a long time, as it seems, something like two years. He appears to have been a big corporate executive in Manhattan, rich enough to live in some big mansion located in a wealthy neighborhood. He has a wife, Lucinda, and two daughters. Strangely enough, he only shows up dressed in swimming trunks, bare foot, without any car or vehicle of any kind. Even if he carries himself well, and seems in very good shape, he has a tendency not to answer questions about himself, his life, his family, or in the vaguest way. (Writing skills from John Cheever and the screenwriter: by giving these specific informations early, they're setting up the odd tone of the film.)

2- Derived facts or light extrapolations: Ned has problems to remain focused (even in the middle of a conversation), he seems "elsewhere", delusional. We're pretty sure he's subject to hallucinations, and we also get the point quickly he cannot see reality as it is. When confronted to hostile people, he looks astounded, totally surprised, as if woken up in an abrupt way. He then loses all his arrogant self-confidence, and at times runs away, literally. (The good filmmaking quality gives the audience the ability to often view things from three points of views: Ned's, his counterparts' - male or female, aged or young, friendly or hostile - and our external point of view.)

3- Interpretations and extrapolations: everybody seems to recognize Ned easily, from residents to employees, and even teenagers have recollections about him (fourth pool). Needless to say that Ned was some sort of a big man on campus, which could explain why few people will take a chance to push him out directly, only three actually. A kind of "The higher they rise, the harder they fall" situation is plausible, of course, but beside the obvious fact that Ned got bankrupted, other disturbing elements about him are revealed: his educational skills seem poor (he isn't paying much attention to the little boy's safety by the empty pool), he was a definitive womanizer and acting unfaithfully to his wife, while other people seemed aware of it (first pool), he is accused directly to be a crook (recreational center pool) and less than concerned by others' health (the encounter with the mother on third pool). We're also proposed to believe he was a kind of cynical jerk, unable to appreciate the simple pleasures of life, which he apparently can now (the race with the horse). And last but not least, he's portrayed as an actor of segregation (the surrealistic conversation with the African-American Rolls Royce driver) and a miser fellow, as well (sixth pool). (Rather than explaining things with long pieces of dialog, the counterparts' reactions to Ned's behavior and words build a precious indicator of Ned's past life and times.)

4- Questions: why do some people seem so uneasy when Ned's around? In a scene where he clumsily tries to seduce a woman who never met him before, the lady's husband takes her aside and as he whispers something to her hear, her face gets distraught instantly. Some other people won't hesitate to bully him (eighth pool), humiliate him, pity him or even insult him (the whole recreational center pool sequence). Why this violence? Do Ned's past acts make him deserve this? If he's been just kicked out of his mansion by his wife, why is the house in such a poor condition? Is it more than two years he's been away? Why ain't there any pool in his own backyard?

So, my assumption? A few years before the movie begins, Ned Merrill was a big shot of an executive, messing around with others, doing only what he wants (the tennis court instead of a swimming pool, the girls must've been pleased), selfish, ignorant, and unfaithful. For some reason, he got bankrupted and his wife, tired of his lies and unwilling to go on with a new life at a smaller scale, decided to leave him, taking her daughters with her. Enraged by this, Ned hit his wife, almost killed her, and therefore got committed to a mental institution, where he received heavy therapy, perhaps shock treatment. Released from the institution, he comes back to his old neighborhood, wandering around, brainwashed (maybe for days, that would explain his sun tan), with all remembrances of the drama wiped. As he decides to pay a visit to his friends at the first pool, his mind starts to trigger his memory

The Vanishing (1988)

Sorry guys, but I have a problem with the hype on this one

[4/10 · 19 July 2011]

*** Spoilers ***

I saw this movie on DVD a few days ago, and I'm feeling confused, especially when I read so many good IMDb reviews about it.

I won't bother everyone talking about the permanent cheesy synthesizer's music, so fashionable during the eighties… as well as I won't complain about the bad pieces of dialog and acting, except for Bernard-Pierre Donnadieu, who passed away a few months ago - rest in peace Bernard-Pierre. Those are flaws you can see on many small –or even big- budget movies.

No, actually I had a problem with buying the whole thing, even if I happen to believe I'm some kind of a good viewer - a movie can take me wherever it wants to; it's very easy to hypnotize me.

But I couldn't buy the idea of a lonely dude haunting almost every day the same highway gas station, looking for opportunities to abduct women (we know he goes there every day for his wife asks him about the significant number of kilometers rising daily on the car counter) without being noticed or pushed out.

I couldn't buy this absurd abduction sequence where a silly young woman jumps into Donnadieu's car, and gets neutralized by chloroform….in front of everybody.

I couldn't buy Donnadieu's tedious and vague explanations about his own behavior (something like: are you a true hero, if you prove you're able to do evil… Or something like that, I didn't really get it, and where does that come from anyway? Some 19th century psychiatric garbage?)

And to top it all, I couldn't buy the idea of a main character drinking a cup of drugged coffee *while being aware of it being drugged* because he wants to "know about everything and feel everything" concerning his girlfriend abduction, cup of coffee offered by the man who planned and operated the abduction! Come on man, go and find the cops! You've gathered enough information at this time for them to re-open the case and start to dig stuff up on Donnadieu's backyard!

And there's a couple more I'm too lazy to write about, but you got my drift, I guess.

To work as a good movie, I think a thriller has to follow up its own mechanic and logic, a bit like a swiss clock… Even if it tells a crazy or insane story, it will work just as long as it sticks to its inner rules.

No logic and coherence in this one, I'm afraid.

One from the Heart (1981)

One for oblivion

[2/10 · 11 February 2011]

--- Spoilers ---

I bought the DVD of this film 4$ on the web and boy, what a disappointment even for such a bargain... It's long, it's boring, it's too colorful and bright, it lacks rhythm and emotions, and to top it all, it doesn't even have this strange dark glow that gives some movies an intact power 30 years after their release ("Blade Runner" for example), a glow that could be a definition of what viewers call "cult status". It's been completely forgotten.

The making-of on the second DVD is more interesting than the motion picture itself, and it explains a lot about this big fiasco.

Back in 1982, Francis Ford Coppola was one of the jewels shining on the crown of the New Hollywood era, along with Spielberg, Lucas, De Palma and so, thinking it was maybe the dawn of something big. It was not, and the sun was about to go down on him.

By something big, I think he wanted to build, inside Zooetrope Studios, a safe haven for filmmakers, far away from major studios and tycoon producers who were then rushing from professional domains like banking, industry, big corporations, anything but movie making, to make big Hollywood dollars.

A touching moment from the documentary shows accomplished directors like Steven Spielberg, Jean-Luc Godard and others, partying and having cocktails among fans and Coppola's family members... Another one shows an aerial view of the studios alleys, named "Frederico Fellini street" or "Nino Rota street". Yeah, the dream had almost come true, as for those amazed kids allowed to visit the stages for an afternoon.

But Coppola is definitely a man of movies, an "artist" - I mean a man of arts, who lives by Art, certainly not a business man. Looking at his distraught face when he announces to the press that his N-th investor just backed out his financial support, which meant for him the need to contract even more debts to finish "One from the heart" is kinda sad because it's the face of a dream wrecked on the shores of reality.

To live thru this even more intensely, he'll have built more and more stages, more and more cranes, he'll have hired more and more extras, dancers, to create his "Citizen Kane", his Xanadu, his Disneyland, a runaway straight forward, without any decent script, a cast incompatible with a love story (average Frederic Forrest and unattractive Teri Garr), a gifted composer (Tom Waits) who doesn't even seem to understand the purpose of the whole project.

The critics will be a blood bath, the audience won't follow, the movie will bomb. Not even a compensation : Francis Ford Coppola's ideas will be stolen for more than a decade to be recycled in 99% of the MTV music videos...

It was in 1982 and Gondry, Burton, etc... had yet to catch on. Coppola started his purgatory journey, selling Zooetrope back lot, falling down from acclaimed "Apocalypse Now" director and independent studio owner to contract director, shooting impersonal movies for others, while Star Wars 7 or Indy 2 were making billions.

Life is hard with poets.

Gimme Shelter (1970)

Out of control

[8/10 · 2 February 2011]

Certainly not a filmed concert, this important documentary describes, in a very sensitive and powerful way, the incredible human bestiary that rushed towards the 1969 free Rolling Stones show located on Altamont speedway, California.

Complete disorganization, brutal security staff, drug abuse will turn this rock party to an awful black celebration that will lead to more than a human sacrifice : the destruction of a new kind of innocence.

Often shocking and disturbing, sometimes dreadful, "Gimme shelter" brings to us not only the pictures of a riot. It makes us think about the difficulty for men to live as social animals when they're unable to repress their predator instincts. Let's finally mention the great musical first part of the film, and the quality of the direction.

Kick-Ass (2010)

The great movie about a dreamer who wants to be a hero and gets hit by reality has yet to be made.

[7/10 · 2 February 2011]

--- Spoilers ---

"Kick-Ass" was a nice success at the box-office but never reached the amount of money grossed by "Iron Man" or "Spider Man" in any way. The cash box ways are mysterious ways, and the audience's taste is uneasy to follow. Moviegoers might have felt a bit disappointed by the lack of big action sequences like explosions or car chases. There's no super-villain, and the happy ending is somewhat... not so happy. Maybe they start to feel tired of Hollywood comic books adaptations, as well. Or they felt "Kick-Ass" was not that appealing.

That makes this film even more interesting to write about. Because, to me, its pure value isn't in any climax sequences or big blockbuster gimmicks (even if you'll find the usual comic sidekicks situations, love affair, one-liners, fashionable soundtrack and so).

"Kick-Ass" has a social background and asks relevant questions.

What is a super-hero ? Why do people need to dream about heroes with costumes who can defeat bad guys ? Why some want to wear such a costume, even without super-powers or super-gadgets, which are used only to speed up story-telling anyway ? What's a bad guy ? And what is the frontier between a kind student wearing a green scuba-dive outfit trying to rescue a cat and a batman-like vigilante loaded with warfare weapons who applies his own justice and has brain-washed his own daughter ? The first three questions will find an answer in the movie, and that's its brightest part.

Kick-Ass/Dave Lisewski is perfectly well written and the movie gives his character the opportunity to go thru his daily life before the big adventure begins. That creates an empathy, which is the key element to identification. Dave is not a drop-out victim, he's just a young dude dealing with every day problems in a major American city, no more but no less. The schizophrenic background, which is usually the much-too-easy post-Frank Miller credo in super-hero stories, is replaced here by a social background, and boy, what an achievement.... The first and second acts are definitely excellent thanks to that.

Watching Kick-Ass putting himself in danger to defend a man getting beaten up by three hooligans while the customers of a diner nearby keep recording what's happening on their cell phones without making any move to try to help (but therefore, that will make him a YouTube celebrity), is a pure cinematographic joy as well as a strong adult statement.

Sadly, the movie won't keep that promise, the third act will wander thru the classic revenge / gunfight / get-ready-for-the-sequel flaws, and so much for the interrogations I was talking about at the beginning.

The great movie about a dreamer who wants to be a hero and gets hit by reality has yet to be made.

Martyrs (2008)

Not that bad, considering...

[7/10 · 27 January 2011]

--- Spoilers ---

Needless to say, the french movie industry has never been too good in producing bis/exploitation/extreme films. Who's to blame ?

Shy producers who won't bet their shirt to finance movies that are most likely devoted to crash at the box-office ? French censorship that will surely tattoo some nasty "18+" sign on the movie poster, instantly killing it commercially ? Cultural differences that make us all think here that some genres like gore, survival (or else...) suit better in English-speaking countries ? Lack of courage, lack of talent, lack of someone like Roger Corman ?

Well, a bit of all that, maybe....

But many mid-twenties/mid-thirties french filmmakers had a blast when building their cinema references by watching movies like "Halloween", "Evil Dead", "The Thing".... even "Blair Witch Project" and they wanna be a part of it, take a bite. Why not, after all ?

Pascal Laugier is no stranger to that, I guess, and after a first draft (a ghost story called "Saint-Ange", didn't see it) launched his rocket to try to make a statement : a french extreme gore picture, hunting on the land of "Hostel" or "Saw"....

The first 10 minutes are a collection of everything that punches french movies down to the knock-out : cheesy pieces of dialog, heavy story-telling, bad cinematography, the guy wants so much to let us know he's getting to the point (that is, something horrible happened to a little girl, something so frightening she just wouldn't tell anyone, even to her closest friend in an orphanage).

Starting bad, eh ?

Then the movie took me completely off-guard ! There is a scary night sequence involving the two little girls that gave me goose bumps, really. And from that on, the movie will dive into speed, violence/blood, stress, despair... and even time, for we'll be led to jump 15 years in the future.

I think it's more a drama or a twisted love story than a torture film like "Hostel", and that's making it even more scary and unsettling.

I can't even tell if I liked it or not, I wanted to know scene by scene what would go on next, and I felt ashamed of it... Kinda mixed and confusing feelings, I guess. Maybe that's what good horror movies can do to you.

Le Mans (1971)

"Le Mans" and Steve McQueen

[8/10 · 18 January 2011]

The man pulling the strings behind "Le Mans" is Steve McQueen and in spring 1970, when the movie gets shot in the French countryside, Steve McQueen is the biggest male movie star to date, whose career collects classics such as "Bullit", "Thomas Crown Affair", "The Magnificent Seven" or "The Sand Pebbles", among other gems that Brad Pitt or George Clooney would never dream that far to achieve in their poor lifetime.

Producers had the money but McQueen had the power ... and also a truth to speak up : as an expert and excellent pilot in car racing, his main motivation in this film was to make it the most accurate possible, showing all the essential team work in a race, but also the fatigue, the danger, the adrenaline, the sensation of speed as a drug, the feeling of all aspects of life being put aside, as in brackets.

Some crew members (executives, first director hired...) will try to interfere with his vision : he'll get'em all fired. No turning back after the green light.

Where else the biggest Hollywood star could settle down to build his own "Citizen Kane" than in Le Mans, during the world famous 24-hour-long car race ? So was it, for 3 months, including countless anecdotes : a pilot had to be amputated of one leg, McQueen himself almost died in an accident...

The result ? A crossroad between documentary, experimental and action filmmaking. As a good-will gesture, Steve McQueen will chill producers out by accepting the presence of some tiny romance-like relationship between his character, stubborn and quiet Michael Delaney, and a shy , graceful Italian widow. But the usual threatening, shouting, foul language, rivalry, bad guys and villains figures are missing here : the point is just the race, nothing but the race. Racing is the actual hero and main character of the movie.... some kind of monster that allows humans to transcend themselves, or get broken up forever, as we're shown during two very stunning and impressive car crashes.

Win some, lose some.... Despite the obvious McQueen charisma, Michel LeGrand's epic, so 70's classy score, and the hallucinating camera work (even for 2011 standards), the movie will not make it good at the box office.

Too big a price to pay for a passion, maybe... "When you're racing, it's life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting.", Delaney says. As for Steve McQueen, the magnificent figure, now standing forever in the halo of youth.

The White Buffalo (1977)

"Jaws" in the Rocky Mountains ? You wanted it, De Laurentiis produced it !

[6/10 · 17 January 2011]

--- Spoilers ---

So amazing was the mountain of dollars grossed by "Jaws" in 1975, that any producer in Hollywood was then hot to start any kind of project involving some monster creature, from bear to worms, from killer-whale to octopus. Actually, a giant buffalo didn't seem a silly idea, considering : it has even a kind of legitimacy in the Western mythology and Native American traditions.

So Dino De Laurentiis and crew set up a movie with a larger, bigger, stronger, crazier, whiter buffalo than others (well, not to difficult, all others 60 million animals were extincted at the time), delivered a "Hooper/Brody/Quint" 1870-style package (Bronson/Sampson/Warden) and, failing to find another 26-year-old movie genius like Spielberg was, hired professional English veteran Jack Lee Thompson.

Doesn't smell too good, eh ? Well, think again.

Dominated by a beautiful, haunting and eerie score composed by John Barry (who also composed the 1976 "King Kong" score), the movie has some corny and uninteresting moments but never gets killed dead. Some sequences are truly over-long, twists, turns and gunfights seem only to be here to buy some time before the great finale confrontation with the Monster Beast, losses of rhythm occur, but the movie is not that bad at all.

First, let's talk about the creature... Of course, it cannot stand right next to Peter Jackson's monsters in KK, but it has its charm... Well, the "Jaws" mechanic shark was not a beauty in itself, the fear was created by Spielberg's (and his editors...) capability to create high speed movie jump-cuts that triggered inner stressful associations (therefore anguish) in our brain. And the additional live shark footage by Ron & Valerie Taylor was there to fill the blanks. None of it in "The White Buffalo", just solid movie-making and set design, so yes, I guess they did pretty much OK with it.

Then, the 3-characters set... is somewhat odd : tired and obsessed Wild Bill Hicock (Bronson), a legend of his own who has nothing more to live for, except fighting his nightmares (interesting psycho-symbolism here, unexpected in a movie like this), the brave and revenge-thirsty Crazy Horse (magnetic and always impressive Will Sampson) and pragmatic, dark-aged, greedy and hateful Zane (Jack Warden) the usual settler who lives by his Bible and rifle. They form an interesting crew, giving the movie ending (when they all part each other) a surprising touch of cynicism and despair.

Let's finally mention the vision of the West, definitely apart from John Wayne's : filthy, dirty, crazy, violent, it seems far more accurate than elsewhere.

I would recommend this movie on TV or as a discount bargain DVD.

Cruising (1980)

They don't (and can't, and won't) make movies like these anymore

[8/10 · 4 October 2010]

--- Spoilers ---

30 years after the theatrical release and critical/commercial crash of this unsettling, eerie, unique film, things have cooled off and many viewers can now sit back (but not relax) and take a look at it as it is available on DVD since 2008, without hearing any echo of the hate screams the whole project had set off in the distance, back in 1979-80.

In 2010, Billy Friedkin stands as the shadow of the great filmmaker he was and seems only to be hired as a luxury guest in DVD extras as for "Narc", Al Pacino has nothing more to prove and no more interesting movie projects to be involved in, and Karen Allen, well, we all loved her in "Raiders of the Lost Ark", didn't we ?

But let's go back to our movie : is it a good film or a bad one, by the way ? Well, hard to say.... it's a kind of thriller with some scary horrific sequences (the murders are actually extremely gross and violent, even for nowadays viewers who had to deal with "Passion of the Christ" for example), it has some documentary ambitions but it lacks social and psychological characters development (none's background is ever explained at any time, especially our infiltrated cop Steve Burns (Pacino)), it's a detective story but director Friedkin used so many twists and turns and style variations (the killer never has the same face...) to try to make a point that viewers might feel disappointed by this aspect as well...

Not to mention that gay and straight viewers might feel offended by the choice of showing a few people of the gay community exposed to so many stereotypes : the shy-intellectual-writer-wannabe who won't take a stand, the arrogant blond Apollo, the bunch of leather S&M night wolves, the perverted cops (great opening scene with Joe Spinell and Mike Starr), the two travesty hookers, the sex-crazed hustler, the disturbed student obsessed by a omnipotent father's figure... all of 'em shown either as uncompetitive victims or hungry attackers.

As I write this down, I recollect a funny detail from the film : the only person that we're shown getting laid (and getting it pretty much the hard way) is ... the only female character, Steve Burns's soft and gentle girlfriend, Nancy (played by cute and discreet Karen Allen). Well, Hollywood never had any problem to show heterosexuals having sex on screen, anyway.

All of this create an unbalanced feeling of a whole cast and crew who don't know where they're going, trying to create ambiguity where the audience would need transparency (is Burns the killer ? Did he achieve his inner journey at the end ? Why is Nancy wearing the leather outfit ?) but it is always interesting to watch such a great missed opportunity by a -back then- great director in such a powerful story.

So failed... but so much more enjoyable to watch as a guilty pleasure than 90% of today's productions.

Jaws: The Revenge (1987)

This one should be shown in cinema schools, definitely

[1/10 · 30 September 2010]

--- Spoilers, but who cares anyway ? ---

As cinema students learn about all the aspects of movie making by analyzing important motion pictures in the history of the 7th Art, teachers should put "Jaws : The Revenge" in some educational program for it definitely sums up the whole aspects of what SHOULDN'T be done in a film project.

Everything in this continuous stream of garbage is marked by the seal of panic, mischief, mayhem, ugliness.

Examples ? Name them ! From Lorraine Gary's tiresome lack of expression and facial unattractiveness to the mechanic underwater crane holding the shark robot that can be clearly seen in many shots, from the atrocity of a script talking nonsense about some shark revenge to the abomination of the last scene (shark roars (!) before being impaled (!!) on the boat's broken mast then ...explodes (!!!) - please don't ask me), from Michael Caine doing usual prostitute job to pay his taxes to all the major plot holes that Stephen W. Hawking would like to write a theory about... all of this defines some kind of universe where professional laziness seems to be the golden rule to follow, and was followed by everyone involved, from the smallest prop guy or extra to the most important Universal executives who gave a "go" to this miserable piece of crap.

A great lesson about movie making for any student who wants to get some knowledge on NOT what to do in a film.

Panic Room (2002)

"Panic Plot" or "Did they have to be so... er, noisy at 2 am ?"

[3/10 · 24 September 2010]

--- Minor spoilers ---

A movie can tell an eerie/insane/absurd/unbelievable story and remain entertaining just as long as its inner logic and coherence are respected. We all love those "Indiana Jones" or "Terminator" franchises (among others) for they all carry some kind of a subtle inside process that keeps ticking as a clock while our heroes jump above pitfalls or defeat liquid robots. The audience is ready to follow these scripts anywhere as long as a tiny red thread is visible.

No thread of this kind in Panic Room.

Writing down the main plot lines is useless here, others reviewers did it perfectly well.

How come so many acclaimed professional people (Fincher, Khondji, Foster, Whitaker, name them) could get involved in such a waste of talent ? Because waste it is.

Waste of time, for the pointless plot develops no drama or suspense at all as everything has been seen before, so the audience could legitimately feel cheated on (actually... that's what happened).

Waste of characters development, for they all act illogically the most absurd way, swapping behaviors from silent to noisy, bad to good, victim to aggressor, shy to fearless, negotiating to threatening ... and even from semi-dead to alive-and-kicking, all in an eye blink.

Waste of money, since the set designers had this huge mansion built with no other purpose than offering to David Fincher the ability to prove his virtuosity in camera work or crazy zoom-in zoom-out shots, thanks to some CGI to help... where some viewers might have expected a chilling mouse/cat maze chase between aggressors and victims up and down the many stairs (there's even an elevator that is completely ignored... What a shame, we all know that elevators are an excellent way of making the audience sweat).

Waste of acting, for no-one will buy the sadness of Jodie Foster who just got away from a divorce with a few million bucks in her pocket, the shy mother/strong daughter relationship, the obvious lack of tenderness between the mum and the kid who is just shown as some kind of partner, the stupid hate the 3 aggressors vow to each other...

Well, you got it, I guess. Let's go 3 stars for the set and the lights, and the shadow of how great this movie could have been if directed by Brian De Palma or John McTiernan.

28 Days Later (2002)

Do two half-stories make a solid one ? Well, tough script work ahead...

[6/10 · 10 February 2009]

As funny as it may sound, this movie reminded me the case of another infamous film trying to combine two half-stories to make them match into a solid one… and falls short : "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome".

First, Max finds problems in a post-apocalyptic city in the desert, then gets cast away and discovers a children colony living in caves. Then, the film has to move on the best it can and the script wreckage begins.

Same with "28 days later" : The first part is a decent usual 'horror/survival/road trip/bound of trust between characters' drama that works pretty well with suspense, fear and tension, plus a touching background of sadness and even despair…

Then the second part begins with some military unit that makes us all think about "Lord of the Flies" - and the audience might feel a bit cheated on at that point, for that infamous "Solution for Infection" message is in fact a let down from the very first minutes the survivors join the group.

And for the third act, the script writer has to prove his brain muscles out to make the two half-stories fit … and fail he does.

In order to make the story move on, illogical twists keep going : the hard-boiled girl who once killed her only friend with a machete blade because he got infected now becomes a poor wining-crying doll; the young lady who needed care and protection simply vanishes from all pieces of dialog… and the skinny-and-shy-and-uncompetitive bicycle courier turns out to become a stealth commando expert who can defeat 5 or 6 trained military men loaded with weapons.

Not to mention an eerie upbeat happy ending… where many viewers thought there would be a 'Planet of the Apes'-like strong and unforgettable conclusion.

Good directing, good actors, nice cinematography and a touch of sadness... but definitely too many scripts holes. I'll go for 6 out of 10.

So Long, Stooge (1983)

The film still holds (thanks to Coluche and Bruno Nuytten, director of photography)

[8/10 · 22 January 2009]

26 years later, the movie still has a cult on its own in France (and maybe in some other countries, I'm not aware of that).

Of course the fact that Coluche, a famous french comedy and stand-up artist, died too soon at 42 (in 1986, 3 years after the movie was released) is no stranger to that... not to mention it was his very first (and last) dark role - a deadbeat gas station employee in Paris seeking revenge -and somewhat redemption- by hunting down the killers who murdered his only friend, a young lowlife drug dealer.

Some lazy critics here and there mentioned there was some kind of Melville, Cassavetes and Scorsese influences in the movie but to me, they couldn't be more wrong. Take a close look at it and you won't find any trace of "Taxi Driver" or "Gloria" in it, despite Claude Berri, the director, has tried so hard to put some of these influences in his film.

It's basically a classic urban drama in 2 distinct parts (the "bound of trust / friendship" part 1 and the "hunt/revenge/redemption" part 2, seen in many movies before and after this one) but the tremendous ghost-like interpretation of Coluche (who was facing drug addiction and sentimental issues at the time) and the extraordinary master work of D.P. Bruno Nuytten took it all to rocket the movie to critic and commercial success.

Even if a few script holes might bother some viewers (especially a detective character -called Bauer- who seems to appear/disappear only to provide informations) the wandering of these shadow-like characters won't be forgotten for a long time… and the very ending could ruin your day. Or even your week.