me-justaman Reviews

Cyrano de Bergerac (1990)

Beautiful adaptation with a great cast, spoiled by terribly banal director

[7/10 · 5 June 2022]

You got a great lead actor, a great screenwriter, a great director of photography, a great set designer, a great composer, an excellent supporting cast. Everything checks here, except the direction. Rappenau is obviously trying, but he just doesn't have the vision and maybe even nor the skills to render the richness and the life of Edmond Rostand's text.

Cyrano is THE classic of all classics of the French people who know every single rhyme already. The play is constantly produced there, and any great actor has once played Cyrano. This lavish cinema adaptation is still very good. But with all this talent pool here, the production should have hired a more visionary director. Someone who could have rendered the great dialogue in all its subtleties.

To be frank, modern French cinema is unfortunately completely devoid of great directors. What you got there today is "cinema de qualite" level at best. But for a project like this, maybe a Foreman or a Polanski could have rendered Edmond Rostand's text more nuanced and more alive.

Rappeneau does his best, but his best is just NOT ENOUGH. Nonetheless, the movie still has a lot to offer. And Depardieu finds here the role of his life.

Great movie, it looses 3 stars because of the mediocre direction. 7/10.

Entourage (2004–2011)

Four amazing seasons + 2 terrible + 2 so so

[10/10 · 29 November 2016]

The first 4 seasons are absolutely amazing! Hilarious dialogue, brilliant directing, acting, script: everything is there and it is just pure gold.

The 5th season is a big disappointment, the script and dialogues took a huge dive (I remember there was a screenwriters strike going on at the time that delayed the release of this season), it was definitely a huge step-down in quality. The 6th season shockingly touched rock bottom: the show had become a vapid sitcom filled with dullness, boredom, improbable clichés and not even funny. Day and night. It was hard to sit through it.

The 7th season rebounds a little bit after the terrible 5th and 6th, but not enough to bring back your interest. Maybe they changed the team of writers, I really don't know. But when the show was intelligent, hilarious and witty, now it is plain and insipid. The 8th and last season still keeps coming back a little stronger but still way way below the level of the first four seasons.

Several years later, a movie was released in theaters, and although it was good to see the cast giving the show a last effort, it did not contain enough good material to compete with a single good TV episode, and it was far from being as polished as it used to.

I still rate is a 10, just for the first four seasons, and the awesome cast and concept.

Lo and Behold: Reveries of the Connected World (2016)

Big disappointment

[2/10 · 26 September 2016]

This director acquired a large following over the years. He's got some great movies in his resume, and a couple of real turds as well. Since he switched to documentary film making, he has found his own style that stands out by a personable narration, the use of music, and a often unique and poetic point of view.

I quickly checked his recent work before: it looked like he has been giving "master classes" in theaters over the US (mostly rants and criticizing the world comfortably) and making some short movies (mostly self indulgent essays with no depth). But I was looking forward to this latest "effort" as I really loved his other feature length documentaries.

But this film is a complete waste of time for the viewer. Its 10 segments feel like a very first draft hastily put together and that would need tons of work and reflection before being worthy of any presentation to an audience.

It made me feel like the homework of a teenager for school. It is completely vapid, lazily put together, and often insulting for your intelligence. After wasting 1h40 watching this empty balloon unfold nowhere, the title becomes so pompous and pretentious. I was left angry for wasting my attention on this.

It looks like this director is now living off his followers. He maybe thinks that anything he does will be appreciated by his fans who will find him cool and "unconventional" no matter what. But this film is simply not good, and really day-TV program level.

Still, many of the people who are being interviewed in the film are fascinating and beautiful. You would like to see a competent artist and thinker take on this excellent subject.

So in one word: VAPID.

I Melt with You (2011)

authentic morons pretending making art-house cinema... wow!

[2/10 · 6 August 2015]

I don't know how and why that project was allowed to happen, but wow, the idiocy of these people is spectacular... I was hoping for a "so bad its good" type of treat, but the pretension and total shallowness of the people who did that just made it annoying and no guilty pleasure.

This movie is in fact a remake (or a rip-off?) of a great french- Italian movie from the late 70's called "LA GRANDE BOUFFE" by cult film maker Marco Ferreri and starring legendary actors Marcello Mastroianni, Philippe Noiret, Michel Piccoli and Ugo Tognazzi, and in the role of the woman the voluptuous Andrea Ferreol.

the concept here is the same: 4 men get together in a house to commit suicide, witnessed in this path by a woman. Ferreri's movie was an allegory about modern consumerism and the spiritual suicide of a society.

Now, this bunch of morons (sorry I really cant find other names to describe that) tried to do the same with their very limited imagination and their substandard story-telling skills: they just replaced the gourmet food used in the original with some recreational drugs, and tried to explain in your face why where they committing suicide, why, whyyyy?!?! look!! this is the reason why!! look! whhyyyy!??! ... yep, as bad as it gets!

the original movie had the vision of an adult (the author) and a message that held the whole concept together. But here, the people behind this bad film appear like some middle class suburban children with no education: watch these actors try to go indie art-house and ending making idiots out of themselves, or this clueless director trying to play "author" but you cant help but imagining how lost he may have been in philosophy class (he is no Cassavetes neither so his directing style is laughable and he makes the actors sound bad)... not talking about the script: so much self-indulgence it is un- watchable.

This kind of movie is most probably directed toward teenagers awakening to the first "life sucks" kind of darker feelings, and who have no education... but still, I would suggest skip this turd and get the original Ferreri movie instead! much more entertaining!

I know, I know! Jeremy Piven from Entouage plays in this turd... but its not enough to save the film... oh, and they have cast for the part of the woman one of Ari Gold's female enemy-character from entourage ! she is no Andrea Ferreol neither!

Prince of the City (1981)

terrible Treat Williams – mediocre, dragging script – below average 2h40 cop movie

[20 June 2011]

this "cop-rats on cops" story was probably meant to impress in 1976. But it didn't age well. We are left with the clichés, a dragging, heavy script that is plain factual, and terrible acting.

Treat Williams is ridiculous. He over-acts like those actors from the mute cinema era. but more than that, literally CRY like a child, his face full of tears, every over scene in a movie that last 2h40!!

Result: He is very annoying, and you end up feeling embarrassed that this guy can get lead roles. 10 minutes into the movie, you can't stand him anymore and wish you never see him act ever again.

The direction of Sydney Lumet is clean and professional as usual. But the script is so full of clichés, so heavy and demonstrative! Nothing gets to you: the characters, the story, the whole movie drags endlessly. It has absolutely no invention, no craftiness. It is plain flat.

A below average cop movie that wants to be big, 2h40 minutes of plain "cop rats on cops story". No twists in the plot. Mediocre dialog. Bad actors... And Treat Williams cries and makes "hurt" faces as to tell you : look, something is happening!

Not even nice vintage shots of the New York of the time. Avoid it.

Fat City (1972)

good story - terrible script - worse boxing scenes in film history -

[3/10 · 17 June 2011]

I tried to hang in there looking for the great movie everybody was saying it was, but I couldn't sit through it.

Every scene is so poorly written, the dialog is forced and give absolutely no sense of realism; sometimes it actually doesn't even make sens at all : trying to stick the most information in the dialog of one scene, ending up with plain ridicule. the scenes structure is all very muddy. really untalented storytelling all over.

As for the direction of John Huston, it feels like he just had the camera rolling without even reading the script or paying attention to what the actors were doing. A prolific director, now i see at what price. John Huston is an overrated director who seem to have gotten away with plain bad film making. it is a consensus.

this movie has A LOT of boxing scenes. Jeff Bridges looks pathetically ridicule as he pretend to box, he looks like a nerdy and feminine teenager who hasn't even seen a boxing match in his life, and should be studying computer science (well not in 1971 i guess!). he is so badly directed that he ends up being simply annoying.

if John Huston doesn't do his job, Jeff Bridges could have at least taken a basic training to prepare for this movie. And once again, John Huston shoot the boxing scenes with absolutely no interest for quality, story, emotion or action.

A beautiful story about losers (probably a great book), potential for a great drama, wasted by amateur scriptwriting (a book writer is not necessarily a script writer), a director who obviously doesn't make no effort, and ridiculous boxing scenes as Jeff bridges makes a fool of himself.

to like this movie is to be very indulgent toward cinema and be satisfied with amateurish, bad film making.

The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean (1972)

surprisingly good, fun, never boring and often brilliant

[7/10 · 28 March 2011]

• Script: 7/10 - Alert, quick, witty, funny, some good lines and funny scenes. It is original and fantasist although it misses characterization for at least the main character: Even if the movie is a pleasure to watch, the viewer cannot fully comprehend and experience the reality of those characters for they stay shallow and schematic.

The first 2 acts are very good, interesting and very fun to watch. The 3rd act, like in most movies, is a little disappointing and predictable. It leaves you with the usual feeling that something is missing to make the whole story complete and focused. But still, a very original and sympathetic script by the great John Milius whose whole carrier has somehow been a misfire.

• Direction: 8/10 - John Huston's direction is beautiful, never boring, technically sound, and often purely brilliant. It pastiches the western genre and you can see that the old dinosaur director John Huston has carefully and enthusiastically watched Sergio Leone's movies, and is capable of renewing his own game.

• Music: 7/10 - Maurice Jarre's score is not as worked out as in "Lawrence of Arabia" or "Dr Jivago", but still, simple, touching, personal, sweet and nostalgic: a pleasure.

• Cast: 8/10 - Paul Newman and Victoria Principal are great together, natural, touching, and all the secondary knives are very fun to watch. Only false note: IMO who plays Bad Bob, gives an over the top, hysterical performance that drag down the movie for the 3 minutes he appears on screen. John Huston also makes a mediocre appearance.

• Production: 6,8/10 - Not a lavish production at all, but the simple, beautiful scenery, costumes and sets, will give you this feeling of great old school cinema. The Production design is still a little theatrical and details miss authenticity... but is not Carlo Simi who wants! - Editing: 8/10 - Fluent, simple, discrete, light, and it makes sense at all times. Professional. Special mention for the opening titles: 10/10 – original, spirited and high in color. fabulous! - Subject: 8/10 - a great, original premise. It will remind you that there was a time where people were making original, creative, rich, great movies.

• Personality: 7/10 - agreeable, light hearted provocation. It still misses a little bit of societal statement to really touch you, but here is a very sympathetic movie that plays on the nostalgia for the far gone wild west and its myths. It also has John Milius's macho romantic spirit all over, but with the subtle direction of John Huston. Great! -

• Note in history of genre cinema: 6,9.

• Personal enjoyment of your reviewer: 9/10