paroles2000 Reviews

Mathilde (I) (2017)

All that glitters is not gold

[1/10 · 6 December 2017]

It's a tricky task to review Mathilde, because the political controversy surrounding this film in Russia inevitably throws a shadow. If you don't like the movie – does it say something about your political taste or the artistic one? And yet I'll attempt. No politics in my review.

The movie is very poorly conceptualized, written and acted. The concept that transpired to me was to produce an expensive box-office success by shooting it in Russia's magnificent historical monuments and by using famous people's story and nudity.

The script seems to be written by a fifth-grader, the dialog is plain and ridiculous and it sounds even more ridiculous in its native Russian. Actually it sounds a lot like it's been written in a foreign language and then translated into Russian, which I think is what had actually happened, the screenwriter being American.

The cast. It looks like the production team was so preoccupied with creating impressive sets very little time was given to casting. Mathilde herself seems to be a copy of Elizabeth McGovern in Ragtime, minus the acting talent. The 41-year old Lars Eidinger is too old for the role of a young and romantic future emperor Nicholas I, who was 25-26 at the time and acted accordingly. (No-no, the story of Nicholas and Mathilde was not a May-December romance!) Also, since the actor is German, he is very artificially dubbed by a Russian voice actor. Nicholas's parents, the Russian royal couple are played by strikingly non-noble actors (chosen no doubt for their fame in Russia). His fiancée Alix is nothing but a weird half-wit, so the closing statement that Nicholas and Alix were happy for 25 years is not supported by anything we saw in the previous 2 hours. In fact none of the characters in the film has any depth or life in them, they all are stick figures, functions of the plot.

As far as the historical aspect of the film is concerned I can take any degree of artistic license, but it distracts me greatly to see the royal family in the 1890-s go about their business without any help (or even presence!) of servants and staff, or use the phone without the help of an operator. No but really, why bother with the historical sets if you don't care how the characters exist in those exquisite spaces?

But most disapointlingly, there is no love story. Two good-looking people randomly falling into each other's arms in various lavish interiors and declaring love do not constitute an on screen love story. There is no chemistry, no depth and no heart in all that we are shown in Mathilde, alas. There is one great true life story that is waiting to be made in a great movie.

We Have a Pope (2011)

Leaving behind the familiar to find the indispensable

[9/10 · 26 April 2017]

I loved Habemus Papam. It has a highly original plot and it takes place in a highly unusual environment. Papal elections does not sound as an intriguing movie setting, but the film is captivating. Who could have thought that 200 elderly men all dressed in the same way could be so entertaining?! But they are! The casting is excellent; everyone has a face and an individuality. I am especially thankful for the casting choice for the lead character, played by the great Michel Piccoli, and "il portavoce", played by my favorite Polish actor Jerzy Sztur (I was so happy to see him inhabit an Italian movie screen so comfortably). Michel Piccoli's presence expresses perfectly the humanity and the philosophical aspect of his character. And Jerzy Sztur lights up the scene as a perfect comical actor.

And yet despite its unusual setting, the film deals with the classical plot of a person out of his own element. And as in every mistaken identity story, the journey into the unknown turns out to be a journey to oneself. You leave behind the familiar and you find the indispensable. Here, the Pope incognito roams the streets of Rome and gradually learns something important about himself.

At the same time, as Pope enters Rome, Rome enters Vatican. This happens through introduction of laypersons into the sanctum sactorum of Vatican, such as the psychologist (who brings with him not only atheism, but also the ball game) and the Swiss guard officer (who introduces the cardinals to the popular music).

I liked the nice small touches throughout the movie, like the fact that the Pope had a dream of becoming an actor in his youth (just like John Paul II), or the Chekhov's play Seagull serving as a pivotal reference on realization that you might have wasted your life, or the imperturbable portavoce losing his face and cursing in Polish…

In general, it's an elegant comedy that combines philosophy with laughter and offers life's wisdom that not only Popes will find useful.

P.S. And speaking of Popes, Benedict XVI resigned a year after this movie was released, so

Mid-August Lunch (2008)

A virtuoso sketch

[9/10 · 4 April 2017]

If we compare movies to art genres, then this movie would be a quick virtuoso sketch. We (at least the foreign viewers) never get the full picture or the depth a painting would provide, never get to know the characters in depth, we don't know their stories (the ladies tell bits of their stories, but can we fully believe them?), we never find out anything about the main character or what led him to his current situation, but this is not a social study, this is rather a study of the particular ambiance of a steamy summer day (and night, and another day), an anecdote, a situation comedy and ultimately a declaration of love for the 70+ ladies who despite all their quirkiness probably epitomize the very heart of Italy.

Félix Leclerc (2005– )

A must-see for a francophone chanson fan

[7/10 · 3 September 2010]

Félix Leclerc, directed by Claude Fournier in 2005 for the Canadian Television is a 4-part mini-series tracing the life of one of Québec's greatest sons. Christian Larsen wrote: "Félix Leclerc is to the Canadian chanson what Trenet was to the French chanson: a revolutionary, a turning point, and a leader."

The film will be of interest to people who are interested in the following subjects:

1. Félix Leclerc (1914-1988), the great French-Canadian songwriter/singer (the subject of the film) 2. Daniel Lavoie, the great French-Canadian songwriter/singer (who plays the title character) 3. The history of Québec in the mid-20th century 4. The history of a francophone chanson in the mid-20th century

The film traces the life of Félix Leclerc, who was discovered in his 30-s by a French impresario Jacques Canetti (Marc Berman), and went on to make a great impact on the history of the chanson both in France and in his native Québec. The director presents Félix's singing career (leaving his literary and theater work mostly aside) against the background of the Québec's liberation movement which was an important part of Félix's life. The film also follows Félix's complicated family life and his late romance and marriage to Gaëtane Morin (Catherine Sénart).

The acting in Félix Leclerc is top quality and despite a somewhat quirky script the film is quite entertaining. One of the film's strengths is the participation of the incomparable Daniel Lavoie who recorded 30 of Leclerc's songs for this film. Québec's beautiful landscapes (especially those of Île d'Orléans beloved by Félix) are another attraction. In fact, these landscapes could be considered another character of this poetic and inspired film.

The Beautiful Person (2008)

A highly sentimental film done in a crude style

[9/10 · 20 July 2009]

The latest Cristophe Honoré's film is a logical continuation of "Les chansons d'amour". The last phrase in the latter was "Love me less, but love me longer". And how long exactly can one love? "La Belle personne" is Honore's answer to this question. According to the director, unfortunately, love doesn't last forever, at the end it's a very disappointing feeling and the only honest conclusion for it can be the one that happened to Otto. It's a highly sentimental film done in a crude style. The film's composition is very smart, with the storyline that appears messy for most of its duration, but all the loose ends come together by the end, when Junie makes her brave and unexpected decision (a great surprise of the film). All the sideline events seemingly distracting from the main story lead Junie to this particular decision, more in the 17th that in the 21st century style, but justified by all she has seen and by her own uniqueness as a "completely honest person" and a "very strong person" (according to others).

The choice of actors is excellent, as always the case with Honoré. I would like to mention Léa Seydoux who has an amazing presence, which was crucial for the story to make sense. Although far from being a standard beauty, she possesses the ability to convey mystery and look beautiful while being sad. Luis Garrel is another actor with a great magnetism who makes the story credible.

In general the film is done with an impeccable cinematographic taste and it's impossible not to mention the song by Alex Beaupain, which just like in Dans Paris, is the only song in the film, but sung right on screen in the emotional climax of the film, and just like in Dans Paris, it occurs like the most natural thing.

La belle personne, like the director's previous films, requires a very attentive viewing or maybe more than one viewing in order to notice the details, and the details are crucial for the adequate interpretation. In some instances, it is also important to know some French (the crucial conflict of the lost/found letter story gets resolved once Nemour points out to Junie that from a grammatical point of view it's written by a man, and not by a woman – the moment unfortunately completely omitted from the English subtitles). Otherwise the viewer might feel lost in curious images without appreciation for the creator's concept.

Sampoorna Ramayana (1961)

Enchanting

[9/10 · 4 May 2009]

I just watched this film and I was absolutely enchanted. I should mention that I am not an Indian, not have I watched very many Indian films. Sampoorna Ramayana is technically simplistic and sometimes naïve (from the 2009 Hollywood point of view), but a visual delight and an inspired introduction into this chapter of Indian mythology. The musical episodes are excellent, and some are simply unforgettable (e. g. the story of god Kama – the dancing is mesmerizing - or Ram's song for Seeta or Surpankha's song or the song by the two Seeta's sons). Several episodes had an enormous element of surprise and awe for me (not to give too much away I would mention Hanuman's interrogation and Ravan's monologue among others). Speaking of actors I'd like to stress their striking looks which were quite fitting for a magical story of divine adventures. To sum it up – the film should not be judged by the modern standards but rather it should be evaluated from the point of view of its own artistic universe. Sampoorna Ramayana is ambitious and beautiful (if too long at the beginning) and a must for anyone interested in India.

Andersen. Zhizn bez lyubvi (2006)

The task not accomplished

[3/10 · 12 June 2007]

The film is a very poorly executed attempt at an artistic biography by E. Riazanov (one of Russia's best and deservingly beloved directors of the Soviet era). I praise the director for the very attempt to tell the story of the great Danish storyteller who does not often gets to be portrayed in film. The very first problem with this film in my view is that Riazanov regrettably borrows freely from many other films, both Russian and foreign (to name a few, Amadeus, The Cook, the Thief, his Wife and her Lover, Anna Pavlova, Fanny and Alexander, etc.) The borrowings ca be seen in both artistic means and the content details. The result can hardly be called an artistic revelation. In fact it is an eclectic mixture of episodes which struggle to stay together. The director (who was also the producer) was able to engage talents of many exceptional artists for this production. One should mention the charming and warm music by A. Rybnikov, which evokes memories of the classical era of the Soviet film romanticism. However the music quality is compromised by the amount of singing episodes. They seem awkward and out of place. (I should mention that in his earlier films Riazanov was able to tactfully and skillfully include songs in his films. Unfortunately this is not how it was done this time.) Another great involved in the production was Vladimir Vasilev, the choreographer. Unfortunately, his efforts were wasted. The episode with the dancing Scholar and his Shadow looks awkward and strikingly not cinematic, and too long. In general, the artistic license is being taken by the director too far in many instances. Just to mention one, the director spices up the tale Swineherd with the prince making the princess pay him for the musical toy with sex instead of just the kisses. The scene is accompanied by the dialog of the court ladies which is so trivial it could be written by a high school freshman. In fact most of the film's dialog is trivial and poorly written, each idea of the filmmaker is being beaten to death in dialog instead of being expressed by other means. From the technical point of view, the film's sound quality is very poor: it is a very "studio" sound, which, especially in the outdoors scenes is annoying. The spoken sound rarely matches the mouth movements and the emotions expressed by the actors. This makes it very hard to appreciate the acting. The main character is being portrayed by Sergei Migitsko, a great theater actor, who would be perfect for an episode but falls flat as the lead. In general the film leaves an impression of an unfulfilled wish. One can make out what the director was attempting to say, but unfortunately the task had not been accomplished. It is a heart-breaking task to criticize the work of a truly great director, but in the name of the fairness it had to be done.

Garpastum (2005)

The film left me indifferent

[3/10 · 11 May 2006]

I found this film to be raw, or half-done. According to the director's comment about the main idea of his upcoming film made when the film was still in production, he wanted to portray young men who are by no means intellectuals, and whose obsession with a primitive thing like soccer lets them survive the awful times, while other youths, more refined intellectually do not survive. I think this idea is very interesting, but it is not executed in the movie. There are no intellectuals of the same age as the two main characters shown in the movie (except for, may be Andrei's future wife, but her line is underdeveloped). In general, the two main characters are so bleak I found myself thinking while watching this film that I absolutely don't care what happens to them or to their dream to buy a soccer field. I thought it would be refreshing to see Nikolai who finally found himself in the army to be killed, and then Andrei would start to "grow up", but no, this doesn't happen. Nikolai comes back and they start playing soccer just as before. There is absolutely no character development.

In general acting in this film is very poor. The two main characters are extremely wooden, even during the sex scenes. Casting of the actor for Aleksandr Blok's part seems very inappropriate: the great Russian poet shown in his most tragic days appears ridiculous and by the way, very well-fed during the times of starvation.

The character of the Serbian lady with a little boy is a "red herring": it does not add anything to the plot. Besides, the character is very badly written: why would a mother of a sick child flirt with the pharmacist and later spend time with a bunch of soccer bums instead of caring for her child? The long soccer-playing sequences are boring and lacking any drama, which would be important since these scenes are so long.

The director borrows extensively from the artistic palette of other directors, most noticeably from his own father (a great Russian director). And of course when a really fat teenager appears in a group of friends on the beach it's a Fellini déjà vu. As far as the cinematography is concerned, the movie is filmed beautifully, but it feels like a pretty frame with no painting inside.

The film was sponsored by the Russia's Soccer authorities. This fact probably accounts for some of the film's artistic problems, but not for all of them. The film is still poorly written, poorly acted and poorly directed.

House of Fools (2002)

King of Hearts meets Dancer in the Dark meets Fellini ... but why?

[1/10 · 5 January 2006]

A soldier chased by the enemy while on a military mission finds himself in an insane asylum, meets a slightly insane but charming girl and by the end of the film decides to join the ranks of the asylum patients, to escape the insane world at war. I am not describing the plot of House of Fools, but of a 1966 French film Le Roi de Coeur (King of Hearts).

A kind and loving and slightly crazy girl falls in love with someone who deceives her, but despite the bitter disappointment, smiles at people through her tears. I am not describing House of Fools", but Nights of Cabiria.

A kind and loving girl lives in terrible conditions, but music and singing help her to escape from reality. During her escape sessions from the most tragic moments of her life she imagines people around her singing and smiling. And yet again, I am not talking about House of Fools, I am talking about Dancer in the Dark.

A colorful gang of crazy characters of every possible kind, of which the most colorful one is a Rubenesque lady with a strong personality was not invented by A. Konchalovsky, either. (I am sorry, but this idea belongs to the late Maestro Fellini.)

Even the song that is used to make a statement throughout the film was borrowed from Don Juan de Marco. The Spanish dancers just had to come along with the song, too.

One is surprised at the amount of allusions. In fact there are so many "allusions" (or shall we call them "borrowings"?) that nothing original is left when you peel this "onion". It is a bad film despite strong cinematography and acting.

A Series of Unfortunate Events (2004)

Poor excuse for a Jim Carey appearance

[2/10 · 23 August 2005]

Jim Carey is a talented performer, but why do children's movies? What's the value of this particular movie? Half way into it we have to actually remind ourselves what the movie is about. And it's not about a quick-change comedian. It's about orphans, and it's not a funny subject. There are 4 murders in this movie and it's not a funny subject either. However kids in the audience are forced to laugh and be drawn in the action. True feelings are shown very little. We don't see the children's reaction to their parents' death, because that would be insensitive to the audience. Well, the whole movie is insensitive to real-life orphans. What is the message of the film? "It's good to be inventive and strong"? But there is too much Jim Carey going on. Who cares about the kids?

The children are clearly miscast: they don't look like siblings. Especially the older brother and sister. The girl doesn't look very inventive either, and she is way too careful about expressing her emotions.

From the point of view of artistic language the film can't be told apart from the recent Willy Wonka movie or any of the Harry Potter movies. Lack of originality seems to be a common problem of children's movies these days. Once found means of expression are used over and over again.