The Christian's Movies Choice

support freedom of word in Saoudi Arabia

2008-01-03T19:05:00.000-08:00

Blood Diamond (Edward Zwick, 2006)

2007-09-10T14:38:00.000-07:00

Have you ever seen a movie that was so good you didn't want to watch it again so as not to be disappointed? This is a that kind of movie. The poster wasn't too atractive. Looked like a humanitarian fresque with Unicef and the foreign army in the background, honest. You got the picture, yeah. You couldn't be more wrong.

We're in Sierra Leone. Solomon Vandy (Djimoun Hounsoun) lives in the country with his family peacefully as it can get between two raids of the rebels from the R.U.F. During a collective killing of the whole village, they get separated as he is taken as a slave to work on a diamond mine while the rest of his family manages to escape. There he works digging in a river, looking for these precious stones for the chief of the rebels. While cleaning up what we think is a pomp filter, he finds a pretty big diamond: he doesn't think twice and hides it in the ground. The chief of the rebels witnesses the whole scene and is decided to find it back, but an attack led by the government troups prevents him to do it right away. Taken to prison as a supposed rebel, he meats Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio), a diamond smuggler that has a lot of interests in finding the stone. The only deal Salomon is ready to cut is to obtain his family back in return. This will be the beginning of an exciting journey that will lead us through Africa's history and amazing landscapes.

Leonardo DiCaprio is giving out here the part of his life. I don't care what he's done (Titanic) and I don't care what he'll be doing in a couple of years. This is a role where he shows us fully his capacities to act. He is white, amazingly pulls out an accent that will appear to be Rhodesian and still, watching him, always looking like a runaway, smuggling, we feel Africa. He feels right, he feels home the whole time. That's a shame he didn't get the oscar for that part because truly, it had been a while since I had last seen such an actor. I haven't seen the Last King of Scotland so I don't blame the comity (at least not for that) for giving it to Forest Whitaker but they could have done like in 1932 when giving the oscar to Wallace Beery AND to Frederic March, that would have been fair. Amazing DiCaprio.
The rest of the cast is also astounding. Djimoun Hounsoun deserved an oscar and the scandalous decision to reward Alan Arkin for 15 minutes of cursing in the very poor Little Miss Sunshine is simply incomprehensible. Jennifer Connelly is also great and manages to follow the rest of the cast in their quest of good acting.

Edward Zwick uses an already-know formula of action and emotion but the historical background and the acting above the average gives to his movie a touch of veracity that astonish us during and after the movie that is underlined by the excellent photography by Eduardo Serra.

He has a point with this movie of course, but doesn't make the same mistake as in the Last Samouraï sugarcoating the end. There is a political message, but with Djimoun Hounsoun not talking at the conference, at the end, he ends up the movie nicely.

Writing you more would be telling so I'll leave you with that. T.I.A bru, T.I.A...

Verdict:
Rated? the movie leads us through the civil war in Sierra Leone. It's not pretty. I'd give an R because I wouldn't picture myself watching this at the age of 13. Too strong, too true.

Worth watching? You got it from what's written above. ABSOLUTELY, it's a must. One of the best movies of the last decade easy.

Final Grade 20/20

The Devil Wears Prada (David Frankel, 2006)

2007-09-10T03:58:00.000-07:00

Andrea (Anne Hathaway) freshly promoted from Northeastern University is looking forward to write articles for a newspaper. She is shooting out résumés everywhere and anywhere as finally, she obtains an interview at Runway, the fashion magazine. Although it's a job for an assistant and even if fashion is "obviously" not her life, it still looks good on a CV, and there's a "million girls out there that would kill for that job", you might say. The only major pickle is the chef-editor, Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep), a tyrannic and mean woman that never looks at "regular" people in the eyes, if she even deigns to look at them. That, she barely does, and requires a 100% commitment to the job, a 24/7 disposition and that, to do crazy things that often do not look like they're of a major importance. Andrea is crushed by her work but she decides not to quit and to fight back in her own way.

What about this movie? The fashion world has been worked out in every single details and is extremely precise: from the main office to the ateliers, through the review meetings and the parties very "mondaines". There's been a huge work done for this to look authentic and it is impossible, even for a guy, not to appreciate this. Big bravos for Frankel, but also for Patricia Field who has accomplished a tremendous work for the costume design. Real creators, like Versace or Gucci and so forth (the list is very long) have given their approval to use original clothes and creations for the actors to wear which you can obviously feel during the movie, the smell of quality. That has made The Devil wears Prada the most expensive film costume-wise, ever.

Beyond the costumes and the exterior appearance, the acting is powerful. I know I'm not the first, the 2007 academy award ceremony has already given its winners and results, but Meryl Streep plays Miranda Priestly (known to be inspired from Wintour, the Vogue editor) with cynism, coldly. Not to much, no anger, just a lack of heart that she has earned through divorces and through her work in fashion. You have to be tough to say to a creator that has been sewing and drawing a project for hours: "that sucks". That's the real world baby, you'd better get used to it. Finally, Anne Hathaway can't take this anymore and goes to Nigel (amazing Stanley Tucci) to find a shoulder to cry on. He'll tell her: "you're not working, you're whining. Wake up and do some work and don't expect a gold star when you do something right". Doing something right, it's the basics. You can get in troubles for doing something wrong but there's is no reason for looking appreciation from you boss if you do the regular stuff. That will motivate her to work harder and to forsee the needs of her boss to make it on time instead of waiting for the questions and tasks to be asked.
Through her work she looses a bit contact with her boyfriend, family, friends...that'll lead her to think over her job, as her boss praises her :"you're a good me". Getting her heart hardened, that she doesn't want. She resigns. She has learnt a lot though: she knows how to dress, has a sexy résumé and knows what to put first, career or family. So Nigel tells her: "when your private life gets worse, that means you're becoming good at work. When your life falls apart, that means you're ready for a promotion".

What I also praise in this movie is the lack of clichés that are so easy to make and use, in a movie about fashion. Apart from the fact that Nigel liked fashion better fashion and clothing than soccer since always and that he likes to cheer Anne up, we don't see in him nor in anybody the typical gay character we can see in every single movie about fashion, talking and acting weirdly, well, you know. It generally makes the movie funny, but that wouldn't help this movie up. So, good call.
Bad call about Anne's way of living. She's on a break with her boyfriend since 2 days and manages to wake up in a stranger's bed in Paris. Nevermind.

Very good acting, even supporting roles, nice photography, good music.
Classy.

Verdict:
Rated? not so much. I'd say PG-13, but let's face it, it is a refined movie, there's not much sense in letting younger persons watch this.

Worth watching? Sure, it is a very pleasant movie to watch. Entertainment AND movie fans. One last thing: THIS IS NOT A COMEDY! so don't expect to see Jim Carrey's feminine version walking around, because that's how the marketing staff has tried to draw more audience to cinemas and that's how I've heard a lot of disappointed comments about this film.

Final Grade 18/20

The birdcage (Mike Nichols, 1996)

2007-09-06T15:16:00.000-07:00

The Birdcage is a remake of Poiré's La Cage aux Folles, name of a club on Palm Beach, the controversial part of Miami where all the gay community is "free" to express itself.

The concept of this comedy is pretty simple:there is very few non-gay characters which turns all our society's pillars upside down making us feel "how would it be if..." The scenario is rather predictable. The Birdcage boss' son is willing to get married...to a girl. Of course the father and his companion (the word "parents" couldn't get through my mind) face a mental breakdown.
On the other hand, the young girl is the daughter of a deputy (deceiving Gene Hackman) trying to get to the Oval Bureau through a bill restoring all the conservative values that have made America. Last but not least, it is well known that parents want to meet before the big day, right? You feel this?

All right, the scenario, as simple as it is, brings some punch and the Tootsie-like situations are funny (I mean, Spartacus is goood=), but the director, after playing a bit on straight/gays confrontations leaves us watching some looking-real gay marital talks, mother-feeling-like men and looses a bit control on the story's ending, especially throughout the D-dinner. Gags become less and less funny, less and less tasty (what was with that crucifix?seriously?). Nathan Lane gives us the worst performance with his poor (over)acting and being a key-character during the whole movie, annoys us just more and more.

However, and I know it is kindda weird for me to admit it, but the movie stays O.K all along. It's a matter of how you see things, but I think a movie like Brokeback Mountain has a lot more influence on the society's way of thinking than this movie.
A modern Tootsie, 25 years later, or a Some Like It Hot 50 years later, with the same faked innocence.
Funny, but should it be?

Verdict:
Rated? you have to be old enough so as not to think these characters are behaving normally. No way you should let kids watch that, they would ask you a looot of questions during AND after the movie.

Worth watching? there is some work here so this comedy IS actually funny.

Final Grade 15/20

The Illusionist (Neil Burger, 2007)

2007-09-04T04:31:00.000-07:00

A young boy meets a weirdo on the road that will teach him magic and tricks. Eventually this young boy will become Eisenheim (Edward Norton), the great Illusionist, a magician that annoys the Vienna police chief-inspector Uhl (Paul Giamatti) for this one is desperately trying to prove Eisenheim is a fake. The case is going to lead to a political coup d'état prepared by the son of the Emperor.

Throughout the whole movie, Neil Burger tries to give an atmosphere "d'époque" by the photography lead by Dick Pope. But was giving a sepia tone to the movie the only way to get us to the old Vienna? After a while it gets very annoying, and yes it is rare to see such a photography but original doesn't mean genius. It ends up looking like the objective is reduced on purpose so the outdoor scenes would be easier to take. Morever, continuing down this way, anachronism are part of the movie, just to mention the behaviour of Jessica Biel, the movie's weak link. It is not an épopé prepared with hundreds of gaffers and script girls around to take care of all the historical details for sure.

Although the movie has been acclaimed for its mix of politics, romance and mystery, the director fails to give the necessary rythm using a very formal cut paired with an energic music which is supposed to "turn it on". I have to admit it, giving pop to a movie based on a one-man show is pretty hard, and the Director knows it and has wisely decided to take short scenes when showing Eisenheim on stage.

The political plot is improbable, the romance empty of deeper feelings and Paul Giamatti by wrinkling his eyebrows doesn't look like he has autority of any kind nor does he look much tired by the case he is supposed to constantly bear on his mind.

The end of the movie is surprising of course, but Neil Burger doesn't look much experienced with Shyamalan-sized endings, athough it actually is the best part of the movie. Getting some perspective, the cut at the ending reminds a lot of Brian Singer's The Usual Suspects. You get it, nothing is what it seems.
It is good movie, I'd just wouldn't be so emphatic as the critics for it's nothing exceptional.

Verdict:
Rated? O.K

Worth watching? yeah, sure...it's gotta be a rainy day though

Final Grade 15/20

Casino (Martin Scorsese, 1995)

2007-08-26T07:10:00.000-07:00

I haven't watched much Scorsese, that's a fact. I've missed the Gangs of New York when it was on, have only heard about Taxi Driver, have heard a loooot about the Last Temptation of The Christ, didn't know The Color of Money was his when I watched it, and ohh! and I just remembered that The Departed I've seen at the movies last year was also his. Oh, and The Aviator, of course. Much better then...I am ready to write about Casino.

I had heard a lot about the main generic first scene, and it actually is very impressive. Who would have given so much work to introduce the cast. Scorsese.

The action takes place in Las Vegas, Nevada, where Ace (Robert de Niro) is willing after a lifetime of robbery and off-limits deals to settle down to open a "clean" business: a casino. He doesn't have the authorization to do it but who cares, it's Vegas. The deal is to use the weakness of the clients in order to have them come back, on and on. Ace is a brilliant gambler and knows how to run the business, take care of the cheaters. There are two things he is unable to deal with.
First of all, love. He finds this opportunistic vamp (Sharon Stone) in the game room and falls in love with her. That will occur to be a bad choice. The lady is a complete victim of the 70's and is rarely sober.
His second main problem is Nicky Santoro (Joe Pesci), an old friend that is way to stubborn to understand that Ace is trying to have everything "legit" from now on. He does everything like it used be to "back home", leading Ace's business to a political fiasco.

The cast is gorgeous, Robert de Niro was right after Branagh's Frankenstein, Sharon Stone was at her highest (and only) peak and Joe Pesci was everywhere at that time. Ace's character is of the ex-con type. He doesn't want to have anything to do with his old friend Nicky, loves his wife truly and try to avoid legal problems whatsoever. De Niro suits fine, as always in this kind of movies (remember Once upon a time in America, The Godfather II, The Goodfellas...?) and has made me forget about Meet the Parents. His acting is irreproachable throughout the whole movie, so is Stone's. She gets a bit annoying when playing drama, getting emotional, doesn't work out much, but it's ok to say she's playing the part of her life (when getting some perspective) and she's played it fair.
Joe Pesci plays Nicky, an annoying tyrannic-not-so-tall mafioso. His play is of a "goodfella", but seriously, does he have to curse that much? check out JFK, he doesn't have a big part, but he has just the time to make us feel like "darling, you put the wrong DVD on". I think the one movie where he keeps his mouth shut is Home Alone, and that's a Disney. That's kindda sad. The off -voice narrating the story is a good idea, there comes just a feeling to turn it very off when Pesci comes in.
Anyway, Scorsese succeeded in showing us the evolution of Vegas, however putting a stress on the lack of life when the city run by "honest" citizens, he fails to give sense to the movie by ending on the idea that Las Vegas is now a Disneyland, the poor gangsters have to find themselves another place.
Moreover, we see the ending of three persons that were meant to know each other (Nicky and Ace), love eache other (Ace and Stone) destroyed by the pursue of money.
That's good Scorsese.

Verdict:
Rated? very guilty, that ain't sugar-coated, that Scorsese-coated...

Worth watching? no comments

Final Grade 14/20

watch the trailer

An Inconvenient Truth (Davis Guggenheim, 2006)

2007-08-01T11:47:00.000-07:00

Inconvenient, inconvenient...perhaps the truth about this movie is a little bit too.

I was eager to learn about "global warming" and to watch a kick-me-back-to-earth documentary such as Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 or even Spurlock's Supersize Me (no political opinions engaged whatsoever), I was left all alone to cry on my not-so-well spent movie ticket.

The whole movie is based on a lecture (monologue?) led by the (almost) ex-president of the USA, Al Gore, which is supposed to convince a crowd of his militants and some green "hippies" often pulling off dreadlocks. Seriously, how much can you laugh and clap at a man that is giving you a lesson about how to reduce your CO2 emissions to zero (supposedly, you're not allowed to breathe anymore) showing off in a truck that burns easy twice as much as a European car if you're not objectively already a convinced partisan?

First, this movie has very little value as a document in itself. We can learn all the basics about global warming and CO2 emissions but we don't get to see many interesting pictures nor views, apart from the ones shown in the trailer. Not glorifying Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 nor his Bowling For Columbine but in those, the director spent some time gathering up (or making up, that's a matter of opinion) documents, interviews, etc. Al Gore doesn't get tired while speaking...but we get. Well he could have made a post on Youtube, I would be richer today for sure.

Secondly, while watching, one could get a weird feeling. Ambivalent. Between two slides, the director (Guggenheim) can't help giving some shots of Gore's family history, how much he's done for "the" cause, how his father quit growing tobacco when the first correlations between tobacco and lung cancers proved to be true, how his son was between life and death after an accident, how much he is tired of all the world's global problems...ups sorry, was I supposed to cry? It is like somebody trying to manipulate you but in a very naive way, trying to get to your feelings. I know he's not the first (see Moore for example), but that ostentatiously, really?

You can be as green as you want, you are not allowed to be that dull. The Academy Award Ceremony was fitting very well for Gore's document: standing ovation, 2 Academy Awards, Al Gore got to have to longest speech, then standing ovation again. Had anyone seen this movie?or just the trailer?neither? No matter, everybody, after the ceremony, went back home in his "green" car, producing twice (or more) as much CO2 as a war tank (Al Gore in the loop again). But don't worry, because "you also can reduce your CO2 emissions to zero". Just remember to take a deep breath.

Igo

Verdict:
Rated? Not guilty

Worth watching? Guilty

Final Grade 8/20

watch the trailer