Cast: Gregorie Ludig, David Marsais, Adele Exarchopoulos, India Hair, Romeo Elvis, Coralie Russier, Bruno Lochet, Raphael Quenard
When simple-minded friends Jean-Gab and Manu find a giant fly trapped in the boot of a car, they decide to train it in the hope of making a ton of cash.
This film should have worked. One really wanted this one though unfortunately can only point out a few highlights that help the film stay watchable.
It’s a buddy comedy along the lines of DUMB & DUMBER with a little crime narrative of THE BIG LEBOWSKI and involving a gigantic fly that the two friends try to use as a pet and a way to riches.
Somehow doesn’t exactly connect with an absurd plot element that should have been the highlight of the movie.
Instead, the saving element of the film is actually the performance and character played by Adele Exarchopoulos who is hilarious and only in the movie for 30 minutes. Even though the movie is under 90 minutes. Once she arrives she is what the movie needs and once she leaves she is definitely missed. The energy of the film seems to go with her. You wish that the film had mostly been based on her character
Which shows that the movie’s humor is more character-based. That should be more the inspiration, though that feels like the only genuine spark of originality of that kind. The main characters are boring and the one fantasy element becomes common so fast. That it feels cheapened.
The film then seems to settle into punchlines of Jokes that were set up earlier.
You can tell the movies the film was influenced by. As truly the comedic elements here are the more out-there elements such as the big fly and the brain-damaged woman. Who is suspicious of them? Yet the so-called regular characters believe they are stupid but okay.
In the final act, the only true comedy is their delivery and what it ends up being. That feels like much ado about nothing.
Cast: Benjamin Walker, Rainn Wilson, Stephanie Sigman, John Michael Higgins, Wyatt Russell, Adam Pally, Rob Corddry, Ron Livingston, Mark Randall
An inventive crime thriller told backward, reversing day by day through a week following a local sheriff’s quest to unlock the mystery of three small-town criminals and a bank heist gone wrong.
This could have easily been a story for a season-long show BIG SKY. Even though it takes place over and not a few days.
Written and directed by noted screenwriter Oren Uziel. The film has the originality of his usual screenplays. Only here in a little more serious thriller vein. You can see why it was on the black list of 2009 (The Blacklist is a yearly list of the best-unproduced screenplays voted on by script development executives)
The story is told backward over a week. As we start with Friday and go back to Monday to see how a bank robbery affects a small town and its citizens.
The film is better than expected especially as a Netflix original film. Before they got distracted by having big stars and budgets and seemed to still care about storytelling.
As the film is an ensemble film. It’s also a thriller with double-crosses, twists, and backstabbings that once you think you have it figured out. It surprises you again but at least as it goes along it gives you more information to see why certain characters act the way they do or why they make the decisions they do.
It allows for plenty of quirky characters and situations. Though it does rein it in for the seriousness of everything at hand. As well as the overall dramatic implications all over.
We even get to know most of the characters involved in some way. As each day or part of the film that focuses on that day also tends to focus on the character we begin the day with and brings us into the grander puzzle of it all. Half the joy is discovering and witnessing how it all fits together. As well as the reasoning of various characters.
The cast all rise to the occasion to keep the audience riveted and invested. If you pay attention what happens or will happen is spoken of and told in a certain way before it happens. Even though the ending is a little hard to believe. It still works as long as you believe how cold-hearted the characters can be. Even if they show warmth, humanity, and humor before.
Stephanie Sigman as a run-down wife in mourning who can be plain one minute, aggressive the next, and sexy out of nowhere and not really having to really try. She is a versatile actress who needs to work more, especially after her dynamic debut in the movie MISS BALA.
While the film has a lived-in quality. It still lacks a certain depth it needs a little more grit.
Can admit to watching it a second time just to make sure I understood everything. It’s not a long movie but it does pack a jab and enough intrigue to keep you guessing.
Written & Directed By: Roger Avary Cinematography: Tom Richmond Editor: Kathryn Himoff
Cast: Eric Stoltz, Julie Delpy, Jean-Hughes Angalade, Gary Kemp, Salvator Xuereb, Bruce Ramsey, Tai Thai, Kario Salem, Cecilia Peak, Ron Jeremy
Zed has only just arrived in beautiful Paris and already he’s up to no good. Having just slept with a call girl, he spends a night on the town with his dangerous friends. They all decide to rob a bank the following day. There’s only one problem: Zed’s call girl, Zoe, just happens to work at the bank which is to be robbed!
This film had all the makings of a good movie. While it has a typical bank robber film premise, only set in France. It is noteworthy for being the feature writing and directing debut of Roger Avary. Co-writer of PULP FICTION with Quentin Tarantino (Who executive produced this film)
Here the film is about Zed, an American safecracker. How many are there anymore or have they all become hackers? He comes to France to help his friend rob a bank. He is a heroin user and is waiting for a job. He hires a hooker who the next day we actually find out is a bank teller at the bank.
This is a very strange film. The bank robbers are a multi-ethnic crew but all look grungy and dress like fabulous 1980s & 90’s archetypes. They all come off as euro trash.
The film is more dialogue-based, but when there is action. It is swift, grotesque, and merciless.
There are scenes of just sitting around while different revelry goes on around them And the conversation feels more rambling.
The first half of the film is subdued with weird women wanting to go home with the men. So they can abuse them. Then there is a revelation from his friend that takes hold to maybe the nihilistic attitude he takes throughout.
Then there is the drunken distorted sex scene in a bathroom. Where we can’t tell if it’s male on male.
It starts to get a bit more exciting in the second half of the film with the bank robbery. Where just going in is a massacre. Then when they are stuck in a stand-off situation. It gets a lot worse with Zed, down in the basement not knowing what is going on upstairs and his friend going further and further off the deep end. Trying to plan an escape and each idea continuously fails. Zed has his own drama with a guard burned alive and half dead, begging for him to end his suffering.
The ending is remarkable as everything comes to a head with Zed finding out what is really going on. His confrontation with his friend Eric. The discovery of Zoe in the bank and the cops coming in to end the standoff.
Other than having some cliches in the film. It also offered things that movies rarely Depict or bother giving any Credence or screen time to. It was also one of the few films that showed a female character could be more than one thing. One didn’t necessarily define the other. Female Characters could be complex and multifaceted. Keep in mind I was 15 When i first saw the film
While the ending is a little curious. The film as a whole is just strange and while it can easily be lumped in with the 90’s crime movie genre or even a Tarantino knockoff. It is original in many aspects and might be disappointing for audience members looking for a more typical cops and robbers heist film.
I remember being very excited to see this film in Theaters. As I was a huge Tarantino. Fan and knew of the controversy surrounding Tarantino and Roger Avery. It seems like Tarantino is producing. This was a favor for pulp fiction, so Avery having to manage things on his own in this film could be seen as daunting for a first-time filmmaker as I watched this in the theater. I could see some influences, and how he maybe wanted the film to be different from the cliché
In doing so the film now seems really cliché as most bank robbery films do the same and try to seem like they have an original voice and really don’t as they try to humanize more of the side characters, who would normally never be the center of attention. Even though this at the time was one of the first.
While this film has some sharp dialogue after watching this even though one was thrown off balance, and scratching my head, like what just happened it will definitely keep you on your toes and I will say it’s an interesting rental, but don’t hold your breath for greatness. Even though it does have its fans, Roger Avery made a sequel to the film unofficially.
Cast: Park Hae-il, Tang Wei, Lee Jung-Hyun, Go Kyung-Pyo
From a mountain peak in South Korea, a man plummets to his death. Did he jump, or was he pushed? When detective Hae-joon arrives on the scene, he begins to suspect the dead man’s wife Seo-rae. But as he digs deeper into the investigation, he finds himself trapped in a web of deception and desire.
One of the most romantic movies ever or at least in quite a while. It is more of a romance where the lead characters absolutely can’t be with one another yet works as a romance. where they try to deny their feelings while falling even harder maybe because of the lack of total communication but constantly watching each other.
It’s almost like dating with a constant mind game and never a full revelation of feelings, but there is something there. They keep not only bringing themselves together, but circumstances at times force them to and to kind of chase each other.
Though here not trying to fall in love and that is usually when it finds you or you find that one that makes you feel it.
So that like early in love any moment or chance you get seems mystical, magical, and has meaning.
There is plenty of lust there but it seems to be more about longing.
Now put all of that and surround it in a detective story a film noir with stylish touches and a little violence but no sex, eroticism, or even any real action. Like the characters the film and story are so restrained it almost feels like a period piece. Though the camerawork and direction are top notch.
It feels like a thriller but one with more emotions. You wonder if she is only trying to seduce him to get away with her crimes and that for the detective she is not only an escape but a mystery herself that he can’t figure out which is a challenge and slowly makes him lose it.
But you feel destroyed by the end as you want the two characters to be together. So that it stays fully captivating. Though like a good story and a good book it moves at its own pace. Sometimes faster than you expect but also slower. Never quite a constant.
The film is like poetry, you recognize the beauty but it’s hard to explain. As hopefully you just feel it.
Written By: Jeffrey Lau and Wong Kar Wai Cinematography: Andrew Lau
Editor: Bei-Dak Cheong and Kit Wai Kai
Cast: Andy Lau, Maggie Cheung, Jacky Cheung, Alex Man, Ronald Wong
Mid-level gangster Wah falls in love with his beautiful cousin, but must also continue to protect his volatile partner-in-crime and friend, Fly.
Melodramatic as it has a bit of the story of the movie MEAN STREETS mixed with a crime thriller. MEAN STREETS Also dealt with a coming-of-age story and a romance that seemed clandestine yet forbidden. While also being involved in a crime syndicate of sorts with a hot-headed friend who seems to always get them both into hot water.
Just like Martin Scorsese, you can see director Wong Kar Wai’s Style breaking out. Yet a little stuck with a mainstream Story to get more of an audience to watch. The crime thriller elements will be exciting but the heart of the film Is more in the romance and it allows the lead to be tough and sensitive.
Watching this film is like watching an artist trying his skills in a more conventional Mainstream Movie. He certainly Raises the material higher than it deserves.
The film is definitely of its time period. The 1980’s represented mainly on the soundtrack as usual.
Wai Chooses a familiar American song TAKE MY BREATH AWAY and gives it new depth in a Cantonese version.
Like his later Films there is a love story thrown in that ends up being the film’s heart. Not to mention ensures an emotional investment. As after all within most stories, there is that element instead of focusing on the more violent side of life. Instead, he is interested in showing relationships and what drives them. To show where strength and honor lie.
The film is a cautionary tale on one end and nihilistic. It takes both main characters’ relationships seriously and gives them the same depth. Only one is physically intimate. The other one is loving but troublesome.
As he is more successful in romance and moves further. On the other end That is how deep into Trouble he And his little brother get into until It gets to the point of no return the third act has to do with proving oneself and machismo That is Almost like a reminder. This is supposed to be a gangster film
Directed By: John Frankenheimer Written By: J.P. Miller and Edward Anhalt Based on the Novel “A MATTER OF CONVICTION” By: Evan Hunter Cinematography: Lionel Lindon Editor: Eda Warren
Cast: Burt Lancaster, Shelly Winters, Telly Savalas, Dina Merrill, Edward Andrews, Vivian Nathan, Larry Gates, Pilar Seurat, Jody Fair, Stanley Kristien
A district attorney investigates the racially charged case of three teenagers accused of the murder of a blind Puerto Rican boy. He begins to discover that the facts in the case aren’t exactly as they seem to be.
This takes you back to an era where movies could still be police procedural episodes basically. Only with more star power and elongated with a more personal connection. To the central character. Here is Burt Lancaster. Not to mention directed by the legendary John Frankenheimer in his prime.
At least the film is based on a novel, an adaptation. So it’s not some run-of-the-mill story. That failed at being an episode of a court show that week.
Once upon a time they could build a whole film’s narrative around a crime story that seems pretty simple but gets complicated as it goes along. As the deeper Lancaster dives the more that is revealed that has quite a few twists and turns.
Showcasing the supposed dog-eat-dog nature of the slums and the racial unrest. Here between Italians, Irish, and Hispanics. While also managing to be a youth In Jeopardy movie.
The case in the film showcases the political implications that the case causes.
The film is an uneasy watch as it tries to be liberal in its politics. It still feels a bit racist and definitely stereotypical. At times it tries to throw back at both sides and show that no one is perfect and we all have our flaws. Does someone deserve to lose their life over it?
It also tries to save one of the Caucasian characters as an innocent. A good kid in bad surroundings. Most of the characters could be, they all just learned to adapt to survive. While the innocent victim gets trashed in court almost like he deserved it. It also doesn’t exactly answer all the questions the case presents.
Every character here is corrupt or criminal. It’s disturbing that the ones of color are the ones shown more thoroughly in that manner. Though get more screen time.
The subject matter is tawdry but handled in a clean way. As the film goes with what was expected at the time. So an audience can blame the times for the way this movie comes across. As a kind of historical artifact.
There was also the way the film felt. As one is watching it seems like the camera or film was speeding up. To make things happen or appear to happen faster.
Directed By: Jules Dassin Written By: Richard Brooks Story By: Robert Patterson Cinematography: William Daniels Editor: Edward Curtiss
Cast: Burt Lancaster, Hume Cronyn, Charles Bickford, Yvonne De Carlo, Ann Blyth, Ella Raines, Anita Colby, Sir. Lancelot, Jeff Corey, John Hoyt, Roman Bohnen
At overcrowded Westgate Penitentiary, where violence and fear are the norm and the warden has less power than guards and leading prisoners, the least contented prisoner is tough, single-minded Joe Collins. Most of all, Joe hates chief guard Captain Munsey, a petty dictator who glories in absolute power. After one infraction too many, Joe and his cell-mates are put on the dreaded drain pipe detail; prompting an escape scheme that has every chance of turning into a bloodbath.
This was certainly an eye-opener. It tries to live up to its title as it was definitely that way when it was made and might be considered light for today’s times, but shocking that it was made when it was.
One of the films where Burt Lancaster definitely seems mroe engaged and it lets him use his physicality more.
One of the more violent Black and white movies the type of film used makes it timeless. As it will always going to be the same. In prisons and for anyone watching the film.
No one is innocent but still don’t deserve the brutality that they endure. We see their pasts that got them stuck in prison, from time to time so we also get to know the characters along the way. The camaraderie that exists and how they bond. So that we get to care about them, their demise is all the more shocking And heartbreaking like a horror film.
Hume Cronyn as the main villain is absolutely brutal and scary. Though he also seems so finely tuned. Not a bloodthirsty psychopath. Not even is he physically intimidating. He’s more threatening and cerebral.
The strength of the film is that we are introduced to the characters mroe in the middle of something larger and as the film goes along it builds in intensity and pressure. Until the end where it finally blows in a well-orchestrated ending.
It’s Beautifully filmed you can constantly feel the claustrophobia in the prison more than in the cells. Just as the prisoners try to feel like they are still on the outside, busting themselves to pass the time Cronyn’s character wants to not only own and be in Charge with them but remind them where they are and keep them small.
It’s a film that is captivating but has a sadness hanging over it. It has a fluidity to it. So that it keeps moving even when it has its moments with the characters
Directed By Jules Dassin Written By: Joe Eisinger Based on the Novel By: Gerald Kersh Cinematography: Max Greene Editor: Nick Deamaggio & Sidney Stone
Cast: Richard Widmark, Gene Tierney, Google Withers, Herbert Lom, Mike Mazurki, Charles Farrell, Hugh Marlowe, Francis L. Sullivan, Stanislaus Zbysko, Ada Reeve
A small-time grifter and nightclub tout takes advantage of some fortuitous circumstances and tries to become a big-time player as a wrestling promoter.
The film ends up more of an ensemble than expected. As the main character at the center of it all. Though the secondary characters are added in and ends up feeling like so many gears going all at once at the same time.
So that it keeps the audience mesmerized and engaged. Watching how the narrative tightens and converges and affects one another like a chess match. They are feeding into one another as the stakes are raised and the challenges get more prominent.
The film is full of love stories and triangles with jealousy and revenge. None were quite sturdy except for one.
This is a thriller centered around a wrestling promotion. Showcasing the business and dramatics involved even back then. As we watch it all come apart. While men are all trying to be the alpha full of bravado and machismo.
Richard Widmark’s performance is filled with manic energy and intensity. Where his character goes through so much intensity. Though always with a Whiff of anger the untrustworthy glamorous bad boy who dresses up as a gangster though is truly a two-bit hood and hustler. Very wiry and athletic he overshadows everyone else in scenes with him. As you can tell he is always thinking and scheming. He has to line up the dominos of making a deal keeping all the parts moving just like in this film.
Keeping the production a well-oiled machine. Luckily Leaving it not all that predictable. While showcasing dynamic examples of shadows and light. Showcasing this tale as a film noir.
The film has an excitement in the filmmaking. That is assured yet takes its time. Leaving one surprised that the tale takes place in England. Seeing these descriptive old-time faces and tough guys that seem more New York City old school. Then they start talking and you realize where you are once you hear the accents.
Director Jules Dassin was in the middle of being blacklisted and the studio’s head Daryl Zanuck told him this might be the last film he ever made. This might be why this film is so strong as he seemed to put all his energy and vision into it.
Like so many classic films It’s partially in the grain. As there is a richness in there that is rare yet all-encompassing. Making it seem timeless yet feels nutritious. As we watch it grow.
The audience marvels at it. As it’s an example of the best that seems shared with us. A recipe that works better than expected or just right. Where the dialogue feels like lines of scripture. As these are stories to illuminate.
The film does offer a comeuppance. Even in all these dark stories and corners. Judgment and themes said simply that feed the shadows.
Written & Directed By: Nicholas Kazan Cinematography: Jean Yves Escoffier Editor: Susan Cruthcher and Jill Savitt
Cast: James Spader, Madchen Amick, Bess Armstrong, Larry Miller, Frederic Lehne, Kathleen York, William Shockley, Carl Sundstrom, Clyde Kusatsu
Ray is young, charming, successful, and the owner of a prosperous architecture company. However, he has recently gone through a very painful divorce. His friends try to cheer him up by showing him the positive sides of being single but for Ray marriage and stability are just too important. But when he meets Lena his gloom is quickly forgotten. She is beautiful, sensual, and mysterious and he is drawn to her like a moth to a candle. They marry quickly, have their first child and Ray lives in total bliss. But then strange incidents occur which shed some light on Lena’s background. Ray slowly realizes that he hardly knows anything about her at all. Who has he really married?
A movie that I have read about and cursed my oath many times but never drank the Kool-Aid to watch it.
Now watching g ti for the very first time it is very much of its time in the early 90’s as it feels like it has some holdovers from the 1980’s the wardrobe, score, and setups. The film seems to go for Glamour shots while trying to protest a certain reality
The one thing that shines above all else is that it’s rare to see James soarer mroe as the person being taken rather than the villain. Though this is Madchen Amick’s movie truly. As she is a femme fatale who truly plays her prey like a piano
The movie seems Buck convention as it feels like an earlier version of the recent release DEEP WATER directed by Adrian Lyne. where the lead wants to get to know his wife’s Past and the more he does it becomes an obsession once she lets him find out she openly Lies to him and he is so much in love he wants to believe it as it fulfills his fantasy about her and gets to stay with her. She is his fantasy and everything he wants and so desperately wants to believe even if it goes against his happiness ultimately or maybe this is all his fetish
The movie already hit his mental fragility with scenes at a circus in his dreams. Which feels like it’s trying to be too artistic.
Again Madchen Amick is the reason to see the movie overall coming off of Twin Peaks at the time. Her character is cold, sexy, smart, and calculating. With a chic wardrobe, she would be a screen legend in this role only the film fails to really support her or rise to her level.
The film at times tries to be sexy and erotic but only she truly is in the end. Even as the film tries to be sexual quite a few times.
James Spader is perfectly cast also as he is handsome but has something off-putting about him as the character. Who seems to overthink except when it comes to the things and people he should.
Though the character’s fascination as well as the film and audience is what is the battery of this film. This is a polished film but not one that is beautifully put together.
If you are a fan of movies you can see what is going to happen from the beginning. You just watch to see how it will happen and what exactly is the end goal. No matter what she can provide the receipts. Though a last-minute reveal that is never shown only talked about comes across as weak.
The ending feels right, but also feels a bit too complex and comes across as it thinks it’s smart too much. While simple it is also brief.
The film might have been stronger if we saw this whirlwind romance as romantic in the first place or too good to be true and then started to wonder if this Is a con or if is it all in his head.
The film also comes across as a little too wasp-ish. It’s absolutely whitewashed. As there is very little real passion. It just seems like everyone is going through the motions. No matter how much I wanted to like it. It feels a bit melodramatic and thrilling.
This neo-noir takes place mostly in the daytime. Leaves itself to be too transparent at times.
Directed By: Rory Kelly Written By: Duane Dell’Amico, Roger Hedden, Neal Jimenez, Joe Keenan, Rory Kelly and Michael Steinberg Cinematography: Andrzej Sekula Editor: David Moritz
Cast: Eric Stoltz, Meg Tilly, Craig Sheffer, Lewis Arquette, Todd Field, Parker Posey, Vanessa Angel, Susan Traylor, Dean Cameron, Thomas Gibson, Joey Lauren Adams, June Lockhart, Adrienne Shelly, Alexandra Hedison, Quentin Tarantino
Sarah, Joseph, and Frank are BFFs. Joseph and Sarah get married but the evening before she tells Frank with a kiss that it could’ve been him. Frank continues to have a thing for Sarah.
Six different writers wrote a scene each of this romantic comedy featuring the marriage and turbulent relationship of Joseph and Sarah, with Joseph’s best friend Frank trying hard to cope with letting the love of his life marry his best friend. An interesting experiment though it might also explain why it
Seems like a bit of a mess. That seems endless and single-focused. After a while it feels like small talk, about a lot of things said but nothing of any depth that can be called interesting. It might have worked better as a play.
A 1990’s relationship drama with some very little comedy thrown in. It seemed dated even when it came out. It feels like a dramatic episode of the television show FRIENDS.
The film involves a group of friends who are all married and/or in serious relationships and only seem to hang out with each other. They are still young and hip with no kids in sight.
So, of course, they have only one friend who is single and this film Explores all the different couplings in relationships. The one that gets the most attention is Meg Tilly who is usually a joy to see on screen. As she is rather obscure. Whose character is engaged to Eric Stoltz’s character. Who is kind of a ladies’ man whose best friend, played by Craig Sheffer with some Ill-advised facial hair and even worse hippie wardrobe is in love with Tilly’s character and she knows it.
She comes across as cruel because she knows yet every time he brings a date to their get-together. She interrogates and then insults them.
When she suspects her fiancé of cheating she sleeps with Sheffer’s character out of spite and when he thinks they have started a relationship she begins to feel bad and have feelings. When Eric finds out and informs her he didn’t cheat. So now the two guys are competing for her.
Imagine the Andrew McCarthy-Ally Sheedy-Judd Nelson love triangle from ST ELMO’S FIRE. Only if Nelson didn’t cheat and it was the main part of the movie, only more dramatic and you are on the same page as this film.
The film tries to be a broad comedy type of movie played subtly seriously. It comes across as a bunch of self-important characters. Who think they are cool but aren’t coming to grips with growing up and making it seem more dramatic and meaningful than it actually is.
It’s a shame as the film has a good cast and could have really been good under better circumstances.
Somehow here the direction just seems to drain all the fun and interest out of not only the scenes but the characters. The script seems fine if not indulgent and self-important.
One only wishes for a more skilled director. Who could have better handled the material and made the scenes a little more vivid and exciting. At least give it a kind of sense of humor about itself.
Maybe also allowing the film to be more of an ensemble and not focus so much on the leads and give the side characters more nuance and more to do. So the love triangle could have been more of a side caper or we see how it affects the dynamics of everyone in the group.
After a while though it seems Like every woman throws themselves at Stoktz’s character. This is easy to see when Sheffer’s Comes off more as creepy and he is the single available one. Who seems to mess up any chance he has with other women. While Stoltz’s Character is already married has nothing to lose. As he already has a wife. So he can talk to these women without seeming like he wants to bed them Or looking for something. Which in turn seems to make him a challenge for them
The only true noteworthy scene is the cameo by writer-director Quentin Tarantino giving a rant or his theory on how the movie TOP GUN is really a movie about a man’s struggle with his homosexuality. (This was before the internet introduced many people’s wild outlandish film and television theories)
In fact, that is one of the only reasons I watched it. The other is Eric Stoltz and Parker Posey, actors I am a huge fan of.
Cut To The Chase 