Irrelevant critics by garzol

June 15, 2021

R I P of the day

Confortès Claude (b. 1928-02-28 / d. 2016-06-15)

He was a French movie and stage director and actor. As an actor, he starred in Yves Robert's War of the Buttons (La Guerre des boutons) in 1962. He played a supporting role in Germinal in 1993. He was born in Saint-Maur-des-Fossés, a suburb of Paris.


Look for films like:

The two faces of January

What is the point?

It is very difficult to sustain such a boring story. Besides, Kirsten Dunst is fimed carelessly and not shown under her best angle.

(The two faces of January by Hossein Amini)


worse than le grand bleu

Nice slide show.

(Gravity by Alfonso Cuarón)

Chronicle GG

The trailer does not spoil or recount the story

Okay, it is easy. But quite a specific and clever view on things. The only problem is the found-footage option. It is done perfectly. Nevertheless, 1:30 of found-footage, even though well thought and well supplied, is quite difficult.

(Chronicle by Josh Trank )

Ghost rider: spirit of vengeance

The demonstration that 3D can impair anything

One cannot help wondering why this "film" needed 2 directors. It is the sequel to the 2007 film Ghost Rider and features Nicolas Cage returning to his starring role as Johnny Blaze/Ghost Rider. But in 3D. This is a paradigm of how to use 3D in the opposite of a sensible way. Would have broken a leg, rather than watching this.

(Ghost rider: spirit of vengeance by Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor)

Des filles en noir GGG

The Doldrums

Incredibly magnificient film, though not very energizing. Picturaly perfect, the image always points at what matters. It never explains, but keeps showing and letting understand that the words of the adults are necessary and helpless at the same time.

(Des filles en noir by Jean-Paul Civeyrac)

Millenium G

A satisfying way to eat and digest the trilogy.

It is always interesting to compare a novel with the film that was based on it. Beside money, what were the motivations of the filmmakers for that precise adaptation? What did they add or remove and why? So, let us go: The plus of the film: 1/ More compact. Compared to the brick-like book, it is a pleasure to get the story in less than 2 hours (152mn exactly). The book reading had taken me 1 year and an half (though it had interested me, truly). Besides, the book abuses of useless details (Salander's depiction of her Mac Powerbook is a masterpiece: CPU, Clock, RAM, Disk...). This is good to avoid this with the film. 2/ The complexity of the Vanger genealogy is attenuated thanks to the images. It is easier to understand who is who in the film. The plus of the book: Most of the time, the filmmakers had to synthetise and remove information to make it. For example, the affair between Blomkvist and Cecilia was zapped. So was it with the affair with Berger, the traitor at Millenium, and numerous things. This is quite a shame since it makes it more difficult to get coherency of the psychology of certain characters. On the opposite, on one occasion, filmmakers decided to make things longer than in the book. It was the cause of the wreckage of Salander's computer. Swiftly destroyed in the book. And a long and pointless scene of street fighting. Why such a change? I still cannot figure out the reason. If I were the author, I would have protested for that.

(Millenium by Niels Arden Oplev )


Not exactly the expected final cut off

This movie could have been a masterpiece, as an horror picture, since I had to close my eyes a couple of time. I normaly never do that, even for the gorest zombie movie. Though, it is not good in this register either. It probably comes from the fact that one cannot get implicated in what the characters live. One stays distant from them, partly because of the bloody scenes, but not only. The way it is filmed, that is to say "natural" and "distant" contributes to this. I caught myself a couple of time asking me: "what is the name of that guy, already? What is the name of the woman as well?". You even forget the names of the main characters, although they are only 2 people in the movie (plus their body doubles...)
One can see too easily the director's will: to shock spectators. He failed, because of the distance, even though one might feel dizzy at several particular occasions. I think he tried again to find a future to the film industry, which is a respectful wish. At least, we now know that it is not a fruitful one.
Two or three details I did not understand: 1/ Why a speed camera for the prologue ? 2/ The mother used to put the baby shoes left on right and conversely. This caused the medical examination to remark a slight misformation of the baby feet, not related with its death, what is the point ? 3/ many people climb the hill in the last sequence. What is the symbol ? (Don't know the Bible very well, I have to confess...).
Finally, a big thank you to Telerama, which discloses in its critics the only thing that should be kept concealed from the spectators: the fact that poor baby fell of the window exactly as his mother was coming and looking at him, which explains and justify everything. Would the director have decided to let us know at the beginning, he would have shown us. Thank you Telerama for this discombobulation.

(Antichrist by Lars Von Trier)

Pride and Glory GG

New expressions picked in the film: Don't play the violin on me. Connecting dots.

(Pride and Glory by Gavin O'Connor)

Gone baby gone

Complicated and not convincing

This movie is based on the novel of the same title by Dennis Lehane. The question here is : can any novel afford a cinematografic adaptation ? The answer is clearly no with the black dahlia. I am afraid it is again no here, mainly for the following reason: The plot is far too complicated for average Joes. Just after the movie, I was on my way out of the cinema, following two people, who were everlastingly and unsuccessfuly trying to clarify some important details. All this complications are not worth it, because they actually don't serve any particular matter. They are for themselves.
This is even more hindering, because as one focuses on the story, one misses the main quality of the film, which is in the background, the depiction of a doleful Boston.
Casey Affleck is good, but not convincing in his role.

(Gone baby gone by Ben Affleck)

El custodio GG

Life is hard and void.

Too much pressure for a bodyguard. He ends up exploding because of an excess of frustration and lack of esteem from his environment.
This is what happens when you have to dedicate your life to the others, and that it appears to be natural for everybody, even for you. Pure existence' deny.
The worst is that as a bodyguard, you have got plenty of time to think. This is the only thing you own actually. Then, you can use this time to think of no solution. A minor thought, like noticing you never swam in the see will make you tumble down.
This parable applies to any of us, I think. And this is the strength of this brilliant movie. Not optimistic, but brilliant.

(El custodio by Rodrigo Moreno)

Une vieille maitresse

Disappointing Breillat

"Une vieille maitresse is my biggest project. All I did before had actually been a training for this film. I had postponed it until I was ready", Breillat said.
Let us translate: "I need money. Go see my film!"
I love Breillat, but I have to say that the result is a bit disappointing
A film of Breillat is always a major event, because in the end you get back home with new questions about life, desire and men/women relationships. Interestingly enough, these questions are more nourishing than their unlikely answers. A good thing because these answers don't exist, I guess.
This is not the case this time. It is a very long film regarding the argument. An old mistress and a young irritating dandy are glued together.
The facts that actress Asia Argento is provided with a gigantic tatoo in the back, or fake rebuilt breasts are the less disturbing things. Claude Sarraute is not as good as everyone wants to shout it. They pretend the old lady is so smart... probably not to hurt her just before she dies.
Yolande Moreau and Michel Lonsdale cabotinate completely.

(Une vieille maitresse by Catherine Breillat)

The climates GG


One taught us that male and female brains are identical. Men from Mars, women from Venus: Bollocks. size and weight of the brain differ: True, but Bollocks. The difference is in social an home education and only there.
Same brain maybe, but one have to recognize that women and men don't understand a relationship the same way. Actually, their respective understanding does not share a single morcel in common.
That is exactly what this film will coldly, slowly, bleakly show you.
On the one hand , men have their very important occupation. They have to deal with serious business. And maybe after, what about a little snog, with a rather pretty girl, if possible? A girl who will have this same view on sentimental life !
On the other hand, women are all dedicated to their beloved. They will put up with anything if this part of their life looks good.
Men come close to softhearted feeling only when it is too late. even there, one can see that they miss something.
The funny thing in the film, is that the husband is not as good as he thinks in his job. His wife seems to be more efficient in hers, though she makes it as a routine .
Bad taste in your mouth guaranteed in the end, because it is desperate. You'll look like something the cat brought in. So why to self-inflict such displeasure?
Because, it is simply worthwhile. It won't hurt because If you are a boy, you won't care. If you are a girl, you know it already. So, just enjoy the landscape.

(The climates by Nuri Bilge Ceylan)

Short Cuts G

You will cry. But not as powerful as the book by R. Carver.

A few tears will escape your eyes. It does not hurt. It is a kind of good grief which makes you feel better afterwards, because it acts as a valve.

Maybe this is the weakness of this movie. It gives you a feeling that stays on surface. The opposite of the book by R. Carver.

Altman mainly changed two things. The first change is great. The short stories are entangled. Points of connection are managed between them. You jump from one to another. By this means, every short story gets more room and its impact is bigger. The second change brought by Altman is the metaphor of the earthquake. Not so great. In the book, something comes up that radically changes somebody for ever, even though everything looks like nothing had happened. In the movie, events happen like an earthquake. Once the shock has passed, life continues as before. Not as impressive as in the book.

(Short Cuts by Robert Altman)

They live G

A nightmare you live for good.

That is exactly what you expect from a good sci-fi movie. You really are with Nada in the film. You are happy to look through those sunglasses. As usual, John Carpenter makes it without any spectacular special effects.

It is all about paranoïd feelings and it works. One can see it as a cheap shot at the Reagan era, but I think it would be a short view.

The music, as usual, written by Carpenter, is a bewitchment all along. The kind of hocus-pocus I tried to create when I was young and believed I was an artist.

(They live by John Carpenter)

Terminator 2: Judgement day GG

An efficient cut for an efficient tale.

One of the most delicious moments : Sarah Connor: "How are you supposed to know? Fucking men like you built the hydrogen bomb. Men like you thought it up. You think you're so creative. You don't know what it's like to really create something; to create a life; to feel it growing inside you. All you know how to create is death and destruction John Connor: Mom! We need to be a little more constructive here, okay? "

(Terminator 2: Judgement day by James Cameron)

The black dahlia

Catastrophic final cut

completely fucked up. Read the book...

(The black dahlia by Brian de Palma)