Change Your Image
philipperousseau1
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
It Chapter Two (2019)
A well done film for a book difficult to adapt
After all these years, one of the best (if not THE best) stories written by Stephen King get a movie adaptation with more budget and a little more advances spectial effects. Yes I've seen the original with Tim Curry and I enjoyed it but thought that it didn't age very well though. I though this one however provided a great cinematographic experience to the audience and managed faithfully to recreate the spirit of the book on screen, with all the mystery and horror. But I still think that the book has a LOT more depth that none of the two adaptations went far enough. I get all the disaggreement related to the excessive use of CGI in the movie but it's the true (and sad?) reality that movies happening in fantasy worlds who represent things that don't belong in our reality (like monsters for exemple ) use less and less of makeups, props or animatronics to create the speciall effects. Take the Bilbo trilogy for exemple. It's just a reality we have to accept I think, and in my opinion, a movie that uses a lot of CGI and who does it well can still be very enjoyable. It's the case with this movie. So in the end I think that the novel will always remain WAY better than any attempt to put this story on screen but I'm glad with this one.
Liliom (1934)
Always down to watch comedies from the 30s
Liliom is not a masterpiece of cinema, but not a terrible movie. Moreover, could he be considered as such, knowing that Fritz Lang is also the author of the unavoidable classics such as Metropolis (Fritz Lang, 1927) and M (Fritz Lang, 1931)? There is doubt, but Liliom is no more or less than the account of a proud man who believes himself strong and who breaks the heart of his wife and who pays the price. It is a story based on the moral sense of a young man and the viewer is reflected in the message of the film. As for example in these famous situations of life where a little angel is on our right shoulder that dictates what is good to do and a little devil on the left shoulder trying to tempt us to succumb to our vices. Liliom, meanwhile, is vicious and manipulative, but he has necessarily good in him. This feature is fortunately not that a beast series of annoying scenes. The film opens on a noisy stage, or a thundering music tries to surpass the cries of Liliom and extras. The rather jerky assembly of this sequence combined with the avalanche of decibels is at least a sign of activity that is imposed on us from the first minutes. Moreover, we witness a battle scene where the noise stops completely for a minute when Liliom and his colleague of the circus look at each other intensely. This unfortunately too short sequence could have been much more impressive but the viewer is left hungry. The rhythm of the film slowed down enormously thereafter. Some shots without music are much too long, allowing us to appreciate the soft sound of the film in the beginning of the talk, but also to fall asleep. We are very far from the style to the Charlie Chaplin, where the action happens very quickly and where the gags are connected without respite. No, Liliom, he takes his time. It does not prevent that the film is played by very good actors. All the replies of Charles Boyer are sublime, every time his character opens his mouth, we want to laugh out loud. Liliom may well be arrogant and we hate him a little because of this, but we find each of the exchanges he makes with the characters more or less secondary very entertaining. Madeleine Ozeray and Florelle both perform a convincing performance, despite a game a bit too stretched. But the character of the commissioner is absolutely sublime. We love him so much in the role of the commissioner as in that of the angel who judges. We can also note the strangeness of the music of the film. Insupportable circus music comes back at several moments, even during certain dramatic scenes where the atmosphere is heavy. Unfortunately this contrast only brings confusion to the viewer. Music completely opposite to the emotion created by the characters playing on the screen has no effect. The part that follows the death of Liliom is probably the most interesting. The spectator finds himself abruptly light-years away from what he has seen until now. The film turns to the real fanciful comedy when the main character resurrects and is transported to heaven by two men dressed perfectly shadows of blacks with a complexion white as snow and that he is judged by an angel. In this sequence, we have the confirmation that the film is not serious, but the scene breaks the monotony whose film has appeared since the beginning and the spectator, suddenly, comes out of its passive state. We see the arrival of new characters, the film changes costumes and sets and the dramatic tone before disappears to give way to a much lighter tone, until the end. Liliom deserves to be seen, but not to the point of being a classic. The moviegoers will find their account there for sure.
Ugetsu monogatari (1953)
A beautiful classic
Recently, I revisited one of Kenji Mizoguchi's classics, Ugetsu Monogatari, and my fascination with Japanese cinema has been confirmed. More specifically the Jidaigeki, but also the Shomingeki and a little Gendaigeki. For me, the aesthetic that emerges from these films is incomparable and many Japanese films far surpass Western cinema on this aspect. This one is a good example. The directing of Mizoguchi is impeccable. His camera shots succeed in giving a poetic and romantic flavor to the narration, and it transports the Western viewer into this other world far away from his own reality. Indeed, the context of the film is very far from our modern North American society and it leaves the viewer the opportunity to escape in a sort of dream. The film is a beautiful portrait of what Japan's history was like at the time. Seeing this film in 1953 (or in 1959, late Parisian release) was probably not the same as seeing it in 2017. Some critics of Les Cahiers du Cinéma and other magazines have on their side hailed this feature film of Mizoguchi in 1959. But the viewer who attends cinema once a year should not have the same opinion. In any case, Ugetsu is a film that has so aged well that it will probably still be seen in ten, twenty, fifty or even a hundred years. It is a film that undoubtedly marked the history of Japanese cinema forever and, and it also is a good first step for anyone who wants to explore Japanese filmography. One can weep with sadness at the outcome of the film, when one notices that the woman of Genjuro was only a ghost, but one can also simply cry for joy at the idea that one has just seen such a beautiful movie.
Caché (2005)
Haneke's directing will blow you away
Recently I've seen Cache, by Michael Haneke. (2005), and I must say that I was fascinated by this film. The scenery of the film is extremely simple and repetitive. The most interesting is in Haneke's way of positioning his camera, and the duration of his plans too. Not only does its staging allow the viewer to appreciate the dialogues between the characters at the maximum, but the editing constantly keeps the latter in suspense. Hidden is the story of Georges and Anne, a couple from the Parisian banner who is sent envelopes containing anonymous cassettes. The contents of the tapes are their own house filmed by an unknown person from Georges's childhood. The couple tries to find the identity of the person who sends the cassettes...but things get complicated. The scenery of the film may be very simple, but one notices the choice of filming in high definition. Normally, a film of the same format as Caché would be filmed in an old-school way, but it is interesting to see that high definition elevates the visual of the film to a higher level. Does this choice of image quality have anything to do with the narration? I don't think so but maybe Haneke had an idea. As is the case for many of the film sequences for that matter. Moreover, the level of violence in the movie is incredibly high. We see long sequences without any action, then without warning, we see the head of an animal to be cut free by the axe or a man to cut his throat. This inequality in the bloody sequences of the film is very interesting. The spectator is constantly thirsty to know who sends these tapes, and who also sends these macabre drawings. But Haneke reveals very little in the film, and that is precisely one of the interesting aspects of the plot. One is constantly absorbed by this type of narration which cleverly shows the psychological state of Georges throughout the film and the hell that he's going through. He sups a man who apparently had a past with him and the other does not know what he is talking about when he talks to him about the tapes. And this is all we know, Haneke gives free rein to any interpretation of the spectator and I believe that this was precisely his goal.
No Country for Old Men (2007)
Don't eat popcorn while watching this movie because it's too awesome
The worst movie to see while eating popcorn: No Country for Old Men (Coen brothers, 2007). The reason is simple: you hear no music for the two hours that it lasts. This film is made that you should appreciate every single noise you hear in it. Starting truck, shots, wind sounds, door squeaking, etc. So I pity the people who saw this movie in a movie theater, a place that tends to irritate attentive moviegoers due to people sitting in the first row who whisper to the person sitting next, or the guy all alone in the back who plunges his hand into his bag of chips. But it is precisely on this aspect that the film shines: its absence of music, and therefore on what remains of what human hearing can perceive by viewing the film; the sound. The film is absent of music, but it is just as if there was one. One can listen to the single musical piece during the end credits, but the dialogues are so powerful that the film does not need to clutter with music. Sometimes long scenes take place without a note of music or even dialogues, but it is precisely this silence that makes the film so captivating. The trio of actors represented on the cover (Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin and Tommy Lee Jones) is perfect. Although the character of the sheriff, embodied by Tommy Lee Jones, experienced actor, seemed a bit more shadowed than the others, although he plays a key role in the plot. One wonders why the face of Woody Harrelson is not on the poster of the film. The impeccable Bardem's acting (recipient of the Oscar of the best actor) is of a prodigious originality. Each of the quotes of the character he incarnates (Anton Chigurh) is absolutely awesome. What to say about the scene where he shoots heads or tails with the cashier of the convenience store. It feels like he will shoot him in the head every moment, but he prefers to argue with the old man while eating peanuts. Finally, what to say about the photo montage, if not that every shot is framed to perfection and that a monk's patience had to be necessary to turn in these magnificent external decorations. Visually, this film is a work of art that surpasses any other low-range action thriller, despite an intrigue that would tend to qualify as "typical" cat and mouse play, which we have already seen a thousand times in Hollywood cinema. But it is the production of the Coen brothers that ranks No Country... above all the others. The film won the Oscar for the best film and deserves it, because it's too perfect.
Catwoman (2004)
Batman & Robin doesn't look so bad eh?
Honestly, I had to watch this because I am a fan of Batman. But seriously, this movie is terrible. It spat in the face of the real character created by DC comics and it's a shame for the world of superheroes. First of all, the special effects are awful, there's no way that the real Catwoman makes all those climbs and jumps exactly like Spider-man does. And by the way, the references to the spider-man movies are obvious and though it is a totally different character from another comic book. WHY??? Secondly, the acting is terrible. Not only Halle Berry, but for me the guy who plays the cop is the worst. I don't remember so far having seen a single emotion on his face and he just doesn't look like a real cop on the first look. So overall I could bring so many bad things about this movie but I'm just gonna say that the plot is just uninteresting and the story boring. There you go, that's my review.
Dream Theater: Live at Budokan (2004)
beautiful, honest, perfect
An amazing show. I just can't say anything else. For a concert that my favourite band plays and plays almost all the song from not their best album, it's still a perfect show. I already rated Chaos in motion a 10, but the only thing I didn't like with CIM is that it's not one single concert. Live at Budokan is one. And what a show! James Labrie's voice is fantastic. John Petrucci's talent is unbelievable. Mike Portnoy's drumming is breathtaking. Jordan Rudess fingers are invisible to human eyes with the speed he plays the keyboard and John Myung...well, it's John Myung. There you go. I just described the band Dream Theater through all their discography. And through the set list of this show as well. Live at Budokan, a must see for fans of metal, progressive rock and maybe even classical music. Watching this show just makes me so peaceful inside of me... See you guys, I'm going' to buy the DVD!
The Thing (1982)
haven't seen the original but this one is really good
The only words that pops in my head after seeing this is sci-fi and horror, and of course, the thing. This is probably my favourite horror film. Why? Because I think the idea is simply genius. A bunch of men going somewhere in Antarctica and some creature just randomly appears in the base. OK, starting like this doesn't make that movie look any good, but the rest of the film is just so powerful. The screenplay, the actors, the plot, the intrigue, the fact that we always want to know what will happen next...all those elements make this film a true masterpiece. Why, why in hell most of the recent horror films just don't get even close to this and just keep being bad? I'm actually watching the remake of The Thing. I'm about half of it and think it's pretty good but my guess is that it's not gonna be better than the original. Plus, I find the character that Kurt Russell plays very interesting. And by the way I find this actor very flexible in his roles. Very good actor. The Thing, by John Carpenter. A must see.
Eastern Promises (2007)
visually...perfect!
Eastern promises, by David Cronenberg. I think that this movie is MUCH better than history of violence, which I found kind of disappointing. I don't know, I just found some similar points with those two movies because both are with Viggo Mortensen, both are extremely violent and both are by the same director. Anyway, the story is totally different in both movies. Actually, I just found it way more interesting. The story of a family and all the bad stuff happening inside of it, with a front story of one girl having a baby and a doctor saving the baby... OK, maybe I just like Naomi watts, ha ha. But this movie's got something a lot better to offer: the visual. I don't know, it attracted me. I think that the photography, the cinematography, the camera shots, the scenes in general, are just amazingly perfect. The scenes show so many details that usually filmmakers wouldn't care about and would cut it off of the movie. But not David Cronenberg, this director has a lot of talent, definitely. Go see it. If you don't like it, it's fine, I understand that. It's not the best movie of the year, but one of them in my opinion. Also, this movie got my attention concerning specific aspects that I care about when I watch movies, and this, my friends, is something that depends of every person.
Match Point (2005)
Fascinating
This movie, a while after it was released, became one of my favourite. This is also the first movie I saw by Woody Allen and my favourite actress plays in it. At first look, the screenplay might look like so-so or not quite original. But I think that everybody was surprised after seeing the whole two hours. That's what happened with me. I rented, started it and I just couldn't pause it until the end. I was just totally absorbed by the story and I was always asking myself : oh my god, what's gonna happen next?, every single minute. That is exactly what I'm looking for in the movies and very few of them can do that. This is certainly the best film by Woody Allen. Now, everybody's gonna say: nope! nope, it's Annie Hall. Well, I wasn't so much amazed after seeing Annie Hall than Match Point. This film is awesome because it made me think for a long, long time after seeing it. And I watched it about a dozen times and I still enjoy it! And also, the actors are just great. Even if Jonathan Rhys-Meyers didn't get a lot of prize for this role, I still think that his performance was awesome. Plus, this film shows perfectly the lifestyle of wealthy Britain people, which I love. And the music, Oh! the music. So perfect, just so melodic, enjoyable, classic. A real true masterpiece.
Cassandra's Dream (2007)
underrated
It might have been hard for Allen to do something as good as Match Point, but even if Cassandra's Dream is not better, it is still a very enjoyable and entertaining movie. This is a Woody Allen film, no chance of being wrong with that. Just watch the way it is filmed, the beginning, the dialogues, you'll see that this is TOTALLY Woody Allen. Except that the main characters are not Woody himself and another female character, but two male characters. I guess this is not Allen's cup of tea to do that, but he did it quite successfully. Though Colin Farrell is not my favourite actor, at the opposite, I think Ewan McGregor is a much better one. But I think this film is still a very good movie even if not better than Match Point. The story stays very interesting, the actors are very good and the climax is just breathtaking, in my opinion. Another good Allen movie, keep going!
The Hitcher II: I've Been Waiting (2003)
give me back the last hour and half of my life
One of the worst movie ever. Period. That should be the title of the film. I haven't seen the original. But I saw the remake, which was still bad but not the worst thing ever. Anyway when you see a low-budget movie with bad actors, crappy shooting and boring action scenes you know that there is no real purpose of making such a film. Well though that's the case of the Hitcher 2, you start reading the ''directed by...'' at the end and then you ask yourself: what did I learn from this? Well nothing, nothing at all my friend. You just wasted your time seeing this crap.
This movie is bad. Don't watch it. To avoid at all cost.
Død snø (2009)
Nazi zombies? what the hell?
Well, before I start saying anything bad, I think this is a quite funny movie. Really, you see so much blood and gore and killing in this film that it's obvious that it just can't be serious. Well I guess that's a problem I have with movies, because I enjoy more serious movies. I do can appreciate funny action-violent movies but this? I really laughed at some scenes in this film but overall I just think it sucked. Seriously the acting is the worse I've seen in a LONG time, and this is something I notice a lot in movies. I don't know very much the good Norwegian actors but they should have get a phone call at least to save this film. Nope, it looks like they just took some random people who are so NOT in their roles of medicine students. The way some of the scenes are shot is just pathetic. It's obvious that at the final cut they just wanted us to see the gore and the blood splashing everywhere. That is NOT what I want to see, not in a movie with such a topic like Nazi zombies. It looks like they tried to put some mystery in the screenplay, to frighten us and to intrigue us with all the story told by the old guy in the cabin. Well my friend, this is a total failure. I yawned the whole time in the film (except the funny parts, which are not so funny at the end). The screenplay is terrible. And the zombies are just ridiculous, in fact they don't really look like zombies in my opinion. Watch this for a Friday night, drunk or high, with friends, when you DON'T want to watch a movie that'll make you think. Then you'll probably have a lot of fun. But otherwise to avoid at all cost.
Daybreakers (2009)
vampires took control over humans
I know that a lot of people liked this movie, but it is not my opinion. At first, this movie interested me because I thought the idea was good. Automatically when I knew that this movie was about vampires finding a solution to their problem which is that they ran out of humans, so then blood, in a modern period of time, I just wanted to see it as soon as possible. Plus, there were great actors playing in it: Sam Neil and Willem Dafoe. And at least their acting is good. But I was really disappointed at the end. I just thought that this movie was made in a row. Some scenes could have been shot in a way better angle of camera, for example. And some of them were just totally useless which could have been replaced by something better. That's the feeling I got after seeing it. The action scenes are just bad and boring. I almost yawned when the two brothers were attacked by a vampire in the house. And the so-called pursuit scene? I think the guy who filmed that should have watched the Jason Bourne trilogy or Drive before shooting a car pursuit. And finally, with the solution the vampires find to resolve the problem...it is the worst part of the movie. When I saw that my reaction was: no...really?! I got SO disappointed. And automatically this part led to a worse climax of the film. At the limit, if you're a vampire film fan, I would say that MAYBE you'll like it but otherwise don't waste your time or money on this.
Total Recall (2012)
action and sci-F
Yes, it's true, the actors are not so good, and it maybe not as good as the original, but I still liked it. Honestly, I don't quite remember of the original, except that the leading role was played by Arnold Schwarzenegger (this guy created his own genre of films). And in the remake, my opinion is that Colin Farrell was not the best choice to play the role again. So there were the bad sides of the film, now the good ones: The special effects! I don't remember having seen the city like that in the old one. I think the city was better made in the remake and you can see also a lot more details, especially during the action scenes, which are awesome. I don't remember having seen a movie with so much action in it. All the pursuit, fighting and shooting scenes have been holding my breath every second. I kinda like those sci- F films with a lot of destruction and action in it. I think that everyone who enjoy sci-F movies are gonna like it.
Sphere (1998)
There could be so much more...
This film is the kind of film that has a very interesting topic and a very original idea, but leaves us with a certain feeling of disappointment and that we wished more. The way it is filmed, the dialogues, the characters and the actors are pretty much standard, not original. I'd say the first half of the movie is even uninteresting. Another bad point is the music I'd say, which is just omnipresent in the movie. And this is one of the aspects of the movies (especially American ones) that annoys me. When it looks like they try to control our emotions by putting dramatic music in the action scenes and quiet tunes in love scenes. I hesitated a long moment if I would put a six or a seven on this movie. Because I just love the plot and the second half of the movie. At this point the story gets so much interesting and mysterious. I think they could have done a way, way better film with this plot. Oh and by the way the ending is just ridiculous, when they hold their hands and kinda 'pray', I was like: oh my god, this is just WRONG..
Les dangereux (2002)
Absolute waste of time
This movie is officially the worst thing I've ever see in my whole life. For a Quebec movie, it's still worse than many other bad horror/action films made in the US. Which is sad because I appreciate the films from my own province, really Québec directors can make some very good stuff. But this? I still don't understand why this thing has been approved. Paying for watching this is a total waste of time and money. The dialogues, the screenplay, the story, the cinematography, the plot, the climax, the topic, the actors, the title, the visual effects, the so-called action scenes, everything, EVERYTHING in this movie is stupid and makes us feel like total idiots. You could get a better use of the DVD by wiping your ass with it than actually putting it in the player and watch it, seriously. This is what this movie deserve.
Oblivion (2013)
Pure sci-fi, from start to finish
Oblivion, starring Tom Cruise, Olga Kuriyenko and Morgan Freeman. Directed by Joseph Kosinski, director of the efficient Tron in 2010.
Recently a lover of sci-fi movies, I got to admit that this one has a lot to offer. Visually, the movie is amazing. I personally loved the pursuit with the drone and the ship that Jack is driving in the middle. The idea stays original and it brings us to think about something, to just take a look on what the earth is gonna look like in the future, which is good, (okay, maybe the year 2017 is too soon for the planet to get look like in the film).
Personally, for someone who likes to appreciate good actor performances in the movie, I think that this film was not the worst that Tom Cruise played in in his career, in terms of acting. Still Tom Cruise played in pretty not bad sci-fi movies like Minority report (god I HAVE to see it again!), Morgan Freeman is, as always, an actor of good talent. Honestly since I just saw the whole Batman trilogy I just like to see movies with this actor. But Kuriyenko's acting is just bad I think. But damn she's hot. And maybe the love story was a bit too much?
Anyway I also saw some good references to other sci-fi movies like 2001: a space odyssey, which is one of my number one movies of all time. Oblivion can be a bit boring at the start but the climax for me was almost breathtaking and quite very interesting. Sci-fi lovers are definitely gonna love it and I recommend people to see it because it's very entertaining and worth every penny.
So there's my review and I hope you're gonna like it.
Dream Theater: Chaos in Motion (2008)
3 hrs of music, talent, melody, rock, metal,...oh just plain good Dream Theater
My rating might influence two things: the fact that I'm of the biggest fan of Dream Theater and that this is not a movie, it's a music show. But I don't care, I watch concerts like if they were movies so... And plus, this one is not even one single show, it's three hours of music played live in a bunch of different cities with tons of bonuses and documentaries. But I still watch this like if it was a movie, see like putting the DVD in the player, press Play in the menu, making some popcorn and a beer on the side. But that's probably the bad side (so not important it is) of this show. It would be perfect if it was one single show, and this brings aspects like the image quality of the songs, which some of them is just bad. But you know what? I still don't care. This video is perfect even with all the small imperfections. It is definitely my favourite music DVD so far.
Riddick (2013)
Out of Diesel
I gotta say that I'm not a HUGE fan of this trilogy and honestly I watched Pitch Black for the first time a bit later than I should've, actually I never understood it until recently and it was after I owned the chronicles of riddick and understood it. But this Riddick movie, 13 years after pitch black, I gotta say that it is kind of a bit disappointing. To be perfectly honest I just wanted more. Still the picture is pretty good and is worth to be seen. The riddick trilogy made me fall in love with sci-fi movies definitely and I am now a big fan of the Star Wars, Aliens, and stuff like that. So, visually, the film is astonishing. The special effects you see in it will look better to you than in many crappy 3D movies, and the thing is that the movie is....in 2D. The character, Riddick, is awesome. It is so much fun to watch him making jokes and being so relaxed all the time, in perfect control of his emotions whatever the situation is. So at the end, I wish there was more action in it and maybe some more solid stuff about the screenplay. But so far it stays a riddick movie, 13 years after pitch black, same director and same actor. Definitely not better than pitch black, probably better than the chronicles, well, depends of your opinion. Sci-fi movies addicts, fans of vin diesel movies, or whatever, you must see it.
The International (2009)
politics, war, corruption, etc, etc.
When I watched this film, I gotta say first, it was past midnight, I had to wake up early and I was tired. So, it means that I was not paying attention to all the details and the story. But overall, it's a good movie. Not some crap action movie with bad shooting scenes. This one is intelligent, well made and has some "meat around the bone" (no idea if that expression is used in English...). For me, the key scene is the shooting scene in the hall with all the white floors in the middle of the film. That was awesome! The level of violence we see in that part is so intense comparing to the rest of the film and I think that's a good way to "surprise" the audience. And it works! Definitely one of the best shooting scene ever. The rest of the film is good but I think that depends of the mood you are when you watch it. Actually you must be pretty awake if you want to follow what's happening on the screen. Another good point, NAOMI WATTS!!! Beautiful actress and...Am I the only one who noticed Francis Ford Coppola when they follow the guy in the street just before the shooting scene???!!! Anyway, for fans of spy, thrillers, action movies but still with true story and lots of politics and stuff are gonna like it.
The Prestige (2006)
impressive battle between two men through a forgotten art
The Prestige, I have to say, Mr. Nolan is close to my favorite filmmaker. Not only because he made superhero movies great films, but this man is also talented in other screenplays. For this one, for example, I'm not sure is it's his brother who got the idea, but the plot of two magicians engaging a battle for love and attacking each other by magic tricks is simply genius. Who the hell thought about that before, seriously? Great actor performances, stunning hot Scarlett Johansson and plus, he succeeds by making this film in another time of history and get appropriate costumes and landscapes. I think that this fact is a huge plus to any movie, whatever the subject is. It's pretty funny to see Hugh Jackman, who is the Wolverine, playing a total different kind of role, but it's nice to see also that he is a great actor even outside x-men movies, and for Bale, he is definitely getting a bigger place in my esteem for him and I think he is also a great actor. And oh God, the climax is so amazing! I'm not gonna say anything about it but I'm just gonna say that I almost jump of my couch when I saw it. Chris Nolan is definitely the man of modern films, keep making good stuff, I salute you.