Reviews

I'm not gonna lie, when I saw the trailer for Hardcore Henry, I was enthusiastic ! As far as I know, this is the first time a full length feature film was entirely shot from a POV standpoint. I remember Doom's first person shooter scene made quite an impact back in 2005. In fact it's the only reason to remember that otherwise average movie ! Shooting that sequence was quite a challenge and it only lasted a few minutes ! Ten years later, the web is inundated with POV footage shot with GoPro cameras. The technology and quality have evolved to the point that a project like Hardcore Henry has become both conceivable and affordable ! But just because you can do it doesn't mean you should do it ! While it's admirable to try and bring something new to the action genre, the risk with POV cameras is to induce nausea for some of its viewers. A few scenes are usually okay, but a feature-length 90-minute movie ? On top of that, I was also worried that the first-person action sequences would be the movie's only redeeming quality, meaning that the plot would be almost non-existent and the movie would look like a video game.

So to summarize, Hardcore Henry had the potential to either become a ground-breaking film that sets a new bar for great action sequences (kind of like Crank and Cloverfield had a baby !), or be a terrible stomach-churning video game B-movie, as if Uwe Boll directed The Bourne Supremacy!

Unfortunately, the latter is closer to the truth. While I admit that I didn't feel sick at the end of the movie (which is an achievement in itself!), Hardcore Henry definitively suffers from its ridiculous story and dialogs, over-the-top action and cardboard cutout characters who seem to come straight from an 80's video game. All in all, it felt like I was watching a 90-minute cutscene, which is why I think this film will only appeal to hardcore FPS gamers who just want to see a transposition of their favorite game on the big screen. 5 out of 10.

I'm not a big fan of boxing/fighting movies as they tend to always have the same key plot points : an underdog fighter with personal/family issues must find a trainer, preferably one with unorthodox methods, in order to compete against the top contestant. He usually wins at the end of an exhausting fight, and in the process, makes peace with his past and proves that believing in yourself accomplishes miracles. We've seen it dozens of times, from the originals that started it all : Rocky and Raging Bull, to Million Dollar Baby, Cinderella Man and the more recent Southpaw and Creed. And yet, judging by the box office results and the number of Oscar nominations, it seems we and the industry can't get enough of it!

What makes a great fighting movie then ? What makes it stand out ? As we've seen, it's certainly not the story; it's not even the fight scenes themselves. It's how realistically the fighter goes from underdog to champion while working on his personal issues. The physical transformation must parallel an emotional journey. In short, it's the acting, which explains why these films are usually nominated for best performance awards.

Warrior is a great example of that. On top of great performances by Edgerton, Hardy and especially Nolte, the film introduces a few differences from the genre that will make it stick in your memory : instead of the usual boxer/trainer dynamics, we follow the rise of two estranged brothers and their father (yes, two outsiders is better than one !). And the combat sport is mixed martial arts, which is a nice change of pace and will probably help make MMA and the UFC more visible. Real UFC fights can be really violent and bloody, but Warrior doesn't suffer from its PG-13 rating, as it manages to portray the sheer brutality of the fights in a convincing way.

All in all, Warrior is a great surprise : even if, like me, combat sports are not your cup of tea, it will still move you! Warrior truly is an underrated movie that deserves its spot in IMDb's Top 250. 8 out of 10.

For once, I fully agree with the Academy's decision to nominate both Eddie Redmayne and Alicia Vikander for their roles. Individually they are both talented young actors (who can forget Redmayne in The Theory of Everything and Vikander in Deus Ex Machina ?), but here they managed to show real chemistry on screen and, as a result, watching those two interact with each other is a real treat! They form a really cute couple!

The subject matter is a complicated one and overall The Danish Girl is a drama, but there's also a romance there, and overall I felt that the tone of the movie was quite uplifting and not overly dramatic, contrary to a lot of Oscar's contenders. Much of this has to do - I think - with the subtle yet powerful way the two main actors deliver their lines and show their emotions. The rest of the cast does a great job of supporting them, especially Matthias Schoenaerts and Ben Whishaw.

It's hard not to notice the parallel between Gerda and Einar's job as painters and the cinematography : lots of scenes seem to be taken from a painting. Or is it the other way around ? I thought it was a really nice touch and helped give the film a unique visual identity.

The fact that parts of the movie were shot in Brussels, in places I love (the Royal Galleries and Park, the famous "A La Mort Subite" café) probably made me appreciate this movie more than I would normally, but still, this is an excellent, beautiful movie that I wholeheartedly recommend! 9 out of 10.

I went to see this movie without really knowing its pitch or genre. Increasingly, I feel this is the best way to enjoy a feature film, as trailers reveal more and more of the story, going as far as basically spoiling major plot points and leaving nothing to the imagination. A movie trailer should reveal as little as possible but still tease your interest. Good trailers are works of art in their own right : they have their own story and may even use footage that won't appear in the finished movie.

Anyway, all I knew about "Demolition" was that it tells the story of a guy who has to cope with the loss of his wife and, because of that title, I supposed that he was going to loose his mind and that his life was slowly going to spiral out of control. Kind of like 1993's "Falling Down" with Michael Douglas.

While it is true that there is a fair bit of demolition (literally) and quirkiness involved, ultimately this movie is about a man deconstructing his life, demolishing his prejudices in order to find his true self. Once again, Gyllenhaal truly inhabits his character and delivers a remarkable performance, almost as good as his Oscar-worthy role in "Nightcrawler" (which was inexplicably snubbed by the Academy). Gyllenhaal is slowly becoming one of the most talented actors in Hollywood these days! Although the rest of the cast is quite good -- especially the young Judah Lewis -- I'm not sure this film would have worked without him.

All in all, a strange yet interesting film. 7 out of 10.

In the Young Adult Sci-fi genre, The Divergent Series has always been the weakest of them all, but this movie manages to reach a new low ! It seems every episode recycles the same plot, not only from this franchise but also from the more refined Hunger Games series and even from the subpar Maze Runner series. So much so that I found myself mixing all three franchises ! To be honest, all of them are interchangeable. The recipe to a successful YA series is so simple that all you need to do is to slightly change the subplots, the settings and the name of the characters and voila : you get a generic YA trilogy! And if you really want to milk the cow dry, you should make a two-part finale, because, hey, if the public has already seen three of your damned movies, they'll pay for a fourth one, right ?

Anyway, I digress, back to this installment then ! To say that the plot is clear as day is an understatement : it is transparent, almost non-existent. Anyone who has seen at least one YA film could have summed up the plot in 3 sentences before seeing this movie.

Usually, YA movies have top-notch visual effects, cool futuristic props and spectacular dystopian sets. Well, it seems that their budget got allocated somewhere else because the CGI is second-rate at best. Good sci-fi props and sets have to look and feel like they're real, have a history, a purpose. I would call that "practicality and physicality". Allegiant's sets are cool and beautiful but they fail completely in this regard. Especially those ships !

What about the dialogs and actor's performance then ? They are a few respected and promising actors in here, but sadly their talent is wasted. No real emotions, campy lines and superhero-like fighting sequences : that's what you'll get! This movie is shallow as a puddle, unimpressive and uninspired. Save yourself the price of admission and rewatch a half-decent YA franchise like Hunger Games for example. 3 out of 10.

Tarantino movies are known for their gorgeous cinematography, rich dialogs, great soundtrack and... violence ! And I'm happy to say that his 8th movie delivers on all of these aspects ! I saw the digital version, which is slightly shorter than the 70mm version. Still, at almost 3 hours, this movie takes its time. But it allows the director to set the stage right and to introduce each character properly. And it also let us appreciate the superb Oscar-nominated cinematography and witty dialogs.

Tarantino movies are a bit of an acquired taste and this one is no different. You have to let yourself immerse into its world. Sure, some establishing shots could have been cut shorter (I have a feeling this is due to the Ultra Panavision format) but I loved every single minute of it ! There are clear similarities between this movie and Reservoir Dogs : it takes place almost entirely inside a building (be it a haberdashery or an abandoned warehouse) and the story revolves around guessing who's not what he says he is. It's also a bit reminiscent of Agatha Christie's "Ten Little N-words" (also known under the more politically correct title "And Then There Were None"). I found the pacing and timing to be perfect : the slow build up to the first death, the reveal of who's who and the final act are all perfectly executed and very satisfying ! One thing I didn't expect was how funny this movie would be ! I found myself laughing for a good part of it thanks to deliciously witty lines and well written dialogs. I had almost forgotten that, on top of being the coolest tough guy actor, Jackson is also a great comedian ! It truly is a delight to hear Tarantino's dialogs being expertly delivered by Jackson, it's like music to the ear. The rest of the cast doesn't disappoint either, with amazing performances all around. Goggins and Leigh are especially funny and seem to really inhabit their role. It's no wonder that Leigh has been nominated for best supporting actress at this year's Academy Award.

As far as the level of violence is concerned, I'm pretty sure that some people will complain about it, just like any of Tarantino's previous works. Sure, it's a bit gratuitous, but at the same time, just like Kill Bill, it is so unrealistic and over-the-top that it becomes slapstick. I didn't feel that it glorified violence, it made it look silly.

After seeing "The Hateful Eight", I wondered when was the last time that I got disappointed by a Tarantino flick ? And I came to the conclusion that it simply never happened ! I'm amazed to see that after 8 movies he still got that magic touch ! Tarantino definitively is one of the five best directors out there and probably my favorite.

If I had to nitpick, I would say that the score was slightly underwhelming compared to Tarantino's usual masterful selection of relatively unknown tracks. I also found Madsen to look a bit tired, mumbling through his lines, and Bell's hyperactive nature seemed out of place in this movie.

Regardless, compared to the dread that hits the silver screen every year (I'm looking at you, superheroes movies and cheap remakes !), this film is a masterpiece and deserves an exceptional rating. I've rated more than 1100 movies on IMDb, and this is the 7th time I give a perfect score : 10 out of 10 !

Let me start by saying that I never was a fan of Star Wars, be it the original trilogy or the prelogy. I always considered those films to be made for children (which is why selling the franchise rights to Disney made perfect sense to me), with campy dialogues, simplistic plots and ridiculous characters. Some of those errors were partially corrected in the prelogy (with the notable exception of Jar-Jar, and the horrible chemistry between Padme and Anakin), which is why I prefer the more recent episodes. Still, on the whole, the 6 episodes are quite mediocre films. To me, Lucas' real achievement has always been his ability to push the technical boundaries of film making and to create (and market) a whole universe from scratch. In short, he's a great visionary, but a poor director and writer.

So when episode VII was announced, I didn't expect much. Reviews were mostly positive, but then again, when it comes to franchises that have achieved cult status, objective criticism is very uncommon.

J.J. Abrams had the almost impossible task of delivering a movie that would satisfy hordes of devoted fans who probably know the Star Wars Universe better than their own family, while at the same time making something fresh and different. Well it seems he opted for the easy way out by making a movie that is essentially a mix of the first 3 episodes, nothing more, nothing less. There is absolutely nothing new about this film : some say homage, I say blatant remake (or reboot like they say in Hollywood now)! Right from the traditional opening crawl, it is clear that the plot is exactly the same as the original trilogy : they just changed the name of the villains, added a few new characters and that's all ! This is the definition of a lazy, self-important, money grabbing, fan-service movie.

How boring, predictable and uneventful this movie is ! The prelogy was flawed but at least we had impressive sets, amazing effects and great actions scenes to look at ! Although this movie is set in the future compared to the first 6 episodes, because they opted for this whole retro look, it seems their technology is less advanced than before, which makes absolutely no sense ! I could go on and on about the actors (Ford seems to be wondering what he's doing there !), childish humour, recycled plot and atrocious pacing but really, I couldn't be bothered.

In conclusion, if you want to see this "new" episode, just put that old DVD in your player and enjoy it in the comfort of your home for free ! 4/10.

After the uninspired "Brave" and the lazy sequels to "Cars" and "Monsters Inc", it seemed that Pixar had transferred its talent to Disney and vice versa : "Wreck-It Ralph" and "Big Hero 6" clearly looked like Pixar productions, with their adult references and geek humour, while "Brave" was a traditional (dare I say boring ?) fairy tale and "Cars 2" a cheap sequel that Disney could have made. To me, it felt like Pixar was slowly losing the magic that made it stand out.

Then came the trailer for Pixar's latest movie, "Inside Out", and suddenly hope was renewed ! I thought that it looked very promising and I couldn't wait to see it ! The idea behind the movie is pretty simple : what if we could see what happened inside a person's brain ? While the french TV series "Il était une fois... la Vie" did it from a documentary perspective, Pixar opted for a subtle mix of comedy, drama and insightful ideas.

While the script may sound simplistic, it actually is really well thought out and everything falls into place perfectly. But the real genius comes from all the wonderful ideas the writers came with to materialize and explain how the human mind works.

I'm not going to beat around the bush : this movie is simply brilliant ! The last time Pixar took a risk with a truly innovative idea, they gave us "Up", and it was a complete success! It's nice to see that there are still a few writers and producers willing to push fresh ideas to the big screen! My only regret is that it was too short ! I wanted it to last 30 minutes more at least ! They could have expanded their concept a bit more, but at the same time it is true that the movie is quite dense and fast paced : I found myself rewinding or pausing the film several times to pick up all the small but delightful details.

"Inside Out" is a rare example of a movie that I would love to watch a second time right after it finished, and that tells a lot about its quality! For that reason, it definitively deserves a place in my personal top 3 Pixar movies, right there with "The Incredibles" and "WALL-E". 9/10

Oh my gaaaawd was this film a complete waste of time and talent ! Where do I start ? The characters : well their backstory can be summarized in a few words or one sentence at best, so to say that they are shallow is an understatement. To see great actors like Del Toro and Brolin playing those lifeless, uninteresting cardboard characters is a real shame and a waste of talent. The plot : it is convoluted and isn't really going anywhere in the end. The film has nothing to say ! The cinematography : the director tries to build tension by showing long shots of random landscapes, but it just ends up being as boring and pointless as the rest of the movie. What we are left with is just another violent movie which capitalizes on its cast and sensationalism to lure us in.

I could write a lengthy review about how dull this movie is, how the fact that it is so overcrowded with minor characters that none of the Avengers gets a proper treatment, how thin and ridiculous the script is, how bad the dialogs and jokes are, but in the end it wouldn't make a difference, because no matter how bad this umpteenth Marvel movie is, people will still see it, if only for the special effects. Marvel's universe is an endless money making machine so they will continue shoving their mediocre movies down our throats as long as they keep earning billions from it! To me, this movie could be summed up in 3 letters : SOB - same old bullshit. 5/10

As always with sequels, I was worried that it wouldn't stand up to the quality of its predecessor, especially since I consider Ted to be one of the funniest American comedies in years ! I am very glad to say that Seth MacFarlane truly outdid himself, as I found Ted 2 to be even funnier and smarter than the first film ! Having the story focus on Ted's problems instead of John's means this movie isn't a lazy and boring attempt at cashing in on the success of the first film by having the same storyline with a few twists (I'm looking at you The Hangover !). This is a different, more mature film, albeit with the same characters that we love ! There are still a lot of references to the geek culture and recent news events, but these moments aren't distracting. I had a great time and laughed a lot, which is exactly what this movie is supposed to do! So, well done Mr MacFarlane ! 8/10

I grew up watching the Jurassic Park trilogy, so I was really excited to see the giants back on the big screen. This movie is everything the trailer promised it would be : a 2-hour silly but entertaining dinosaurs-filled, action-packed adventure film! I was worried it would have too many cheesy one-liners and one-dimensional, helpless, annoying characters but it does a good job of avoiding those weaknesses : the few jokes are well timed and actually funny and I found myself caring for most of the main protagonists. It's true that it is not particularly innovative compared to the previous trilogy : there are a lot of similarities between this film and 1993's Jurassic Park; some of them are clearly intentional and meant as a homage, which was kind of a nice touch I thought. If I had to complain, I would say that the director overused the famous close-up shot of a carnivore's head approaching and sniffing its human prey. And I would have preferred an R rating : there is remarkably very few blood for a movie about giants beasts tearing humans into pieces ! 8/10

Let's be honest, the only reason why you and I would watch this is for the special effects ! While they don't disappoint, there were a few moments where they could have been better, in particular the opening scene, which was really bad in my opinion. Apart from that, this is a typical disaster movie, and as such it suffers from all the usual pitfalls of that genre : stereotypical characters (you've got the scientist, the hero who tries to reunite his family, the selfish a**hole, etc), predictable storyline and of course the infamous shot of a giant wave chasing the hero, or the earth shattering 2 feet behind him. At least they avoided the annoying/helpless teenager cliché ! All in all, nothing new to see here. Not bad, but not great either : 6/10.

The trailer got me really interested, especially because it seemed to promise a fierce duel between Dujardin & Lellouche, not unlike the memorable Al Pacino/De Niro duel in "Heat", which I still consider to be the absolute best gangster movie ever! Well, it didn't really deliver on those promises... Dujardin was great as a relentless judge, but unfortunately I thought that Lellouche lacked the kind of machismo and presence that would have made him a strong opponent to Dujardin. He wasn't convincing as a feared and respected drug kingpin. Without what should have been its strongest point, the film fails to keep us interested, mainly because of its uninspired plot and dialogs as well as its length. Because of all this, "La French" feels like a missed opportunity. Too bad, I really wanted to love this one! If you wanna watch a great french gangster movie, I recommend "L'immortel" or "Truands". 6/10

I just saw this movie and I really enjoyed it ! I don't remember exactly the plot of Top Gun (maybe because there wasn't one ;-) ) but I'm sure that this movie is much better than Top Gun. (And no, I'm not saying that because I'm European !) Why ? First because it has an outstanding cinematography : the landscapes are various (the Alps, the sea, the desert and even Paris) and beautifully caught by the camera : they never shot anything if there wasn't the kind of clouds they wanted for example !

The best aspect of this movie is without any doubt the formidable camera angles. In Top Gun they mostly used cameras on the ground and special effects for the cockpit scenes. In this movie everything is shot from five cameras in a modified pod on a jet fighter and the result is absolutely breathtaking ! The technique they used to shot the actors in the cockpit is not the same as the Tony Scott film : in Top Gun it's the camera that rotates around the actor, in this movie the actors and the camera were on some kind of elevator with an articulated arm that can rotates in all directions, so that they were upside down and shaken like in a simulator ! The result is way more convincing and believable after the blue screen is replaced with the superb images.

The plot is also quite good, although it's still an action movie ! There's a lot of humor and the cast delivers a good performance... And finally, the soundtrack is always well chosen : The ambient, mood music beautifully reinforces the feeling of lightness and calm when the planes are flying high in the clouds, and on the other hand the rock music matches perfectly with the thrilling dogfight scenes ! What else do you ask to that kind of movie ? For me the only problem is the end, (wich I will not disclose here) : in my opinion it's too abrupt, I was expecting something bigger and longer... But it's still a good one.

Overall, a good movie for everyone : 8 out of 10 !