Movie Review

1997 Movie Review: TOMORROW NEVER DIES, 1997

festreviews 1997 Movies, movie, Movie Review, Uncategorized , , , , , , , , ,

Submit your Screenplay to the Festival TODAY

TOMORROW NEVER DIES MOVIEGOLDENEYE, 1997
Movie Reviews

Directed by Roger Spottiswoode

Starring Pierce Brosnan, Jonathan Pryce, Michelle Yeoh, Teri Hatcher,Joe Don Baker and Judi Dench.
Review by Jesse Ryder Hughes

SYNOPSIS:

Elliot Carver is a corrupt media baron out to start a war between the United Kingdom and China. China will not let Carver have exclusive media rights in their country. He uses a GPS system to send a British naval ship off course into the South China Sea where his stealth ship sinks the vessel and steals the missiles. He then blows up a Chinese fighter plane sent to investigate making it seem like the plane and the ship attacked each other. Bond is sent in to investigate Carver after Carver leaked the information before anyone else knew about it. The Chinese send in their own spy Wai Lin (Michelle Yeoh) to investigate as well. Bond and Lin team up to stop Carver from firing the British missiles at Beijing and starting a war between their countries, which is already starting to begin.

CLICK HERE and watch TV SHOWS FOR FREE!

Take a look at what’s new today!

REVIEW:

Tomorrow never dies is the most action packed Bond film in the series. It sets up the plot quickly and then it is one action set piece after the other. It is well done for the most part. The plot isn’t as complex as Goldeneye with a forced relationship between Elliot Carver’s wife Paris and Bond. The emotion feels forced within the writing as compared to Goldeneye. Other than that it is a fun ride. Michelle Yeoh is great as a Chinese agent with great martial arts, as always from her. The focus on the power of media is interesting and relevant. Carver uses it to his advantage dreaming of a world by his standards. He proves himself to be a powerful dictator and using the media to deliver his message and shape his world. It is interesting to think of the media and how it could be used for the ultimate good in mankind and the ultimate evil.

There are some great stunts involving Bond driving his car from the backseat using a remote control and being chased by a helicopter handcuffed to Wai Lin on a motorcycle. It is good to see a good evil henchman as well. (Stamper, who is scary and is obsessed with taking Bond down). Its good to know that henchmen are still fun and useful in the future.

Tomorrow Never dies may not be as sophisticated as Goldeneye in terms of an all round great Bond film, but it still does the trick and ups the ante with intricate action scenes. It is also in no way cheesy and I didn’t find myself feeling like anything was that far fetched for what it was. I always pop in Tomorrow Never Dies because it is just a fun action movie. By no means great, but a lot of fun. Michelle Yeoh has my vote for toughest Bond girl, doing all her own stunts and helping the action scenes seem more realistic.

 

TOMORROW NEVER DIES, 1997

Submit your Screenplay to the Festival TODAY

1997 Movie Review: TO DIE FOR TANO, 1997

festreviews 1997 Movies, movie, Movie Review, Uncategorized , , , , , ,

Submit your Screenplay to the Festival TODAY

TO DIE FOR TANO MOVIETO DIE FOR TANO, 1997
Movie Reviews

Director: Roberta Torre

Cast: Ciccio Guarino, Enzo Paglino, Mimma De Rosalia
Review by Jordan Young

SYNOPSIS:

In this murder-mystery parody, Tano (based on the real lifemobster Tano Guarrasi.) is killed and in this Unsolved Mystery meets musical style, we are told of the events that lead up to, and follow his death.

CLICK HERE and watch TV SHOWS FOR FREE!

Take a look at what’s new today!

REVIEW:

Tano Da Morire is a lot of fun, it feels like it is the Italianequivalent of Tarantino’s and Rodriguez’s grindhouse double feature,with all the satire and absurdity of all the “Naked Gun” movies.

The video quality really threw me off, (it was shot in the early nineties which makes sense) but the filmmaker knew that this was a joke, which makes it bearable. It caught me on several occasions laughing out loud, not merely snickering.

This is completely tongue-in-cheek and the most light-hearted look at the mafia I have ever seen. This film transcends conventional genre as well. It is stylistically similar to the Unsolved Mysteries TV show, with the exception of ludicrous musical numbers laced through out the interviews.

There seems to be one unifying theme during transitional scenes. A very smarmy traditional sounding Italian dance mixed with thestereotypically southern twangy instrument (the mouth harp, or it’s unpolitically correct synonym the Jew’s Harp.) Which is used here as a joke by itself. This might have been done to indicate that they were all showcased as “townies” (with all of the negative implications of that term) in the film.

In previous reviews I have written, I have praised the amateur actors that have been used in the films of De Sica, and Herzog, and this film has the same aspects. It appears like this was just shot a village and everyone involved in this film was a native. (This is very similar to Troll 2, which has equally hilarious results.) However, this is nowhere similar to the tone of the two aforementioned directors. It is in fact directly contrasting the tragic aspects and making them hilarious.

 

TO DIE FOR TANO, 1997

Submit your Screenplay to the Festival TODAY

1997 Movie Review: TITANIC, 1997

festreviews 1997 Movies, movie, Movie Review , , , , , , , ,

Submit your Screenplay to the Festival TODAY

TITANIC, 1997
Movie Review

Directed by James Cameron
Starring: Kate Winslet, Leonardo DiCaprio, Billy Zane, Kathy Bates
Review by Andrew Rowe

SYNOPSIS:

Fictional romantic tale of a rich girl and poor boy who meet on the ill-fated voyage of the ‘unsinkable’ ship.

REVIEW:

He spends twenty minutes setting up the story before we are even introduced to the main characters. Atop of that he spends another hour and twenty minutes before introducing us to that big white block of ice that changed Hollywood forever. This is James Cameron’s film. He wrote it, co-edited it, and directed it. He made the film exactly the way he wanted to, and I would not have it any other way.

Cameron uses every single one of the film’s 194 minutes to tell his story. Every shot is there for a reason, and as long as its running time is, there is no point that boredom creeps in. Cameron uses a great storytelling device, which consists of the film opening and closing in a modern setting. Brock Lovett is a treasure hunter looking for the “Heart of the Ocean” in the wreck of the RMS Titanic. Rose DeWitt Bukater, a survivor of the Titanic sees Lovett on television. She contacts him and is sent with her daughter to his boat. There is a drawing of Rose that was found in a safe on the wreck, it’s a nude portrait of Rose wearing the “Heart of the Ocean”. Rose then begins telling her story of her time on the Titanic.

We’re then transported to 1912; Cameron puts his massive budget to good use with beautiful crane shots that mix dazzling special effects with brilliant art design. One shot in particular is when young Rose, played by Kate Winslet exits her car. The camera cranes down over her large brimmed purple hat to reveal the beautiful actress. It’s just one of the many moments Cameron uses filmmaking magic to bring his story to vivid visual life. He makes it well known that this is a film of epic proportions, and we are in for a treat.

Leonardo DiCaprio’s Jack Dawson is introduced as a penniless artist who travels the globe with the clothes on his back. As compared to Rose who is a first-class socialite, Jack won his ticket on the Titanic through a poker game. The two find themselves meeting at the stern of the boat, where Rose is about to commit suicide. Jack talks her down, and their romance begins.

Jack tries to show Rose how to hawk a “loogie” like boys do, and although this scene may seem unnecessary; it’s just a pit stop on the road to their destination of love. Over the course of an hour and twenty minutes we’ve seen Jack and Rose fall in love, and it feels real. Cameron took his time, but because of his patience and gentle pacing, we’ve fallen just as in love with them as they are with eacthother. Teenagers and adult filmgoers alike cannot deny the chemistry between these two; their love is one for the ages.

When the boat does strike the iceberg it’s not an immediate threat, it’s a casual impending doom. Water slowly fills the lower class section of the boat. The women and children in first class begin loading onto lifeboats, knowing they’re leaving behind people that will never see land again. The sense of panic and intensity builds and builds. Cameron has a great ensemble cast he’s been developing the whole film and has a purposeful fate for each of them. When the boat breaks in half and begins sinking it is the greatest car crash you can’t look away from that has ever been caught on film. With little music, Cameron lets the screams of the passengers falling to their death haunt you. Bodies bounce off propellers and other pieces of the boat, women and children wait in their beds as water surrounds them, thousands of lives are ending before our eyes. The images are horrific, and you’ve never been so happy cuddled up on your warm couch.

You could nit pick at some of the script and its dialogue, just as you can the lyrics in best pop songs of our time. That is essentially what Titanic is, an amazingly crafted film that appeals to everyone, because it has something for everyone. It’s bubblegum pop in film form, a romantic tragedy, a disaster film, and the fact that the event is a part of history allows it to resonate even more. It’s such an experience that even after its initial impact, still delivers what it did a decade ago, popcorn chomping bliss on the greatest scale.

 

titanic

1997 Movie Review: SUICIDE KINGS, 1997

festreviews 1997 Movies, movie, Movie Review , , , , , , , , ,

Submit your Screenplay to the Festival TODAY


SUICIDE KINGS, 1997
Movie Reviews

Directed by Peter O’Fallon
Starring: Christopher Walken, Denis Leary, Jay Mohr, Henry Thomas, Sean Patrick Flanery
Review by Melissa Mendelson 

SYNOPSIS:

A group of youngsters kidnap a respected Mafia figure.

 

REVIEW:The cards are dealt. Aces are high, and Jokers are wild. Play your hand. Check your opponents. The game continues, and you’re on a roll. But moments later, you’re about to take a fall, and you have to make it through the game with only the cards that you hold. And the wheel of fate spins, and where it stops nobody knows. And you play, hoping your bluff isn’t called, but the game has reached its end.

You think you know life, but never doubt its poker face. The best of friends may have the worst intentions, and your worst enemy may turn into your savior. And if you fold all the time, you may become a puppet on a string, but if you bluff too many times, well, a spade will be called a spade. And Life continues to deal out the cards that you now hold in your hand, and nothing is what it seems. So, do you fold once more, or do you bluff, hoping nobody will see through your façade? And will you be ready for the next turn of events?

What are Suicide Kings? Are they men united, tin soldiers ready to fight for what they believe in? Are they pawns in the hands of another, paper dolls walking a thin wire? Do they know the company that they keep, and do they play their game? And if they must sacrifice to save a life, does that make them a Suicide King?

The game begins, and the enemy captured sets the plan into action. The stakes are high, and the dice is rolled. And a web of lies and betrayal hangs overhead, and the tension is digging in deep. And the life to save is the fuel marching those forward into a deadly, intricate plot, and life deals out another hand. And fate waits its turn to play.

In the movie, Suicide Kings, a close knit of friends risks all in a high stakes game to save a life. Drifting across a razor’s edge, they focus on their plan and the players, and their plot begins to unfold. And everything seems to go smoothly, but despite the cards that they hold in their hand, their captive may have a few aces up his own sleeve. And he is ready to raise the bar and push them to their limits, and their bluffs will be called. And when the dust settles, all bets are off.

The story of love is never-ending, and a love like Romeo and Juliet’s echoes deep within this dark tale. Would you risk all to be with the one you love? Would you lay your life on the line to save theirs? Loyalties are put to the test, confrontations fierce, and the bonds of friendship will be played against the games of the heart. But in the end, does love win, or will it destroy?

Suicide Kings is a rich cinematic treasure reflecting movies such as The Game, Usual Suspects, Unknown, and L.A. Confidential. Suspense and drama intensify the storyline, and the intensity continues to rise straight toward an ending that you will never see coming. A blend of talent and charisma from dedicated actors ignites the characters to life. The bonds of friendship are put to the ultimate test, and the act of betrayal is delivered as sharp as razor’s edge. And from the beginning to the end, we are held captive, taking a walk “on the dark side of the moon,” and watching as the cards fall. And Aces are high, Jokers dance, and Suicide Kings are wild.This film won Best Director and Best Cinematography, and was nominated for five other categories. The screenwriter was nominated, and rightly so. Taken from a short story that first appeared in the Saturday Evening Post in 1933 by Maurice Walsh, Green Rushes, Frank Nugent was able to weave a story rich in subtext and conflict.

The collector’s edition of the DVD includes an interview with Maureen O’Hara where she reminisces about filming The Quiet Man, and is well worth watching.

 

Film Review: LOVING VINCENT (Poland /UK 2017) ***

festreviews 2017 movies, movie, Movie Review , , , , , , ,

Submit your Screenplay to the Festival TODAY

Loving Vincent Poster
Trailer

The world’s first fully oil painted feature film, brings the artwork of Vincent van Gogh to life in an exploration of the complicated life and controversial death of one of history’s most celebrated artists.

Directors:

Dorota Kobiela, Hugh Welchman

Writers:

Dorota Kobiela, Hugh Welchman 

Stars:

Douglas Booth, Jerome Flynn, Robert Gulaczyk

A Polish English co-production, the film features Polish animators with voices from actors largely from the United Kingdom.  LOVING VINCENT boasts to be the first hand painted animated feature.  It examines the mysterious facts surrounding the death of the famous Dutch painter Vincent Van Gogh.

It took more than 100 animators and them to be re-trained in animation for the film.  It shows.  The film is beautifully ‘painted’ in the style of the Master himself.  Each frame could very much be something Van Gogh himself might have painted.  The segments in the farm fields and the colours used are reminiscent of Van Gogh’s most famous paintings.

Audiences should be familiar with the particularities of Van Gogh’s life.  Among these facts are his suicide, his stay at a mental asylum, his cutting off of his ear in Arles and his relationship with his brother Theo.  LOVING VINCENT reveals more of the facts and details with some doubt given on the reasons behind Van Gogh’s death.  But many will not know that he wrapped the severed ear as a present to given to a whore or that Theo paid for most of Vincent’s art materials and lived poorly as a result.

All the incidents surrounding Van Gogh’s death are revealed through the excuse of the delivery of one last letter Vincent apparently wrote to his brother Theo.  This letter was undelivered by the postman Joseph Roulin (Chis O’Dowd), so he commission his son Armand (Douglas Booth), a hard drinker and scrapper to do the job  He reluctantly does.  When he discovers that Theo is also dead, he finds the good doctor who was Van Gogh’s good friend and mentor to give the letter to.  He then finds out the truth behind Van Gogh’s death.

Directors Dorota Kobiela and Hugh Welchman play their film like an investigational whodunit.  One segment has Armand explained that Van Gogh could not have shot himself in the stomach due to the impossibility of the gun’s angle.  Why too would Vincent ask for art supplies the next day from his brother if he was to commit suicide?  Doubts are also put about on Van Gogh’s flirting with whores and also at one point possible homosexuality at a possible gay encounter with the teen village idiot.

The film could do with a bit of humour even though the subject matter is serious.  I cannot recall a single bout of humour in the film.  The film also does not justify Armand’s motivation into wanting to know the truth of Vn Gogh’s death.  He does say at one point in he film: “I want to do more for the artist,” but why he feels that way is never dealt with.

But not all of the artist’s bad points are highlighted in a film that is affectionally called LOVING VINCENT, though moments that highlight the artists work are rare.  Van Gogh’s dream of showing the world that a nobody like him could have the world remember him forever is inspirational.  The film’s romanticizing of his death as a short cut to heaven instead of the slower route of a  normal death is cute. 

The coloured hand painted animation is well worth the price of the admission ticket of LOVING VINCENT, despite the events of its intriguing premise unfolding stoically. 

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47h6pQ6StCk

LUCKY (USA 2017)  ***1/2

Directed John Carroll Lynch

Harry Dean Stanton plays the character of LUCKY of the film title in a film that audiences recognize could be the real Harry Dean Stanton.  LUCKY is the nickname the ex-navy man earned after being designated the cook in the Navy while others were sent to fight and die during the War.  Lucky is 90, bitter, alone (but not lonely as he has a routine of chores to do each day), cynical, sickness free, and smokes a lot.

The audience sees Lucky doing the same things daily – visiting the grocery store with the Mexican cashier to get his cigarettes; having some drinks at the bar; having coffee at his dual diner; and watching his favourite quiz show – but with different reactions.  The soundtrack replays the tune of “Old River Valley’ on a harmonica.

The film contains a lot of musings like what realism (as explained by Lucky as real for one person but not necessarily in another occurs to another) is or even the friendship between man an animal as the latter discussion (it is apparently essential to the soul) starts.  Lucky’s friend, Howard (David Lynch) at the bar walk in to sadly announce the loss of President Roosevelt, his pet tortoise. (Lucky does not believe this….. not the statement but the existence of a soul.)  Though the latter statement seems inconsequential dialogue in the script, it is important in the way Lucky looks at life if he does not believe in the existence of a soul.

The film is directed by actor John Carroll base on the script by Logan Sparks and Drago Sumonja.  The film pays more attention to the character than to plotting.  The film is also wonderfully acted by Stanton.  Director David Lynch delivers a surprisingly moving speech defending his case of leaving his inheritance to his tortoise that has apparently escaped as does James Darren how a nothing person like him transformed to one who now has everything.

LUCKY the film can be best described as a cynical coming-of age movie of a 90-year old man who has almost given up on life.  It is quite an idea for a film which is likely the story got made.  It is a film about an old fart that is not the typical Hollywood old fart film like the fantasies of old people reminiscing on their youth or having sex one more time.  Lucky confesses in one scene that he can hardly get it up any more.  Here, Lucky says in the film’s most intimate scene where he reveals his deep secret to his friend, Loretta (Yvonne Huff): “I’m scared.”  It all happens when he falls down out of feeling faint, though doctor (Ed Begley Jr.) tells him that nothing major is wrong with him.

Harry Dean Stanton passed away this year (2017).  LUCKY is a worthy swan song of an actor that has surprised audiences many a time with his wide range of performances.

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YurR6xZeBCk

Film Review: PROFESSOR MARSTEN AND THE WONDER WOMEN (USA 2017) ***

festreviews 2017 movies, movie, Movie Review , , , , , ,

Submit your Screenplay to the Festival TODAY

Professor Marston and the Wonder Women Poster
Trailer

The story of psychologist William Moulton Marston, the polyamorous relationship between his wife and his mistress, the creation of his beloved comic book character Wonder Woman, and the controversy the comic generated.

Director:

Angela Robinson

Writer:

Angela Robinson

Stars:

Luke Evans, Rebecca Hall, Bella Heathcote

PROFESSOR MARSTEN AND THE WONDER WOMEN examines the relationship of Dr. William Moulton Marston (Luke Evans), the creator of WONDER WOMAN with his wife, Elizabeth (Rebecca Hall) and the second girl, Olive Byrne (Bella Heathcote) in their menage a trios.  A man with two women living together with S&M sex including bondage and spanking, set in the 40’s does not an easy film make.  Credit therefore goes to Robinson for incorporating an uncomfortable subject into a movie for general audiences.  In fact, the film goes to accredit bigamy.  Those that do not agree are said in the film to be simple.  The film will definitely infuriate many. The film does not always work, as do awkward projects.  

The film begins with the rejection of the violence and sex depicted in the Wonder Woman comics.  While appearing at the Board on Enquiry, Dr, Marsten explains his case, while the film flashes back to his marriage and sexual arrangements with Olive under the guise of psychology apprenticeship.   Complications arise when Olive’s two boys come into the picture and when a neighbour enters the house unexpectedly and catches the three in a  sexual bondage act.

For a film promoting the acceptance of S&M and bondage, it is surprising that there are no graphic sex scenes nor even nudity.  Yet the film comes across as disturbing one.  It shows that no graphic scenes are needed to take the sexual content to an different psychological frontier.  By means of intercutting of scenes with the Wonder Woman comic book showing tied up prisoners, whipping and spanking, director Robinson cleverly makes her point.

But if one examines the situation on another level, there is nothing really objectionable.  Many men have mistresses.  The only difference in this case is that the wife is also in love with the mistress.  It also makes the sex affair more congenial for everyone if the three decide to stay together.  Everything works well till society objects.  The same thing happened in the past for gay couples.  They were rejected and ostracized from society with their acts deemed evil.  Now that society has condoned same sex marriages, gays living together are cool.  Robinson recognizes the fact and emphasizes it in one key scene where Marsten screams that it is only society that has to accept them.   As to sexual fetishes, everybody has them, in one form or another.

Robinson is also quick to point out that the film is set in 1928 (though Wonder Woman was created in 1941), at the start and that there is a new psychology that is in the making.  At one point, Professor Marsten says to Olive: “How do you expect to learn about life if you refuse to live it?”   Some psychology is also thrown into the film for good measure, like Marsten’s explanation of the 4 categories of dominance, compliance, inducement and submission.  This enhances the credibility of the characters and the plot of the film.

After viewing PROFESSOR MARSTEN AND THE WONDER WOMEN, one will never look at the WONDER WOMAN comics again in the same light.
Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r991pr4Fohk

Film Review: SCHOOL LIFE (Ireland/Spain 2016) *** 1/2

festreviews 2017 movies, movie, Movie Review , , , ,

Submit your Screenplay to the Festival TODAY

School Life Poster
Trailer

2:24 | Trailer
Long careers are drawing to a close for John and Amanda, who teach Latin, English, and guitar at a stately home-turned-school, where they are legends with a mantra: “Reading. ‘Rithmetic. Rock ‘n’ roll!” But leaving is the hardest lesson.

Directors:

Neasa Ní Chianáin, David Rane

Writers:

Etienne Essery (script and story consultant), Neasa Ní Chianáin

 

Premiering at Sundance and Hot Docs in Toronto, SCHOOL LIFE begins its theatrical run and is one film sure to captivate audiences for its charm and magic.  Almost everyone has fond memories of their primary school and their teachers who are very impressionable.  The film takes the audience around the classes to reveal the studies, the hobbies as well as they extra-curricular activities.  Watching the children read End Blyton’s Famous Five novels will certainly make one wish for to re-live these wonderful times.

SCHOOL LIFE begins with an excellent introduction of two old teachers, a husband and wife as they talk and prepare for their new term.  They teach in the only primary-age boarding school in Kells, Ireland.  Headfort, a school not unlike Hogwarts with its 18th century buildings, secret doors and magical woodlands, has been home to John and Amanda Leyden for 46 years and a backdrop to their extraordinary careers.  For John, rock music is just another subject alongside Maths, English, Scripture and Latin, all of which are taught in a collaborative and often hilarious fashion.  For Amanda the key to connecting with children is the book, and she uses all means to engage the minds of her young charges with literature.

The film charmingly demonstrates what it means to educate.  It is not merely the dissemination of information but the care and concern given to the kids.  This is especially true for a boarding school whee the children are left behind for the first time not to see their parents for a few weeks.  For nearly half a century John and Amanda have shaped thousands of minds but as the film opens, it is finally time for them to start making preparations for their retirement.  “What are we gong to do when we have nowhere to go?” questions the husband.  The two are still healthy though they smoke quite a bit.

The film’s best segment has a teacher discussing with the class the controversial issue of same sex marriage.  The reactions from the primary school students are innocent, revealing and sometimes surprising.  “It is not right,” says one. “God made a man and a woman not two men, to which the teacher replies, “How do you know God exists?”   Other keen observations from the film include the teachers’ speed at rebuttal and the delicate concern each one has over their pupils.

The film ends with the pupils finishing the school year and leaving the school with their parents.  It is a touching moment when goodbyes are said.  The audience also feels sad to have to depart with the film’s characters who have been made so endearing by the filmmakers.

The film flows so smoothly it feels as if the doc is scripted.  Well conceived from start to finish, moving, sad, funny and inspirational, SCHOOL LIFE turns out to be marvellous entertainment.

Trailer: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5475022/videoplayer/vi974108953?ref_=vi_nxt_ap

Film Reviews: CINEFRANCO 2017 (from October 6th)

festreviews 2017 movies, film festival, film festival reviews, movie, Movie Review, Uncategorized , , , , ,

Submit your Screenplay to the Festival TODAY

CINEFRANCO 2017 (from October 6th)

Now in its 20th year, Cinefranco is one of the longest running film festivals in Toronto.  One must give praise and credit to the ever cheerful and tireless directrice of the festival, Marcelle Lean who is always present to say ‘bonjour’ to Cinefranco fans.  It is hard to survive in this festival eats festival world, but Cinefranco has got a loyal base of sponsors that come back year after year not to mention a good selection of films from France, Quebec, Belgium and Africa.

Last Year’s Cinefranco was in a bit of trouble because of lack of sponsorship.  Things appear improved and the fete du film has now been pushed to the late part of the year/

The films are screened at the smaller Carlton Cinemas but the good news is that it is in a very central location, right in the City Centre.  The other difference is that ‘comedy’ is the subject for the year, so expect plenty of light entertainment.

For complete program information, ticket pricing and bookings, please check the Cinefranco website at:

http://2017.cinefranco.com/en/

This site is grateful to Cinefranco and Virginia Kelly Publicity for providing screeners for the capsule reviews below:-

And don’t forget to say ‘Bonjour’ to Marcelle.

Bon Cinema!

CAPSULE REVIEWS:

(Trailer links provided at the end of each review)

BIENVENUE AU GONDWANA (WELCOME TO GONDWANA) (France 2016) ***

Directed by Mamane

A comedy of manic proportions set in the fictitious African country of very, very democratic Gondwana.  Manic because it contains too many characters who all are half crazy most of the time.  There is the young French idealist plunged into African reality which are the controversial presidential elections, a dictator determined to remain in power by cheating, two sidekicks adept at geopolitics, a French congressman determined to sell asparagus to Africans and a young and pretty revolutionary.  The purpose of the landing of all these characters in Gondwana is to oversee the elections to make sure that they are unit rigged.  The film works well in the first third with superior laugh-out loud jokes but when it tries to get serious with a few messages and romance, the comedic momentum is lost.  One might quiver at the way black African governments are stereotyped and the way Africans act and dance (as in the Gondwana welcome ceremonies) but these jokes still pack quite the punch.

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjSDwiv9JuY

RAID DINGUE (France 2016) ****

Directed by Nicolas Benamou

After the Boston marathon bombing, the U.S. made PATRIOT  DAY about the hunting down of the bombers and STRONGER about the survival of a victim who lost his leg.  It takes the French to make a comedy after their terrorist attacks.  RAID DINGUE is an action comedy featuring two very funny actors. Alice Pol and Dany Boon (WELCOME TO THE STICKS).  The excuse to bring them together?  Johanna Pasquali (Pol) is a female cop unlike any other. Distracted, dreamy, and clumsy, from a purely policewoman point of view she is awfully nice but totally useless.  Although endowed with real skills (shooting, hand-to-hand combat, police intuition, etc.), her clumsiness makes her a danger for criminals, the greater public, and her colleagues.  Her father (Michel Blanc) wants her to be accepted for RAID training but kicked out.  So, she finds herself in the hands of officer Eugène Froissard (Boon), the most misogynist and vulgar of all the RAID officers.  Together they go after the Leopards.   The film is current with the recent terrorist attacks and also deals with issues like women in a male dominated work force.   Director Benamou and his two leads have perfect comedic timing.  Laugh-out loud humour all the way.  The impressive cast includes veteran actors like Michel Blanc, Sabine Azeman and Yvan Attal.

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05qHBDBuxrY

 

UN PETIT BOULOT (France/Belgium 2016) ***
Directed by Pascal Chaumeil

Another comedy but a darker (and serious) one at that.  The setting is a small French town where jobs are slowly lost and the inhabitants get poorer.  The protagonist is Jacques (Romain Duris sporting a beard but still recognizable).  Dead broke with gambling debts, he reluctantly takes a job from a local gangster, Gardot (Michel Blanc) to kill his wife.  One killing is easy enough for Jacques and that leads him to do more.  Blanc wrote the dialogue and script for the film.  Gardot arranges for Jacques to do more killings for a 70-30 split.  One of these takes place in Brussels as the film is a Belge French co-production.  The awkward romance pops up with no warning at the 40 minute mark with Jacques suddenly meeting a girl he had not see for a while.  An all right comedy aided by the performances of its to lead veteran an actors Duris and Blanc.

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_W4PPldtkw

cinefranco

1997 Movie Review: SCREAM 2, 1997 (dir. Wes Craven)

festreviews 1997 Movies, movie, Movie Review , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

AWAY WE GO MOVIE POSTER
SCREAM 2, 1997
Movie Reviews

Directed by Wes Craven
Starring: Neve Campbell, David Arquette, Courteney Cox, Jada Pinkett Smith, Omar Epps, Liev Schreiber, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Jamie Kennedy, Jerry O’Connell, Laurie Metcalf
Review by Matthew Toffolo

SYNOPSIS:

It has been two years since the tragic events at Woodsboro. Sidney Prescott and Randy Meeks are trying to get on with their lives, and are currently both students at Windsor College. Cotton Weary is out of prison, and is trying to cash in on his unfortunate incarceration. Gale Weathers has written a bestseller, “The Woodsboro Murders,” which has been turned into the film, “Stab,” starring Tori Spelling as Sidney. As the film’s play date approaches, the cycle of death begins anew. Dewey Riley immediately flies out of Woodsboro to try to protect Sidney, his “surrogate sister.” But in this sequel to the 1996 horror film, the number of suspects only goes down as the body count slowly goes up!

 

REVIEW:

TRIVIA: Scream 2 actually beat Titanic at the weekend box office when it opened in December 1997. Titanic then went on to go #1 at the box office everyday for straight 5 months and eventually became the biggest grossing film of all-time. But, Scream 2 can say that it topped it when it went head to head.

Going back and watching this Scream sequel really got me very nostalgic. I remember sitting in the theater with my friends and really giving live play by play commentary of the film while it was happening. This is just one of those films. Of course now I hate it when others do this at it happened to me during a screening of My Bloody Valentine as people were talking so much, I couldn’t pay attention to the movie. But when you’re in your early 20s, you tend to be a little selfish. So I apologize to all the people who were sitting around us during the screening. We were jerks.

Scream 2 is one of those films that is probably more suited for a home viewing than watching it in the theater. It’s a campy film and you really can’t take it all that seriously. That said, the storytelling and characters are done well so you are definitely into the ‘what’s going to happen next’ feeling. You are definitely emotionally involved while you also get many of the wink-wink jokes during the climatic moments. The original Superman films are like this too. One moment of action leads to another moment campy comedy. Someone getting killed leads to people sitting around and chatting about horror films and their cliches. This is a film that is many things to many people. It’s a horror, a thriller, a crime movie, a mystery and most definitely a comedy. A hard thing to pull off but director Wes Craven really found the original tone that was in the script and put it on screen. Him and writer Kevin Williamson created a new movie recipe and they succeeded all the way to the bank.

When watching this film I was also surprised of all the actors who are household names or actors I respect that I completely forgot was in the film. Jada Pinkett Smith and Omar Epps play the two characters that ‘open’ the film like Drew Barrymore did in the first film. They play up how Horror films are a white man’s genre and you never see black people in the movie. As soon as you see then on screen, you know they are doomed. Craven and Williamson were pointing out to the world that they are not prejustice and even blacks can get killed in the movies. And they aren’t the killers.

Heather Graham, Luke Wilson and Tori Spelling play the ‘movie’ versions of the characters in Scream. A great campy plot as we jump into a film within a film. Luke Wilson especially was hilarious to see as at the time he was just an actor starting out and had only one credit on his resume.

Sarah Michelle Gellar, who was just getting going in her Buffy TV show, appears as well in a great ‘stab’ scene. So does pre-Dawson Creek’s Joshua Jackson who was also just starting out in the biz. Portia de Rossi and Rebecca Gayheart play the sexy sorority sisters. Jerry O’Connell plays Sidney’s boyfriend (who has an extremely awkward Top Gunish music scene in the school cafeteria) who could be the killer. And Liev Schreiber, who really only had a cameo role in the first Scream film, plays the obnoxious but charming Cotton Weary. You can tell in this role that Schreiber had something unique as he could change from sexy to scary in one emotional beat. And was an actor who definitely had a big future ahead of him.

And then there’s Timothy Olyphant. An actor I had no idea was in the film. I loved Olyphant in his role in the HBO series Deadwood. When he’s not donning a mustache, he’s a very creepy looking character. And because of that he sort of tips the hat of the film’s conclusion. Or perhaps not because he seems to be the obvious killer.

Of course this again is Sidney’s (Neve Campbell), Dewey’s (David Arquette) and Gale’s (Courteney Cox) film. Sidney is you classic main character. Strong, determined, vulnerable and haunted by past events. Arquette and Cox have fantastic on-screen chemistry (and off-screen too as they are married) and seeing that in the first film, the creators I’m sure made sure they had a lot of screen time together in the 2nd film. They are almost like a comedy team with a little romance mixed in. The geek and the princess.

Courteney Cox’s roles in these films should be pointed out as she is remarkable. If her performance doesn’t work, then the film doesn’t. We have to view Gale as a bitch with an agenda but also like her a great deal too. Her character too in Scream 2 also has the biggest emotional arcs happening. She’s the one who’s changing the most from the beginning to end.

Campbell’s role could be categorized as almost boring as it’s hard to find a storyline for her that wasn’t done in the first film. She delivers an almost thankless performance because she has after all the only ‘non sexy’ role in the film. She’s sexy but the role she plays is the role of the straightman. She must act in a thriller genre to keep the overall tone of the movie intact while all the other roles get to play it up and be campy. Sidney is the straw the stirs the drink of the movie and these type of roles can get forgotten. But if you don’t have it played well, then you don’t have a film.

Scream 2 also plays up on the sequel film. It asks the question of what sequel was better than the original in movie history. And ‘wink-wink’, is Scream 2 better than the original? Not really but it’s not bad.

SCREAM 2, 1997

1997 Movie Review: RETROACTIVE, 1997 (James Belushi)

festreviews 1997 Movies, movie, Movie Review , , , , , , , , , ,

MOVIERETROACTIVE 
Movie Reviews

Director: Louis Morneau

Starring: James Belushi, Kylie Travis, Shannon Whirry, Frank Whaley, M. Emmet Walsh, Shermon Howard
SYNOPSIS:

A hostage negotiator makes several jumps back in time to save a woman from her brutal husband.

REVIEW:

‘Retroactive’ is one of those big studio films that went straight to video, but you wouldn’t understand why if I just gave you the plot, because it’s a damn good plot, unfortunately almost everything else lets this one down.

Karen (Kylie Travis) is stranded in the middle of the desert, her car has broken down and she ends up catching a lift with a strange weirdo guy (James Belushi) and his obviously suffering girlfriend. Even though fate gives her several opportunities to get away from this couple, who are obviously involved in some kind of illegal dodgy activities, she sticks with them until the jerk guy, Frank, shoots up a gas station.

Karen escapes and finds herself in a secret lab in the middle of the desert where experiments in time travel are being conducted. She is thrown back in time to when she was stranded. She tries to prevent the murders however each time she travels back she seems to make things worse.

It’s kind of like an action movie style version of ‘Groundhog Day’, just without the humour or good acting. Having said that though there are some good things about this film; as I said above the plot sounds interesting and probably would have been if it wasn’t for the acting. It would be interesting to see someone remake this film to see if they could make it work.

Another plus is that the time travel is pretty well thought out, considering the continuity errors which seem to occur throughout the film, it’s clear that the script writers were more vigilant than the director or continuity person, if there was one. It’s such a simple idea for a plot but it is the kind of plot that can end up being very complex to write, film and edit. So I give the film makers an ‘A’ for effort.

I have nothing against James Belushi or Kylie Travis, but I’m not really fans of either one of them. But both have acted in film and television before and after this film and quite obviously with a bit of success. But in this film it was as if they were just going through the motions.

With minimal effects and not a lot of different scene locations there isn’t that much a part from the plot to keep your attention. Which isn’t a bad thing but there are also too many points where you feel like the plot is being lost by the actors and so we as the audience get lost.

Someone should really remake this film, it needs it more than any other film. Although as I stated above it is such a simple plot and not that original so I look forward to the day when someone remakes this film accidentally. Then I will be able to say; ‘for once, this is better than the original.’

RETROACTIVE, 1997