Reviews written by registered user
|59 reviews in total|
This seems to have escaped everyone's attention. EDTV was the remake of
Louis 19, le roi des ondes (1994) a little-known low-budget French-canadian
Last year's box-office success grossed 2,000,000$ canadian dollars and is predicted to be re-shot in Hollywood some time soon. Its title: Nuit de noce. A sub-titled version is available somewhere.
A great sport flick about a cycling race. Director went on to direct a longer flick about Montréal Olympics which rubbed elbows with Leni Reifensthal flick about Berlin games. Labrecque still goes-on with documentaries. His son lately made a documentary about his dad' production. Not to be overlooked.
Don't be fooled. When a native kids looks weary before a shot of rain forest being exploited, it looks like a statement to me. A cheap one. A cliche. Beside, it is a very nice collection of National Geographic like pictures. Useless but nice.
Why the hype? The guy goes down the drain and has his brains split on the wallpaper. His wife cheats. His daughter goes through changes. The neighbour is a psychotic. Big deal. Has anyone ever seen anything but pathetic Hollywood flicks with guns on cast.
This flick is funny. I mean, really funny. Coming from someone who only
smiles when a flick is reputed funny, the comment must be taken
If only I could write Bensalah, I'd thank him for it.
This may be one of them, but let not this exception distract you from the fact decent films have been produced all over for over 100 years and are nowhere to be seen in this day of video-houses. Beside, it serves to prove US film production serves every need. Beware. It is the big HOLLYWOOD-LIE. Other visions of reality have a birth-right to exist. We need them just as we need air and imagination.
First degree: It doesn't make sense. Second degree: it doesn't mean anything. Third degree: it ain't even funny. Beside, why would anyone in his right mind need to point a gun at his wife when he wants to tie her and put her in a cage? This part clearly escaped me. Furthermore, if a lover tries to shoot you, would you live with her? Right, this is only a fiction. It doesn't happen this way in real life, does it, or is it that US film producers need to put guns on screen?
When I first saw this flick, I thought it was 20 years ahead of its time.
Nine years later, I'd like to review the "20" part of it. Say "30" instead.
It was an important flick for me. A reflection on cinema, reality and time.
I remember reading a "Letter to the editor" in the local paper (La Presse)
in which the "reader" expressed his disgust for the film. Nothing is
disgusting about it. "Challenging" maybe. "Disturbing". Never "Disgusting",
unless one is disgusting by the story of a young woman spreading an
imaginary mortal sexually transmissible disease for the local doctor to
Of course, since and before, other experiences were made, but this one is not to be overlooked. A must.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
In a hospital doctors announces to a woman her son is dead... She goes
through a phase of denial and refuses to donate his organs for transplant.
After awhile, the spectator understand all that was a training simulation.
In how many of Almodovar films was this sequence repeated?
Name at least two.
I thought my interpretation was personal. I saw it again in video and found the same strings being pulled. The director often take the viewer on the verge of a catastrophy and stops short of pushing him. Nothing happen. Just fear of a personal catastrophy (getting HIV+, being cheated upon, being killed, being caught unfaithful, getting involved with the mob, or worse, politicians). The final thought is that intimacy is precious. Isn't it what the "wife" says at the end?
|Page 1 of 6:||     |