A genuine lacklustre
This is an exemplary film, which should be shown in film schools. It's a breviary of everything you shouldn't do. Impressive. The film lacks artistic direction. Which is normally the director's job (in France), or the producer's (in the USA).
The breviary is exemplary. There is a useless, and above all ridiculous, voice-over (it sounds like a text generated by a robot on the internet) which translates the director's inability to tell her story through the mise en scène. The film contains multiple shots, even entire scenes, that are unnecessary and could be removed. There are useless 20 minutes. There is a real lack of discernment. No one asked themselves the question of the length of this pensum?
Finally, to top it all off, the script is a pile of hackneyed clichés (not to be confused with stereotypes, which are useful for the drama), strung together like pearls and which seem to be thought of as powerful revelations... One of the ridiculous ones is the homosexual friend, very "crazy" of course and who owns a box of transvestites or similar: since 1978 (La Cage Aux Folles, Édouard Molinaro) the representation of homosexuality has come out of these chromos... The French are noisy. The runnings gags are at least out of a think tank. The cab drivers want to be actors. We have the shot on the mount Lee, the palm trees... The film is based on a dramaturgy and a scenario free of any element related to reality: the film contains no sociological, societal, social or economic element that links it to a reality. Impressive. They are wealthy and do not work. While the characters seem to suffer (we don't care).
It would seem that there is an alibi of truth, in the sense that there is inspiration from a true story. But veracity is no guarantee of drama.
Netflix has nothing to fear from Prime Video with a film like this. Prime Video needs to be careful and not fund films that are permanently weak, i.e. Dumb.
The breviary is exemplary. There is a useless, and above all ridiculous, voice-over (it sounds like a text generated by a robot on the internet) which translates the director's inability to tell her story through the mise en scène. The film contains multiple shots, even entire scenes, that are unnecessary and could be removed. There are useless 20 minutes. There is a real lack of discernment. No one asked themselves the question of the length of this pensum?
Finally, to top it all off, the script is a pile of hackneyed clichés (not to be confused with stereotypes, which are useful for the drama), strung together like pearls and which seem to be thought of as powerful revelations... One of the ridiculous ones is the homosexual friend, very "crazy" of course and who owns a box of transvestites or similar: since 1978 (La Cage Aux Folles, Édouard Molinaro) the representation of homosexuality has come out of these chromos... The French are noisy. The runnings gags are at least out of a think tank. The cab drivers want to be actors. We have the shot on the mount Lee, the palm trees... The film is based on a dramaturgy and a scenario free of any element related to reality: the film contains no sociological, societal, social or economic element that links it to a reality. Impressive. They are wealthy and do not work. While the characters seem to suffer (we don't care).
It would seem that there is an alibi of truth, in the sense that there is inspiration from a true story. But veracity is no guarantee of drama.
Netflix has nothing to fear from Prime Video with a film like this. Prime Video needs to be careful and not fund films that are permanently weak, i.e. Dumb.
- norbert-plan-618-715813
- 20 mar 2022