daniel-charles2
A rejoint déc. 2004
Bienvenue sur nouveau profil
Nos mises à jour sont toujours en cours d’élaboration. Bien que la version précédente de le profil ne soit plus accessible, nous travaillons activement à des améliorations, et certaines des fonctionnalités manquantes reviendront bientôt. Restez à l’écoute pour leur retour. En attendant, des notes est toujours disponible sur nos applications iOS et Android, qui se trouvent sur de profil. Pour voir votre ou vos distributions d’évaluation par année et genre, veuillez consulter notre nouvelle section Guide d’aide.
Badges2
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d’aide sur les badges.
Commentaires10
Évaluation de daniel-charles2
Breathless, innovative, intelligent... this is an extraordinary movie. To be seen at all costs! I remember when everybody applauded when the Nouvelle Vague freed the images, back in the 60s -well, this is the new Nouvelle Vague. This is not the triumph of the director, or the cameraman's, but of the editor. And still, this is not a boring "experimental" movie, but a sizzling political thriller which doesn't need spectacular stunts to keep you riveted to your seat. The actors are not well known, and to say the truth the acting does not matter much -it certainly matters less than the eyes of the voyeur/ organizer. Until the last seconds, the omnipresent "hero" is faceless. Welcome into the world of anonymous power!
Le silencieux can compete as one of the most undervalued movie ever. I saw it when it went out, and many times since. It might not be as things really were (they were probably worse), but it remains a BGS (Bloody Good Story). Ventura, like in most of his films, is impressive. Lea Massari character is not pointless: she is the lost charm, the lost life, the unattainable past (as unattainable as she was in Deville's "La femme en bleu"): she remains a mystery, and it is her function. Without her, the main character would be without nostalgia. Of course, there is the strange dusty colour of French movies of the 70s, not too pleasant. And the set designer of the MI5 office ought to be shot. But apart that, the movie remains tightly knit, in truth one of the best spy thrillers of the 70s.
What a disappointment! Forsyth's book is one of his more varied, in terms of characters as well as in visual terms. Unhappily, the scriptwriters pretended that they knew better than Forsyth how to tell a story, and they got rid of the mining guy's story, of old Manson's greed and of young Manson's lust, and of the tribal question story, in exchange for a meaningless story about Shannon's wife, and the one of the pain-in-the-ass journalist who gets killed, which distracts the spectator's attention. As a result, the special effects/explosion specialist is given a free hand in a pitiful attempt to fill the holes in the story with smoke and fire... Walken is great, as always,locations are good, but they are no reason to avoid films scripted by Gary DeVore and/or George Malko in the future.Yiiiik! Don't see the film, read the book.