irtisen
A rejoint le août 2009
Bienvenue sur nouveau profil
Nos mises à jour sont toujours en cours de développement. Bien que la version précédente de le profil ne soit plus accessible, nous travaillons activement à des améliorations, et certaines fonctionnalités manquantes seront bientôt de retour ! Restez à l'écoute de leur retour. En attendant, l’analyse des évaluations est toujours disponible sur nos applications iOS et Android, qui se trouvent sur la page de profil. Pour consulter la répartition de vos évaluations par année et par genre, veuillez consulter notre nouveau Guide d'aide.
Badges2
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d'aide sur les badges.
Avis5
Note de irtisen
The only reason I had not to stand up and leave was Joseph Gordon-Levitt, because my boots are made for walking. But his part, unfortunately, is neither long nor developed. Lukas Haas disappears in the beginning, which is also a waste of talent. Instead, we see Leonardo DiCaprio, just as he always is : not bad, not good. Ellen Page, here an actress in limbo. Cilian Murphy, in a character also unexploited. And Marion Cotillard in repeated appearances : love, murder, suicide. All the actors seem to think: "dont't be harsh, I know I am acting in a silly movie; I just do my best not to show." Alas! their idea of a nightmare goes to our consciousness (without stealing), and stays. The directing is nonexistent.
Too bad, I did not fall asleep on my chair, for maybe I would have woken up from this nightmare. The plot is of no interest : if you accept the stupid premises of those scientific dreams, you guess very quickly who will die and who will survive. Waiting for the end, 2 hours and a half are ten years long. The special effects are rather well done: they don't know they act in a mess, but the editing is loose in between.
Do not waste your time : take a good nap instead.
Too bad, I did not fall asleep on my chair, for maybe I would have woken up from this nightmare. The plot is of no interest : if you accept the stupid premises of those scientific dreams, you guess very quickly who will die and who will survive. Waiting for the end, 2 hours and a half are ten years long. The special effects are rather well done: they don't know they act in a mess, but the editing is loose in between.
Do not waste your time : take a good nap instead.
Alain Robbe-Grillet's work is long, especially in the beginning. Whereas eternity is in the ending: Gradiva can't be that bad. A Robbe-Grillet's film is supposed to mix reality and dreams (no doubt!), hence Gradiva is no surprise. The actors do not necessarily understand their part (whether you decide they should or not), just as we do not understand what 'life' is, we players. Robbe-Grillet asks questions through stories, e.g. 'who is playing', 'who is being played', 'what is allowed', 'who is the director'... But he doesn't give definitive answers. He achieves his goal in the meantime. He just says that dreams can kill. So books and films can. All protect us from eternity. Can you hear Gradiva's call?
I won't discuss the faithfulness to the book at first. To me a matter of era.
(Honest warning: this section is seemingly off the point. Read or pass on it: what follows is a point of view, subject to much contradiction.
According to me, A. Dumas had genius for drama (fate, revenge, strong characters, breathtaking plots), but not as much for literature, writing. Exactly as V. Hugo. To me, the real genius was G. Flaubert. But his literature was not "romantic" at all. (Or read 'Sentimental Education', and you'll fully understand that he was a disappointed Romantic.) Thus, when you ask the French who is or was the best French-speaking writer of all times (they have read none in fact), they always choose Hugo, then Dumas or another, Verne, Chataubriand, Zola, Balzac... They always forget Flaubert, Maupassant, Stendhal, Proust, etc. A matter of opinion, you could say. Maybe a question of fame, too. More (and less ): as J.M.G. Le Clézio perfectly expresses (this is my translation, not his words), "Polls are so unfair. And to take first or last place in a poll is not what is important... What is serious is to be forgotten." (Sorry, IMDb does not accept (the original) French words, and I must delete...)... Who really read Dumas's novel(s)? - You watch a movie, and say: Dumas (whoever as a matter of fact) is a great writer. – I like Dumas indeed, but such ironic (and sad) limbo )
Well, as to betrayal to novels, do you think "The Quiet American" (1958), which is a great Mankiewicz's movie, was faithful to the book? The thesis of G. Greene (I am very fond of his ambiguous books) is the absolute contrary to the thesis of the shameful script. Mankiewicz's film should have been called "The absolute betrayal of G. Greene's Quiet American". - I know the political background of 1958 could not permit any director to be faithful to Greene. The 'betrayal' of Josée Dayan is nothing compared to that. The problem is, in my mind, that the 'adaptation' is due to commercial reasons: the series were shot to be sold to foreign countries, to be financially viable, and profitable. Era of the market. And of lovable heroes. Producers cannot put up the money for an expected international success starring a character (Dantes) who would be too ambiguous. Political correctness. Sad time of money and "good against evil"... (Where is Welles, and the early Polanski, etc.?)
If I should vote for Depardieu's performance (you know he can be perfect, and sometimes appear in minor movies - nevertheless his huge talent cannot fade from those), I would vote 10, though he is not Dumas's Dantes - but he is not responsible for that, if you agree with my point of view. Another sad limbo for Dumas. His acting is so intense that he sucks the lifeblood out of the cast, which is very good. Thus, due to the 'adaptation', in spite of Dayan's great gifts for filming (plus she herself is quite a Dumas's heroine), my vote is 8. Polls are unfair. The result (the 'film') is more than worth seeing. Thanks. Debate: still open.
(Honest warning: this section is seemingly off the point. Read or pass on it: what follows is a point of view, subject to much contradiction.
According to me, A. Dumas had genius for drama (fate, revenge, strong characters, breathtaking plots), but not as much for literature, writing. Exactly as V. Hugo. To me, the real genius was G. Flaubert. But his literature was not "romantic" at all. (Or read 'Sentimental Education', and you'll fully understand that he was a disappointed Romantic.) Thus, when you ask the French who is or was the best French-speaking writer of all times (they have read none in fact), they always choose Hugo, then Dumas or another, Verne, Chataubriand, Zola, Balzac... They always forget Flaubert, Maupassant, Stendhal, Proust, etc. A matter of opinion, you could say. Maybe a question of fame, too. More (and less ): as J.M.G. Le Clézio perfectly expresses (this is my translation, not his words), "Polls are so unfair. And to take first or last place in a poll is not what is important... What is serious is to be forgotten." (Sorry, IMDb does not accept (the original) French words, and I must delete...)... Who really read Dumas's novel(s)? - You watch a movie, and say: Dumas (whoever as a matter of fact) is a great writer. – I like Dumas indeed, but such ironic (and sad) limbo )
Well, as to betrayal to novels, do you think "The Quiet American" (1958), which is a great Mankiewicz's movie, was faithful to the book? The thesis of G. Greene (I am very fond of his ambiguous books) is the absolute contrary to the thesis of the shameful script. Mankiewicz's film should have been called "The absolute betrayal of G. Greene's Quiet American". - I know the political background of 1958 could not permit any director to be faithful to Greene. The 'betrayal' of Josée Dayan is nothing compared to that. The problem is, in my mind, that the 'adaptation' is due to commercial reasons: the series were shot to be sold to foreign countries, to be financially viable, and profitable. Era of the market. And of lovable heroes. Producers cannot put up the money for an expected international success starring a character (Dantes) who would be too ambiguous. Political correctness. Sad time of money and "good against evil"... (Where is Welles, and the early Polanski, etc.?)
If I should vote for Depardieu's performance (you know he can be perfect, and sometimes appear in minor movies - nevertheless his huge talent cannot fade from those), I would vote 10, though he is not Dumas's Dantes - but he is not responsible for that, if you agree with my point of view. Another sad limbo for Dumas. His acting is so intense that he sucks the lifeblood out of the cast, which is very good. Thus, due to the 'adaptation', in spite of Dayan's great gifts for filming (plus she herself is quite a Dumas's heroine), my vote is 8. Polls are unfair. The result (the 'film') is more than worth seeing. Thanks. Debate: still open.