gilgeoIII
A rejoint le janv. 2004
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.
Avis12
Note de gilgeoIII
Just as there is disappointment when you go to an arena to see a fight and a hockey game breaks out, I went to the Edith Piaf movie, La Vie en Rose, and they showed The Hunchback of Montmartre instead.
Marion Cotillard, portraying the incomparable Piaf, doesn1t recreate the deeply troubled singer1s complexity of emotions, desires and neurosis, she indicates them mostly with a few stock faces and movements. To indicate feelings instead of creating them on camera is like painting by the numbers. The word 3schtick2 comes to mind.
To show Piaf1s bewilderment, disappointment or fleeting joys, for example, Ms. Cotillard indicates it by scrunching up her face. Ms.
Cotillard does a lot of scrunching up of the face, or she indicates it by scrunching up her body into something resembling that of a hunchback. Ms. Cotillard does a lot of that. The result brings to mind, for a mad moment, Charles Laughton in 3The Hunchback of Notre Dame.2 Note to Ms. Cotillard: there1s more to great acting than schrunching and humping.
Director Olivier Dahan, who co-wrote the screenplay as well, is a hack-lifer whose entire oeuvre, at the age of 40, consists of music videos. He shudda stuck to schlock. There isn1t a cliché in the book he overlooks in this confusing mess which defies an audience to understand when most of the events depicted in this sad story are happening to the 3little sparrow2 whose voice could arouse emotions from a block of granite.
Dahan took great pains to make the actress a replica of Piaf whose real voice was lip synched. The physical recreation of Piaf is uncanny superficially, and when the character sings the initial effect is extraordinary, but the performer on camera doesn1t have the x-factor of recreating Piaf1s artistry and communication with her audiences. Piaf, like the other great ones, had the power to transform an audience into a kind of mystical realm of uniting mind and soul into a single, collective entity, turning the audience into a part of the performer herself, seemingly feeling what she feels at that very moment. Audience knowledge of French isn1t essential for that, but the mysterious x-factor is, and Ms. Cotillard, for all her efforts, doesn1t have it.
Would any actress working now? Probably not. Most critics, it seems, have already awarded Ms. Cotillard the Oscar for best actress. Quel crazy.
Every scene in 3La Vie en Rose2 is a cliché, like similar scenes in most of the other bio pics, excepting 3Ray2, with nary a trace of originality even though the singer1s desperately sad life and artistry cries out for something new and different. A cruel irony that a hack director presented the story of a great artist whose work is just as thrilling and deeply moving now as it was all those decades ago.
Marion Cotillard, portraying the incomparable Piaf, doesn1t recreate the deeply troubled singer1s complexity of emotions, desires and neurosis, she indicates them mostly with a few stock faces and movements. To indicate feelings instead of creating them on camera is like painting by the numbers. The word 3schtick2 comes to mind.
To show Piaf1s bewilderment, disappointment or fleeting joys, for example, Ms. Cotillard indicates it by scrunching up her face. Ms.
Cotillard does a lot of scrunching up of the face, or she indicates it by scrunching up her body into something resembling that of a hunchback. Ms. Cotillard does a lot of that. The result brings to mind, for a mad moment, Charles Laughton in 3The Hunchback of Notre Dame.2 Note to Ms. Cotillard: there1s more to great acting than schrunching and humping.
Director Olivier Dahan, who co-wrote the screenplay as well, is a hack-lifer whose entire oeuvre, at the age of 40, consists of music videos. He shudda stuck to schlock. There isn1t a cliché in the book he overlooks in this confusing mess which defies an audience to understand when most of the events depicted in this sad story are happening to the 3little sparrow2 whose voice could arouse emotions from a block of granite.
Dahan took great pains to make the actress a replica of Piaf whose real voice was lip synched. The physical recreation of Piaf is uncanny superficially, and when the character sings the initial effect is extraordinary, but the performer on camera doesn1t have the x-factor of recreating Piaf1s artistry and communication with her audiences. Piaf, like the other great ones, had the power to transform an audience into a kind of mystical realm of uniting mind and soul into a single, collective entity, turning the audience into a part of the performer herself, seemingly feeling what she feels at that very moment. Audience knowledge of French isn1t essential for that, but the mysterious x-factor is, and Ms. Cotillard, for all her efforts, doesn1t have it.
Would any actress working now? Probably not. Most critics, it seems, have already awarded Ms. Cotillard the Oscar for best actress. Quel crazy.
Every scene in 3La Vie en Rose2 is a cliché, like similar scenes in most of the other bio pics, excepting 3Ray2, with nary a trace of originality even though the singer1s desperately sad life and artistry cries out for something new and different. A cruel irony that a hack director presented the story of a great artist whose work is just as thrilling and deeply moving now as it was all those decades ago.
Once every 10 or 15 years a movie is made that gladdens the heart, enriches the soul, and inspires the spirit to soar. Such a film is A Very Long Engagement, a French production starring Audrey Tautou.
This is the best movie I've seen so far this century and one of the best of any other century, and I've been around for several of them.
Its genre, described in IMDb, is Drama/Mystery/Romance/War and it is that and more.
Despite its very mixed reception by certain ogre Critics, IMDb users, as usual, are much more discerning and on the money, calling it PURE POETRY, a visual wonder, a tremendously entertaining epic offering suspense, intrigue and a wonderful romance. It is all of that and more.
Directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet , who redeems himself brilliantly after the achingly cute Amelie, the film tells the story of a young woman, Audrey Tautou, who conducts a relentless search for her lover, a hapless French army soldier who disappeared from the wasteland between the opposing trenches in World War One.
The complex plot becomes a compelling detective story, involving countless characters, all of whom are portrayed brilliantly by a wonderful cast, including Jodie Foster, of all people, speaking flawless French. In a Rashomon -like tale -- based on a novel by a detective writer, Sebastien Jarisot -- everyone has a different take on the fate of the boy, well played by Gaspard Ulliel.
The cinematography by Bruno Delbonnel, who shot the horrific battle scenes (better than any in memory) in a sepia-toned pastiche, matches the superbly inventive direction by that cultish and often-despised Jeunet whose international hit, Amelie, made the teeth ache after the fascinating first act. As for Tautou, she creates an ennobling character that will long be remembered with great warmth, even love.
To those who cry the movie is rife with trickery and cheap sentimentality, I say fie, fie on thee, and return thyself and thy rotting heart to thy casket. This film made me laugh, made me cry and very glad to be alive to experience art at this high level.
This is the best movie I've seen so far this century and one of the best of any other century, and I've been around for several of them.
Its genre, described in IMDb, is Drama/Mystery/Romance/War and it is that and more.
Despite its very mixed reception by certain ogre Critics, IMDb users, as usual, are much more discerning and on the money, calling it PURE POETRY, a visual wonder, a tremendously entertaining epic offering suspense, intrigue and a wonderful romance. It is all of that and more.
Directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet , who redeems himself brilliantly after the achingly cute Amelie, the film tells the story of a young woman, Audrey Tautou, who conducts a relentless search for her lover, a hapless French army soldier who disappeared from the wasteland between the opposing trenches in World War One.
The complex plot becomes a compelling detective story, involving countless characters, all of whom are portrayed brilliantly by a wonderful cast, including Jodie Foster, of all people, speaking flawless French. In a Rashomon -like tale -- based on a novel by a detective writer, Sebastien Jarisot -- everyone has a different take on the fate of the boy, well played by Gaspard Ulliel.
The cinematography by Bruno Delbonnel, who shot the horrific battle scenes (better than any in memory) in a sepia-toned pastiche, matches the superbly inventive direction by that cultish and often-despised Jeunet whose international hit, Amelie, made the teeth ache after the fascinating first act. As for Tautou, she creates an ennobling character that will long be remembered with great warmth, even love.
To those who cry the movie is rife with trickery and cheap sentimentality, I say fie, fie on thee, and return thyself and thy rotting heart to thy casket. This film made me laugh, made me cry and very glad to be alive to experience art at this high level.