Recensioni degli utenti

So, the movie-going audience for this film will divide into two categories: those that have seen the original 2011 French classic "The Intouchables" that this is based on, and those that haven't. "The Intouchables" would have got 10* from me, no problem.

This movie joins a list of standout European movies - for example, "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"; "Let The Right One In"; "Sleepless Night"; etc. - that have had Hollywood "makeovers" that don't match up to the originals. And this is no exception. However, it's still been well made and deserves respect as a standalone piece of movie-making.

Based on a true story, Phillip Lacasse (Bryan Cranston) is left both paraplegic and widowed by a string of bad luck. Not that money can buy you everything, but his care arrangements are substantially helped by him being a multi-millionaire ("Not rich enough to buy The Yankees; Rich enough to buy The Mets"). This is from success in investments and writing about such investments.

Depressed, cranky and with a "DNR" that his diligent PA Yvonne (Nicole Kidman) seems unable to comply with, Phillip lashes out at anyone and everyone and so dispatches his carers with monotonous regularity. Dell Scott (Kevin Hart) is on parole, with the requirement to seek work. Due to a mix-up, he finds himself in the employ of Phillip: with the suspicion that he's been hired because he is the very worst candidate imaginable, and thus the most likely to let Phillip shuffle off this mortal coil. But the two men's antipathy to each other slowly thaws as they teach each other new tricks.

Those who have seen "The Intouchables" will fondly remember the first 5 minutes of that film: a flash-forward to a manic police car-chase featuring our protagonists (there played by François Cluzet and Omar Sy). It drops like a comedy hand-grenade to open the film. Unfortunately, you can't help but feel a bit let down by the same re-creation in "The Upside". It has all the same content but none of the heart.

After that rocky start, the film continues to rather stutter along. Part of the reason for this I think is Kevin Hart. It's not that he's particularly bad in the role: it's just that he IS Kevin Hart, and I was constantly thinking "there's that comedian playing that role".

However, once the story gets into its swing, giving Cranston more of a chance to shine (which he does), then the film started to motor and my reservations about Hart started to wane. Some of these story set pieces - such as the one about the art work - are punch-the-air funny in their own right. Cranston's timing in delivering his punchlines is immaculate.

There seems to have been some furore about the casting of Bryan Cranston as the role of the disabled millionaire instead of a disabled actor. Lord save us! He's an actor! That's what actors do for a living: pretend to be people they're not! It's also worth pointing out that François Cluzet was an able-bodied actor as well.

As already mentioned, Bryan Cranston excels in the role. Phillip goes through such a wide range of emotions from despair to pure joy and back again that you can't help but be impressed by the performance.

On the female side of the cast, it's really nice to see Nicole Kidman in such a quiet and understated role and it's nicely done; Aja Naomi King does a nice job as Dell's protective ex-girlfriend Latrice; and there's a nice female cameo as well, which I won't spoil since I wasn't expecting to see her in the film.

As a standalone film it has some laugh-out-loud moments, some feelgood highs and some moments of real pathos. The audience I saw this with was small, but there was still a buzz in the room and sporadic applause as the end titles came up: God only knows that's unusual for a film! The director is "Limitless" and "Divergent" director Neil Burger, and it's a perfectly fun and innocent night out at the flicks that I commend to the house in this month of celluloid awards heavyweights.

(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web or Facebook. Thanks).

This is a remake of the 2011 French film, "The Intouchables". Being a remake it is bound to not be exactly the same as the original and there will be changes, add ons or takeaways but the story remains almost the same.

With that in mind I watched this movie pretending it was a film all on it's own. I enjoyed it and liked the performances. This is first time I (personally) see Kevin Hart act more serious in a role and he did a good job. Bryan Cranston was superb as always.

Many people dislike this movie because they viewed the original and in my opinion, the original is way better. But let's be fair, that doesn't mean this movie is garbage. I think everyone did a great job, the movie was good and it delivered the same message the original did. It's just up to you whether you want to watch the original or this one instead.

Yikes -- people giving this a 1 rating, sight unseen, so they can boast that they saw the French original? Excusez moi, gimme a break. You claim to be a movie buff but sabotage and distort the public ratings system? Did you give The Departed or Insomnia a 1 rating too because they are remakes? Did you skip Sorcerer because The Wages of Fear is on your Criterion shelf? I like the original Intouchables a lot, and this American remake, with much of the same material, has similar impact for a wider audience.

This was unnecessary remake . Performances by Cranston and Hart were are solid. The film has some touching moments . It is a bit long and does drag on a bit at times .

As someone who has seen and loved the original French film, this US remake feels rather pointless. Although both Kevin Hart and Bryan Cranston are good in their roles, they never reach the heights nor have the chemistry François Cluzet and Omar Sy.

Based on the French film Intouchables, The Upside follows the relationship between a man with quadriplegia, played by Cranston and his ex-con carer, played by Hart.

While the film itself is solid, it feels redundant after watching the original. It sticks very closely to the events of the French movie, bringing nothing new to the table. The opening scene made me groan, as it is essentially a shot-for-shot remake of the opening of Intouchables. And while there are differences in the backstory of Hart's character, it is not enough to warrant a new incarnation of this story.

That said, I was impressed by Kevin Hart's performance in this film and would go so far as to say that this is his best performance to date. While he is still funny, he is more reigned in here, more grounded than his usual loud and broadly comedic turns.

In the end, I'd struggle to recommend this to anyone who has already seen the French film, although Hart's more low-key performance is worth a watch for fans of his.

This was a good movie. I felt pretty confident that Bryan Cranston would be the anchor for the show but was afraid Kevin Hart's style of comedy would blow it off its moorings. I worried in vain. This film was the kind of Dramedy (Drama/Comedy) that I appreciate - it drew its humour from life, not the exaggeration of life. What a stellar supporting cast, who were, as you'd expect, wonderful. Well performed. Moving. Courageous. I've since found out that the premise for this movie was based on an actual relationship that was first portrayed in a much awarded French film, THE INTOUCHABLES (2011). I now can look forward to seeing it. I give this film a 7 (good) out of 10. {Dramedy}

I'm so thankful to Kevin Hart, Bryan Cranston, Nicole Kidman, Neil Burger and the rest of those involved in this remake! Movies entertain us but they are even better when they can educate, entertain, and make us laugh at the same time. There have been no movies with big celebrity actors showing that a quadriplegic can actually live a regular life and have happiness. There were 2 big movies that came out and the quadriplegic chose suicide at the end. Instead of being looked at like a regular person, we are looked at with pity. Yes our life is hard! It's not easy being completely dependent on others for everything! It's been 22 years and I don't have millions of dollars or a fully accessible house or a nice "patty wagon" like Bryan's character had in the movie but I have God and family and friends and I live a good life! I still got a bachelors degree and I still found love and I was able to be a mother! We have fun and choose to laugh ALOT despite our circumstances. I hope everybody learns something from this movie! #TheUpside #stillstandingalwayssmiling

"Some people are walking around with full use of their bodies and they're more paralyzed than I am." Christopher Reeve

The Upside is a potentially sappy setup adapted from the highly-successful French film Les Intouchables. Dell (Kevin Hart) is a black ex-con in need of work. Phillip (Bryan Cranston) is a wealthy author and investor become quadriplegic from a foolish paragliding incident who needs help.

In the film's unavoidable cliché, black man becomes white man's assistant, and the two bond through their differences. While sharing with each other Figaro and Aretha, they become happy buds who easily bridge the considerable racial and economic gulfs.

What makes this comedy work is the obvious respect between the leads and a sincerity about the need to appropriate other cultures for the bounty they offer in different perspectives and temperaments. Hart has never been better playing a smart street guy from The Bronx; Cranston is magnetic with the simple use of his face, a great one that deserves all the closeups director Neil Burger can offer.

Although the stereotypical differences between the two characters could have led to outrageous melodrama, as in the recent Green Book, the filmmakers are more interested in the reality of a rich man being moved by an ex-con, and an underprivileged underachiever finding dignity and prosperity in a world never meant to be his.

The lyrical moments like getting high on weed and watching opera for the first time earn our admiration rather than scorn for formula worshiping. As always, the leads take the lead in taking us to realistic challenges that race and wealth usually move us to whether we are ready or not.

Don't be afraid of stereotypes and clichés. The setups are acceptable because the film sees the humanity rolling on the screen in the form of a wheelchair and into our hearts with endearing characters. Be prepared to have a few pleasant tears during 2019's best comedy so far!

When IMDb came out with the news about Amazon remaking the French box-office hit and universally acclaimed "Untouchables", the response it immediately elicited was "what for?". Now that the film's done, the answer still carries the same tone of puzzlement.

Now I'm not the kind to cringe over the idea of Americanizing a French film, many remakes proved to be, if not successful, interesting retakes on pre-known stories with new outlines or insights. But then again, "Untouchables" was so recent, so big, and so popular (being the most successful French film in worldwide box-office) that I couldn't think of a single reason that could justify the remake, but maybe the interest lies precisely in its status as a remake and the fact that it stars two talents such as Bryan Cranston and Kevin Hart (with Nicole Kidman as the third-billed name). Speaking for myself, it was good enough a reason to grab my interest.

But from the start the film was doomed, its production was delayed due to the Weinstein scandal (the film was produced by Miramax at the time it ceased to be an Awards-magnet) and it took two years to be finally released. It was an honorable box-office success but met with mostly negative critics. To be quite honest, I don't find any aspect to criticize nor that I have any reason to praise the film, the two actors inhabit their characters with confidence and humility and their chemistry comes out as believable and never overplayed. Cranston delivers a fine performance as Phlip LaCasse from New York's upper class and Kevin Hart, while not having the towering charisma or the catchy smile of Omar Sy, has a presence of his own as the man from the Bronx. Neither of the two actors go for easy pathos of laugh, like their French counterparts.

Script-wise, the story is a carbon-copy of the original, minus some elements: Philip is the same widower, victim of a paragliding accident but has no daughter. However, Dell is divorced and has a son whose constant frowning insists a bit too much that he wasn't exactly a Chris Gardner. Dell's flirting with one of Phillip's caretakers doesn't end with the 'obvious' twist (as if there hadn't to be a reason not to succumb to his charm, unlike for Sy) while the other romantic subplot involving the epistolary relationship ends in a negative note unlike the original. Apart from that, we've got the obsession with the Opera, the painting, the dancing and the shaving sequence though the reference to Chaplin seemed to imply the change of mentalities from 2011 to 2019.

The "Chaplin" moustache isn't just a detail, I wanted to blame the film for sugarcoating the gag but then I realized that maybe times have changed from 2011 to 2019, and the contextualization isn't a detail either. Indeed, it's rather interesting to see that the critics the film met didn't accuse the performances but elements such as the predictability of the plot: how could Opera soothe a street-smart thug? (well, didn't a simple exchange about basketball in the laundry room changed Ed Norton in "American History X"?), the critics also pinpointed the use of clichés regarding the depiction of minorities but I was wondering whether these faults were also brought up against the original. In all fairness, the late Roger Ebert did and I could get his point though I disagreed.

In fact, I think the film is an easy scapegoat, and its biggest fault wasn't much to be a remake but to allow a material that got away with many handicaps thanks to its status as a foreign production to be immediately put under the firing squad of political correctness. What was tolerable a few years earlier became in the post-"Moonlight" days pure manipulative melodrama. In an ironic way, "Untouchables" did carry its own title and was immune to critics while "The Upside" down could be flipped all over the place. It goes even further as the film was criticized for not starring a real handicapped person, a criticism the original escaped from. And while I can understand the reaction, is the blame to be put on Cranston?

Right now, I'm puzzled because I did enjoy the film to the degree that it kept reminding me of the original while still being a new experience, and I believe the two lead actors did justice to their roles. So, I'm tempted to say that the film reveals the real hypocrisy of our times and the way what was still acceptable in the early 2010s became taboo, and the way American cinema can be more criticized for the kind of stuff most foreign productions get away with . At least Ebert had the guts to go against the stream with the first "Untouchables" but it seems like critics are choosing the wrong target because "The Upside" is such a copy of the first that any critic directed at it is a critic against the original. And I'm not exactly dismissing the 'handicap' argument because that might have allowed the film to open a new breach but the film was so doomed from the start that critics might have call it hypocritical or publicity stunt.

It's sad because on its own, it's a solid drama served with good performances, nothing changed much in the story, but our times have changed, and political correctness doesn't make them better. So, in a way, the remake does belong to another era and reveals the upside of our own mentalities. So I guess the film served a purpose after all.

Not seen the originals, don't know much else. Watched this on a flight. Worth a watch, Kevin Hart actually saves this film a bit, adds a drive and humour and reality to the film. Something most common people could relate to. Perhaps that was just the direction of the character.

Cranston is good, Kidman is alright, story is a bit depressing, but it does make you laugh.

This is a good movie. Simple. It's not the original French one so don't rate it poorly because of that fact. This is well acted, heart warming, funny and left me feeling good after watching it. Kevin Heart and Brian Cranston have great chemistry and work well together. Ignore the stuck up Wall Street Journal reviewers and just go enjoy.

First of all i did not thought that Kevin Hart will do an amazing job as a dramatic actress, literally it was great, i loved the story and how it ends.

Remakes happen, as well as re-imaginings. However they make sense when a director/writer have something more to add to the story, especially as beautiful as this one in a French original. Here we got a back to back copy of a quite recent movie. A movie, that was a huge international hit, and is well known outside of the USA, so a so recent remakwe, ekhm, copy, is the more baffling. This is not the case of The Lion King, which was inspired by an obscure Japanese cartoon, and a wider audience got a chance to known the story. THe original made over 400 millions of dollars worldwide... Are Americans so afraid of subtitles, that they have to make their own versions of movies?

Enjoyable film and lots of funny moments, not as good as the original but very enjoyable

I just saw this film, and didn't realize until seeing the credits that it was based on a previous film titled "Intouchables". It made me want to see that film. Well, I also noticed while going on here, imdb, that this film was made in 2017. Then, reading some reviews, which I found some to be very negative and pretentious towards this film and only because it is based on a previous film. Now, because of those negative reviews and pretentious people telling others to see the "original" instead, I don't even want to see the previous film anymore. So to those people I say, spread your negativity somewhere else, because you still have your film to love whether this one was made or not.

It is just ridiculous that hollywood takes stories that were popular in other countries and simply shows them an other time. Would it be that much disturbing for people from the US to see european, asian, african or australian people on the screen? It is obvious that movies like this are not art of any kind but simply an easy way to make money.

That is why to me this movie is completely unnecessary, just like other remakes like the announced Your Name remake. Whatch the original.

Thanks for all those that gave this movie a positive review. Bryan and Kevin had great chemistry in this movie. It was funny, emotional, good paced flick. It doesn't matter if is not better than the original, this was an enjoyable picture. You won't be disappointed.

Folks, this film was released in the US Jan 11th, 2019, many of the 1 star reviews were back in October 2018 and appear to have sour grapes that Hollywood seemingly stole the story from the french movie 'The intouchables'...(even though it's marketed as a remake of that film) The mere fact that there are so many of these indignant 1 star ratings suggests that there seems to be a campaign to torpedo the movie's popularity...If all the one star ratings were discounted the movie would likely be somewhere between the 7-8 range

First off, you can't tell other people it's a good movie if you haven't seen it yourself. That goes both ways. But with the new trailer, you can see some telltale differences. This new version looks to be more comedy and less drama. It's a choice, neither good or bad. I liked the original, but this one could be fun. Cranston is a good actor, Hart has descent comedy skills. I'd give it an honest chance.

Oh and to everyone calling the original 'The Intouchables'. It's 'Intouchables', pronounced like 'en-too-sha-bluhs'. Not like 'The Untouchables'.

Having seen the original more than five times I can say this easily compares in quality. The original Intouchables from 2011, is in French so you need to read subtitles which never worried me. It is brilliant so if you like this and don't mind subtitles find it and watch it.

Normally I am not a huge fan of remakes that the US does of successful foreign movies, but this is an exception to the rule and I will have no hesitation watching this again.

Ignore the bad reviews they either have not watched this or are just remake haters. This has everything a good movie should have and it is highly entertaining.

Bryan Cranston, Nicole Kidman and especially Kevin Hart are just superb, such a feel good movie with a very very good ending.

Just like I gave Intouchables a few years ago this is an easy 9/10 for me.

I virtually never write a review on IMDb but I have to say something... I'm not sure what's up with negative reviews. Even if you liked the original better, don't be stupid and use that as an excuse to pan this movie. I've never seen the original so I'm not biased. This was a good movie!!

I won't nag about this remake. I LOVED "Intouchables" gave it a big fat 10. Up there with Shawshank, still gave this a 7 but mainly because of the story, even if Hart doesn't have Omar Sy's blatant, raw, almost offensive humour or persona. I didn't believe Hart was street wise for a moment. They did mix up some of the original plot points which was confusing. Swapping the Love interest for the secretary, making good with the wife instead of the mother and the happily ever after at the end, was a bit too Holiwood Cliche Nice. It hints of formula. Still, it's a decent movie as is, but I'll still choose the original anyday. By the way people, "The Untouchables" as loads of people are calling it, starred Costner & Connery.