matlabaraque

When Karim Leklou got his prize for best actor at the French Cesar for his role as Aymeric, some sort of big hearted wanderer, he said that he immediately liked the scenario because it spoke about "good people, the "gentle ones" we barely ever hear of. Aymeric, the heroe of this story is of one of those who do not think of themselves in the first place, who let their ego aside, the ones who never overwhelm the others with their problems and who accept to be guided by other people's will.

Jim's Story is the story of a gentle one: a father who became one without noticing it, who accepted his fate without claiming for justice or revenge.

Beyond Aymeric's fate, the film tackles fatherhood like very few did before with sensitivity and a touching point of view for a complex almost unique situation.

In the background of "Jim's Story", any fan of cinema will see a revisited "Jules and Jim" (the famous film of François Truffaut - 1962 -) with other taboos than in the 60's. While "Jules and Jim" spoke about the freedom of sexuality for a woman in the 60's (a scandal back then !) Jim's Story speaks about taboos of the XXIst century like the role of strangers in the upbringing of a child, insights about modern love (with no grudge !) and a deep analysis into the strong bond created with a child a his tutor (whether he's the father ...or not).

What is being a family, what is being a father ? Can a child have several dads ? These are the questions the film will try to find an answer to.

The Larrieu Brothers take back the narrative of the 1962's film,. You might find back a lot of winks to the 1962's film : the little house in the woods, the back and forth to the city and the letters (or email) exchanged. However, this story (Jim's story) has its own originality, its own authenticity . It's indeed a heartbreaking story and a sensitive film that should bring new shades of thoughts towards how and when fatherhood is born.

All in all, this movie is an ode to tolerance, to freedom, to good people and to country side.

The narrative might seem very "French" or very intellectual, but it's a stylistic device that makes you enter into a specific mood, guided by the gentleness or its main character.

Very original, sometimes upsetting by the reactions of Aymeric the main character (who never gets angry !), but a beautiful idea and a beautiful mood indeed in this film !

The actors are also very good, Karim Leklou of course (who deserved his prize) but also Sara Giraudeau (the last girl friend of Aymeric in the film) or Adranic Manet who both bring a very energetic, tender and fresh input at the end of the film.

I am more skeptical with Laetitia Dosch, the mother of Jim, who is never where we expect her to be. Her intonation is puzzling, she speaks weird (as if she was reciting...), but her character is distrubing and weird from beginning to end which gives consistence to her character. You end up understanding that she's a freak and eventually accept the way she is (and she deceives you !).

I recommend this film for its originality and the emotion it will trigger in you. Beautiful film about fatherhood indeed.

If my kid read this review she would certainly kill me. Jokes apart, for French teenagers, "L'amour ouf" (Breaking Hearts) is indeed an upcoming cult film which could be compared to "La Boum" (The Party - 1980- with Sophie Marceau).

The gangster part and the story of revenge in the background can't mislead us: it's first and foremost a love story, a typical teenage film with all the ingredients it usually features : romance, heartbreaks and struggle for love.

For sure, the director has put a lot of himself in it (music, cinema references, memories of intimate scenes, telephone booth's souvenirs...). This being said, it does not stand out for its originality yet, a little bit for his style. However, it's a film which does not withstand an adult's critic especially when it comes to analyse the verisimilitude of its plot and the good (or bad) taste of its filming .

I don't want to lash out at Gilles Lellouch who is a fantastic actor, who looks like a humble and good person, and who is, after all, a decent director as "Le Grand Bain" (Sink or Swim), his previous film prooved us. "Breaking Hearts" on the other hand, is way more personal, but way less funny than his previous film and way more pompous. Don't get me wrong. It's entertaining but it never ever approaches a cult or a very good film as the director inteneded to. It becomse a problem because you can clearly tell that the director wanted it to be something big, you can clearly tell he has put a lot of effects, a lot of money for something too pompous to be good. Too much for the style, too less for the content and the credibility of his story.

Gilles Lellouch is very "heavy-handed" when it comes to gangster scenes, bunch of friends' scenes and love scenes. I personnaly think he has litterally copied some scenes from La Haine (Hatred), Dirty Dancing or West Side Story. And the same thing happens when it comes to dialogs (the sentences, the phrases used are very...very written). At the end, you may reckon it does not reach the standard of a cult movie, and clearly never ever approach a master-piece . You might even wonder if it was really worth 32 billion budget.

Despite being a cultural phenomenon here in France from which tik tok and social networks have cashed in, "Breaking Hearts" remains an average film done with heavy manners, heavy effects and classic tools (insisting 90's music, close-up and travelling).

In spite of the astonishing cast and the very expensive effects, something does not work. I think the director relies too much on the weight of his stars, the weights of his words (the very written dialogs that most of the time fall short) and too less on the power of the story or the input of supporting roles. Apart from Alain Chabat and his touching role as a widow father, the supporting roles are not to be remembered (and it has nothing to do with their performance because Vincent Lacoste for instance is brilliant as the "vilain"). THe supporting roles are most of the time irrelevant to the story, and quite trivial. Quite a pity .

At the end, you may end up fed up with all these cichés as if Gilles Lellouch intented to give his audience what it was expecting.

In addition to this overdose of music, there is what I would call a very personal depiction of the 80's-90's , or even an americanization of the 80's-90's which seem cool (it's fun to be brought back to theses memories with the recording tape and fake phone calls), but growing up in a small town in France in the 90's was not like the film pictures (bunch of black friends, pupils taking an americanized bus to go to school and wait on car's roofs). I am afraid to say that I don't believe it. It's fake. The family relationships are manichean as well (a beaten child stopps school and no one says nothing to him), the adventure scenes are very gendered (the girls hold their nose when they dive whereas the boys make a backflip), and basically everything from beginning to end is very classic (the bad kid climbs up on old cars and beats up adults despite being weak and skinny).

The discovery of the rising stars Mallory Wanecque and Malik Frikah could make you forget all this cliché mania for a while. In fact, the first act is quite brilliant. This incandescent love is very well pictured in a classic style though. You expect a beautiful ending to it (you can't wait to see Adèle Exarchopoulos and François Civil from whom you expect to bring something new, more modern, after 12 years of gap in the plot).

The problem is that it is stricly the contrary that happens. François Civil and Adèle Exachopoulos bring NOTHING new, their performances are almost held back... with less intensity than their younger counterparts.

The story lacks sense in the second part of the film. Besides the megalomania of the director is over represented to emphasize the love, the fate and the beauty of the main characters. Gilles Lellouch makes long (too long) scenes focusing on their faces. Adèle Exachopoulos's first scene (that happens after one hour of film) says it all: dancing on a trendy night club dance floor by moving her head with sensuality and touching her untied hair.

Clichés, solid cinema references, and a great soundtrack, this is what this film is made of.

All in all it looks like the perfect recipe for teenagers, a cheesy gift offered to them with no limit over the budget and two fantastic picks (that's for sure): (way better than the famous stars of this film !): Mallory Wanecque and Malik Frikah. Hats off for their two performances.

Featuring a wide range of French movie stars (Gilles Lellouch and Ludivine Saignier among others) as well as raising stars such as Raphael Quenard and Paul Kircher, the film had everything to lead to a success: An ambitious scenario with social struggle in the background, a very moral outcry against racial stereotypes, and beautiful faces to play the roles of loving teenagers. All in all, a full range of ingredients of a box-office hit were gathered. However the well prepared recipe doesn't work, leading to a nauseating overdose of namby-pamby sentimentality orchestered by an insisting 90's soundtrack.

As I said a few times in my previous reviews, a good book doesn't make a good film, just as good ingredients don't make a good dish. Doing a film is way different from writting a book and the emotion must be contextualized in some key scenes that this film is utterly deprived. And music can't save it all ! I am sorry but it's not because I hear Withney Houston's "I will always love you" that I'll be necessarily moved by a kiss or a love scene. It seems that the director relies too much on this technique to arouse our teenagers' memories.

The very acclaimed book (of Nicolas Mathieu, from which this story comes from) focuses on portraits of young teenagers living in the suburbs of eastern France in the 1990s, with the backdrop of the region's deindustrialization in the background. And so does the film... but in a clumsy way. The dialogs, many "key" scenes and the storytelling are most of the time unrealistic. It was, and it is a very interesting subject indeed but the way in which this theme is treated and interpreted is crucial. I have to admit that some of the actors are fairly good (Anthony's best friend, the girl friend and Gilles Lellouch of course as the father) but some others are off-putting mainly because the film is not very well written and some scenes are cheesy. For instance, I was disappointed by the performance of Ludivine Saigner, a good actress without a shadow of a doubt but certainly questionable in her role of a popular mum disenchanted by her drunk husband.

I may be even harsher when it comes to Paul Kircher, who plays the role of Anthony, the main character. Although he was brilliant in Animal Kingdom, he seems constantly mistaken in that film in which he wanders from place to place without lifting his face and without changing his attitude throughout the film ! He is permanently plunged into some sort of a teenage depression from beginning to end and there is barely an evolution from the starting point to the end in Anthony's attitude so it's hard to believe he is learning anything good from all his hard blows.

A lot of things fall short especially the key moments of Anthony's life. To me, everything goes too fast and is most the time poorly represented.

For instance, Anthony at the beginning of the film is supposed to be 14 . He's shy, clumsy, ugly like any other kid of his age and he rebels against his parents. How on earth does he manage to talk to absolute georgeous teenage girls who actually look 20 (+) in a deserted beach near a lake? How does this teenage low class boy manage to join a drugfree party in a beautiful house without drawing attention and how does he dare to challenge the local gangsters in an unfamiliar environment at the age of 14 ? Plenty of scenes are like this, just like when he reveals to the spectators how much he loves the girl by provoking a fight with her new lover, naked in the snow in front of a crowd...(!).

Not very credible is it ?

I've got the same feeling with the "vilain", the sensation of being had with something not very credible. Hacine, the vilain, after two years of exile in Morrocco comes back as Tony Montana in his neighborhood all by himself and with the confidence of a well-known gangster. How am I supposed to believe that? Wouldn't it be interesting to bring him up to a leading part with a true contrast with Anthony, instead of assigning him a role in which vengeance is the only goal he has ? Quite a pity if you consider how magnetic this actor can be.

Last but not least: the love story. I said earliier that Angelina Woreth (the girl friend of Anthony) is fairly good, reserved but with charisma. However, the contrast with the main teenager character of Anthony is way too big. The key scenes are just not there to make us understand their fatal attraction to one another. The love story, to me, never really happens, there is no obvious reason to it. So we are almost surprised when it becomes real.

I will end up this bad review with a good point and a question mark. Gilles Lellouche, the father of Anthony, is excellent, brilliant, touching, even frightening sometimes. His acting is perfect as always, he perfectly depicts the backdrop of the region and the lack of sense for the people like him left in the lurch. I just wonder how much of a coincidence it is that Gilles Lellouche acts in a film that is strangely very similar to his (Beating Hearts) which was in theatre a few weeks ago. The same appetite for music, violence and teenage romance... The same injunction to 90's nostalgia. Quite disturbing to have two very similar films done partially by the same people.

My bet is that this film (Leurs Enfants Apres Eux) will not be as cult as Beating Hearts by missing the key moments of the storytelling and by a rather cheesy representation of this epoch.

I don't want to be misunderstood, or mislead the people who read this review: I have put a 2/10 because it carried a part of desillusion and I did have some expectation going to theatre to see this film. It could perfectly be a 4 or a 5 but clearly not a success for the directors who, (to me) partially failed in the depiction of this social drama.