x-bonastre
Joined Sep 2002
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges9
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings140
x-bonastre's rating
Reviews4
x-bonastre's rating
I've rarely seen such an empty and pretentious film.
The form is... impeccable: beautiful images by Manuel Dacosse, pleasant soundtrack, intelligently cast actors, among whom stands out the handsome Yannick Renier, the archetype of the 1960s hunk.
On the other hand, apart from the (heavy) references to Louis Feuillade (the character of "Irma Vep" by Musidora), the "James Bond" series from the Sean Connery era, the giallo films, the fumetti such as "Diabolik", or the profusion of hemoglobin dear to Quentin Tarantino, there is NOTHING in this film: no plot, no emotion, no feelings.
The one who was dead in there must have been the screenwriter!
The form is... impeccable: beautiful images by Manuel Dacosse, pleasant soundtrack, intelligently cast actors, among whom stands out the handsome Yannick Renier, the archetype of the 1960s hunk.
On the other hand, apart from the (heavy) references to Louis Feuillade (the character of "Irma Vep" by Musidora), the "James Bond" series from the Sean Connery era, the giallo films, the fumetti such as "Diabolik", or the profusion of hemoglobin dear to Quentin Tarantino, there is NOTHING in this film: no plot, no emotion, no feelings.
The one who was dead in there must have been the screenwriter!
All right ! Ridley Scott is a master when it comes to battle scenes and there are 500 extras to direct. But, please, why have you respected historical truth so little!
At the time of Marie-Antoinette's beheading (magnificent scene, treated in a very realistic manner), Bonaparte was 24 years old, not 49 (age of Phoenix at time of filming)!
In the crowd, he's seen watching the queen's execution, with a sullen face. But his presence was completely impossible, because throughout the second part of 1793, the young general was in the South for the siege of Toulon.
Furthermore, at the time, he wore his hair long to his shoulders.
When he married Joséphine, in March 1796, he was 26 and she was 32.
As much as Vanessa Kirby is credible for her role, the choice of Joaquin Phoenix (who always looks grumpy and tired) is catastrophic, except in the last half hour of this disappointing film.
At the time of Marie-Antoinette's beheading (magnificent scene, treated in a very realistic manner), Bonaparte was 24 years old, not 49 (age of Phoenix at time of filming)!
In the crowd, he's seen watching the queen's execution, with a sullen face. But his presence was completely impossible, because throughout the second part of 1793, the young general was in the South for the siege of Toulon.
Furthermore, at the time, he wore his hair long to his shoulders.
When he married Joséphine, in March 1796, he was 26 and she was 32.
As much as Vanessa Kirby is credible for her role, the choice of Joaquin Phoenix (who always looks grumpy and tired) is catastrophic, except in the last half hour of this disappointing film.
Twenty-one years before the version popularized by Fritz Lang, we would be wrong to forget that there was that of Richard Eichberg, also shot in two parts.
For this first part of a duration almost equal to Lang's Bengal Tiger, one could logically expect an identical plot, but this is not the case. The story even differs on many points, so that we are sometimes surprised by the twists, which are close to those we know to better get away from it.
Despite a first half-hour that struggles to gain acceptance, we are then very quickly seduced by this story which turns out to be richer and more complex in the end than we would have thought (Lang's version even becomes simplistic at side), multiplying the characters (with some who differ greatly from those we know) and the stakes, not to mention a last part in Paris that we do not expect at all, concluded with a cliffhanger which is equally.
Otherwise, a special mention to the decorations which are of high quality and varied.
Pleasant surprise that this film rehabilitated by Wild Side Video, even if the flamboyance, the exoticism and the poetry of the future version of 1959 always seduces me more.
Then, for a film that takes place in India, it must be recognized that with colors it makes you dream more...
Written by Libellool.
For this first part of a duration almost equal to Lang's Bengal Tiger, one could logically expect an identical plot, but this is not the case. The story even differs on many points, so that we are sometimes surprised by the twists, which are close to those we know to better get away from it.
Despite a first half-hour that struggles to gain acceptance, we are then very quickly seduced by this story which turns out to be richer and more complex in the end than we would have thought (Lang's version even becomes simplistic at side), multiplying the characters (with some who differ greatly from those we know) and the stakes, not to mention a last part in Paris that we do not expect at all, concluded with a cliffhanger which is equally.
Otherwise, a special mention to the decorations which are of high quality and varied.
Pleasant surprise that this film rehabilitated by Wild Side Video, even if the flamboyance, the exoticism and the poetry of the future version of 1959 always seduces me more.
Then, for a film that takes place in India, it must be recognized that with colors it makes you dream more...
Written by Libellool.