Change Your Image
rebekah-fieschi
Reviews
Sous les jupes des filles (2014)
As ridiculous as it gets, it never mocks the women, the audience laughs with them and not at them.
I went in this movie not expecting much from it, indeed the French film market has for a few years now only offered non-cinematic and not-so-funny comedies (with a handful of exceptions of course!), I was happily surprised.
Sous Les Jupes Des Filles is a cheeky comedy about eleven lost and confused modern women (a housewife, a business woman, a girlfriend, a wife, a frigid, a lesbian, a lover, etc.) that stumble and fall but stand back up again. The film is sometimes crude, sometimes sad, but always sincere and never mean. That's why I'm upset with the reactions of many of the female audience who apparently still live in medieval times and judge the movie as being offensive (which it isn't one bit) because of it's outspoken sexual tone, but being a woman, I don't know how to talk about us without mentioning sexuality. Our hormones are definitely one of the reasons we are so "complex".
The movie presents a very diverse group of women that go through different times and difficulties in their lives, all of which don't meet but the film nicely goes from one scene to another with the main trade being their relationship with themselves, with their congeners and with their partners. As it's title indicates Sous Les Jupes Des Filles (Under Girl's Skirts) is about fantasies, not just sexual but mainly fantasies about life in general, which gives the movie a lot of heart even though it's playful. Apparently the French audience is finally able to laugh and accept mixed-race and mixed-religion marriage with Qu'est-Ce qu'on à fait Au bon dieu? (which, besides it's pertinent subject, is very mediocre in it's filmmaking) but not the sexual liberation and the equality of women and just their choice to be whoever they want (what century are we in already?).
The ending dancing scene lacks originality and seems like a quick way to end the medley of stories, the trial scene has no depth therefore has no sense, and the filmmaking is a little flat. Those are the only negative points I can think about. The entire cast is fabulous and beautiful.
What I liked the most about Sous Les Jupes Des Filles is that, as ridiculous as it gets, it never mocks the women, the audience laughs with them and not at them. It's a declaration of love to women, however crazy they are. What is there in this film for men? Lots of laughs, and maybe a glimpse of women's psychology which may help men understand them better.
The Two Faces of January (2014)
Without its intriguing trio and the stunning Mediterranean locations, The Two Faces of January would probably be easily forgettable
From its very beginning, The Two Faces of January, with its beautiful postcard cinematography, sets an uncomfortable mood. It gives you the feeling of being in a foreign country, at the opposite side of the world, free from your troubles or daily routine back home, but it also makes you feel very isolated and vulnerable, as if anyone might abuse you since you know neither the place, the language nor the customs.
Yes, it's a thriller and yes, it plays that role well (even though some parts are uneven) it builds up tension and has atmospheric chase scenes, but what truly makes this movie interesting are the characters. Chester MacFarland, smoothly played by Viggo Mortensen, carries the film by creating a dishonest, suave and confident man, who's paradoxically sometimes panicked and desperate, obviously haunted by his demons, but is never unlikeable. He isn't just a con artist trying to escape his problems, he isn't just a jealous husband afraid of loosing his wife to a younger man, he's mysterious in a Gatsby sort of way, we never really know his true emotions and goals, but we see a man pursuing his freedom and happiness.
Rydal (Oscar Isaac), appears to be the lead, the one the audience can identify with the most, he's a young American guide who scams his clients and enters Chester's life because he is tormented by the unresolved conflicts with his father which Chester reminds him of. When he discovers MacFarland is on the run for swindling and later for murder, he allows himself to get entangled in MacFarland's situation, intrigued by the man that represents what he might become if he doesn't change his ways. After helping Chester and his wife Colette (Kirsten Dunst) escape Athens, he begins to fall for the unfailing charm of Colette, a misled and misleading young woman trapped between the man she loves and the life she wants to live.
Without this intriguing trio and the stunning Mediterranean locations, The Two Faces of January would probably be easily forgettable as the plot is quite thin and borrows from too many of its predecessors to be original, but the ending, which one might call too neat, actually leaves you with lingering questions about human relationships. All of that said, I find myself with neither a strong dislike or like for the movie, as if it was missing a strong climax truly resolving the main point of interest: the conflict over Colette. And, I guess it's explained in the book, but why is it called The Two Faces of January?
Like my review? More like this at http://www.rebekahfieschi.com/movie-reviews/
A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
Wes Craven ingeniously pulls off a seminal horror movie amidst the endless flood of early 80s slasher madness that still stands out thirty years later.
CONTAINS SPOILER! READ ONLY IF YOU'VE SEEN THE MOVIE!
If you want to watch a good movie, go back to the classics. Apart from the 80s cheesiness that might at first make nowadays teenagers uncomfortable, A Nightmare on Elm Street hasn't aged much.
Wes Craven ingeniously pulls off a seminal horror movie amidst the endless flood of early 80s slasher madness that still stands out thirty years later. Faithful to it's slasher genre with surprising, gruesome deaths it however has something more: a script that goes the distance. The primary strength of the film is the intellectual involvement of the audience, we are not just trying to guess who's next, we are trying to solve the mystery along with the heroine Nancy Thompson (Heather Lagenkamp) and are constantly on the edge of our seats. The blurred lines between reality and fantasy are precisely crafted to deeply emerge the audience in the story and warp expectations. At times we think it's a nightmare when it turns out to be reality, and vice versa, and sometimes nightmares become reality, those are very conscious directorial choices putting the audience in the same state of fear as the main protagonist, with no where to escape.
Even though the nightmare scenes become slightly redundant and less imaginative after the spectacular bathtub one, the visual and practical effects, unlike many CGI nowadays, are still very disturbing. I've always thought that human created creatures and practical effects were somehow more repulsive than CGI ones even if they're low budget and look fake, they are more organic, more palpable, more terrifying. I don't know about you, but when I imagine the boogie man he looks much more like Seth Brundle as the fly (The Fly, David Cronenberg, 1986) than the spider in Big Ass Spider! (Mike Mendez, 2013). But the true strength that makes Freddy Krueger much more terrifying than his robotic psycho villain counterparts Jason and Michael Myers, is his personality exhibited throughout the movie as a sadistic but yet playful child murderer, unashamed of his one liners: "I'm your boyfriend now, Nancy."
As for the cast, Tina Grey (Amanda Wyss) is perfect as the Janet Leigh of the film, she even brings some sort of unexpected class to the genre, her death, shown from the reality part of her nightmare, is the most horrifying scene of the movie. Nancy, the typical teenager, is not just another scream queen, she's also resourceful and courageous and makes it easy for the audience to suspend their disbelief. The boys, Nick Corri and Glen Lantz (Jsu Garcia and Johnny Depp) of course have minor parts but are nonetheless convincing, and Glen's death, which comes in the last act of the movie, competes with Tina's as one of the most unforgettably gruesome scenes, coming as a shock after the much more ordinary death-by- hanging of Corri. The adults are much weaker characters than the teenagers and their acting is so caricatured it makes us chuckle, although Ronee Blakely (Nancy's mom) is very efficient in the exposition scene explaining Kruger's origins and I also loved the sleep clinic sequence, alas all of her other scenes are over the top and unconvincing; John Saxon (Nancy's dad), in spite of being too dramatic, still manages to portray a strong but frustrated parental figure.
And of course, Freddy Kruger (Robert Englund), fully scared in his striped sweater, harboring his iconic razor glove, manages a visceral performance which reminds each of us of the monster that haunts our nightmares, whatever form it may take, the one we think we finally got rid of but yet might still be lingering somewhere waiting for his comeback. With the marvelous creation of this character, Wes Craven reinforces the fear of sleep, proving that a horror movie doesn't have to lobotomize it's audience to be truly frightening.
Like my review? More like this at http://www.rebekahfieschi.com/movie-reviews/
Maleficent (2014)
The screenplay and direction have such conflicting ideas and uneven tones that it seems soulless.
CONTAINS SPOILER! DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE!
I really did try my best not to get my hopes up about this movie: it is a Disney reboot with a screenplay by the 2010 (not so great) Alice of Wonderland writer Linda Woolverton and directed by a special effects artist, but I love fantasy, I'm dying for a good fairy tale, and Angelina Jolie looks fantastic in the posters/teasers. I couldn't help it, I got exited.
The beginning wasn't bad, it tells of the childhood of Maleficent and why she became a villain, it seemed to be aimed at young children but was interesting enough although the main problem of the movie was already there: the scenes are just passing by rapidly, there's no character development.
The story was somewhat interesting until it began to follow the classical Sleeping Beauty tale which everybody knows and doesn't need to be redone here. Angelina Jolie is great as Maleficent, even hypnotizing, Roz Abery and Rick Baker did sublime work creating her look. She's fighting to create a character with motivations that the audience will understand and empathize with but she's stuck with a weak script about a woman done wrong (oh so clever!). All of the other characters are plain and one dimensional, there's only murky direction: Sharlto Copley (Stefan) is dreadful, he gives a very week performance, poor Elle Fanning only has silly vacant lines and isn't pushed in the right direction to give Aurora more depth. The three fairies are ridiculous, I was embarrassed during their scenes. Oh, I can hear you say "But it's a kid's movie" but kids are not stupid unless we make them that way by treating them so from a very young age, the fairies could have been funny and still be charismatic and at least a little bit smart, in a word they could have been interesting. The screenplay and direction have such conflicting ideas and uneven tones that it seems soulless.
The film gains my interest here and there with the Maleficent/Aurora relationship, it takes a beautiful twist when the true love kiss comes from a motherly figure and not a man. I was happy to see that the ending wasn't a huge battle as it is in so many movies nowadays but actually followed it's storyline even though Maleficent wears leather pants (which seems very odd and out of character, her wardrobe was otherwise perfect) AND she doesn't even turn into a dragon.
But why oh why this awful voice over? And why the need to say "the story is quite different than the one you've been told"? Why not, just a crazy idea of mine, make a movie without justifying yourself or trying to re-write previous films? Sleeping Beauty is a masterpiece of animation that wasn't talking down to children, how 'bout we leave it alone?! Disney here passes the chance to give us a unique enchanting story and instead we get more CGI and a muddled, reheated tale.
Like my review? More like this at http://www.rebekahfieschi.com/movie-reviews/
Grace of Monaco (2014)
Grace of Monaco is well acted, well directed, well shot but still not very interesting.
What to say about this movie? I don't really think it has a strong enough reason to exist, it's just a screenwriter's fantasy about Grace Kelly's life. For one thing, I don't think there was a need to re-invent her life as I'm sure it was interesting enough the way it truly was, and another thing, making a biopic of an actor is very risky as everybody knows their face so well, it automatically has a TV movie sort of feel.
I went in thinking my dislike for Nicole Kidman would grow bigger, but I was actually impressed by her performance. She brings to life a strong but delicate character, as the Princess of Monaco once was, but there is only one Grace Kelly, she was magnificent, would always shine through the screen and had incredible presence, that is not something you can impersonate or recreate with perfect make-up, hairstyle and costumes. Plus, even though Miss Kidman did a perfectly respectable job, she's too old to play a 27 year old movie star, her skin shows no imperfection but the look in her eyes (at times blood shot) shows some signs of age.
Grace of Monaco is well acted, well directed, well shot but still not very interesting. Who wants to watch a biopic that doesn't tell the truth about it's character's story and blurs the lines between facts and fiction? Also, it's a little cheeky to go ahead and fantasize Royalty stories when they are still so recent and could easily offend the family.
If you're looking for a pretty looking tearjerker or just want to dream about the struggle of being a Hollywood star and a real life princess, Grace of Monaco is for you. If you are hoping for a pertinent movie in the line of La Môme you will undoubtedly be disappointed.
Like my review? More like this at http://www.rebekahfieschi.com/movie-reviews/
The Homesman (2014)
Gorgeous visuals, unfocused story.
CONTAINS SPOILERS! DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE!
I was so exited about going to see The Homesman, expecting a moving movie, depicting the old west in a way that hasn't quite been done before: mixing the beauty of the scenery with the true horrors of the time, all with such brilliant craftsmanship that it leaves you with a sense of wonder about humanity and a deep bond with the characters. That was not the film I saw.
The Homesman does indeed have gorgeous visuals throughout, however, story wise something was definitely missing. To tell the truth, I'm unsure what the film was about.
Was Tommy Lee Jones painting the story of Mary Bee Cuddy (Hilary Swank), an independent woman, a Nebraskan pioneer living "uncommonly alone" in search for her rightful place in this Men's world? Or of George Briggs (Tommy Lee Jones) the marginal soldier of fortune, neither a good or a bad man but simply a human being living with his tormenting inner conflicts? Or the story of three mistreated women driven to insanity by the loss of their children and the repetitive physical and sexual abuse of their husbands?
All of these are very interesting intrigues yet the movie fails to develop any of them. We are constantly held at a distance from the characters, they never seem to truly connect to one another or with the audience.
Like my review? More like this at http://www.rebekahfieschi.com/movie-reviews/
At the peak of her character's curve, we lose Miss Cuddy which leaves us with a lingering feeling of un-fulfillment, but also strangely allows George Briggs to let us breach in, the audience gets to feel connected to him for a short while but only on the surface since the movie quickly comes to an end. As for the three insane woman, they are only used as a medium in this odd story. We sit through shocking images explaining why they have lost their minds, it is implicit that their suffering is caused mainly by men so nobody will care to look for the reason of it in this society ruled by them, but they don't evolve, they stay stuck in the movie as luggage, the same way the camera stays stuck on the shore for the last shot, and George Briggs drifts away dancing. Maybe that's what it was about, the inability of women in the old west to choose their own paths.
Godzilla (2014)
Godzilla wasn't all bad, but it had such a potential to be good that having it be mediocre is very disappointing.
CONTAINS SPOILERS! DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE!
The opening credits are absolute perfection, the intense music and the exciting montage using great 50s style footage got me so hyped up that when the actual movie began it fell flat, it simply couldn't keep up that level.
I know everybody loves Bryan Cranston from his role in Breaking Bad (which admittedly I haven't seen) but I didn't find him particularly amazing as Joe Brody. What bothered me, and felt like a let down, was the introduction of his character, shot as a reveal with tension built up for no true purpose, building around a character that has virtually no screen time. Gareth Edwards repeats this mistake with the introduction of Admiral William Stenz (David Strathairn). All the reveal shots should've been left to our anti-hero Godzilla. The shots that introduce the monster are outstanding, it is in these moments that for once a blockbuster shows creativity in it's filmmaking and is not just a series of computer generated images that look like a video game. Just a side note, why is everything so centered in the middle of the frame nowadays, is it for a 3D purpose? It sacrifices a potentially really nice composition for an IMAX/3D effect that everybody won't get to see. But I'm just raging on 3D here, in the case of Godzilla it's really not that bad. The monster itself is a very nice design, close to the 1954 Godzilla monster (maybe his eyes bothered me a little, but hey I'm just being too picky now) however the MUTO cruelly lacked originality, they look like a mix between Alien (Ridley Scott, 1979), Transformers (Michael Bay) and Starship Troopers (1997). The designers could have done more research and asked themselves how their skin would be if they live so deep in the earth, how would the humidity effect them, etc.
The true disappointment in Godzilla though is the hour or so that we lose watching the incoherent US Army interaction that has been done a million times in this type of movie and is absolutely uninteresting, getting one to wonder if they care for the movie much at all. Instead the focus could have been on the main characters, developing their story, relationships and bonds so they could grow in depth before our eyes, the public would then care about their lives and not wonder if they care or not that they are once again watching the end of the world with the army failing to stop it.
This brings us to the tone of the movie: it never committed to the campy B-movie tone and charming cheesiness of its ancestor or to the intense but yet grotesque end of the world movie with it's "Daddy, will you still be here tomorrow?" tear jerker lines.
The last act is nonetheless enjoyable, it regains the audience interest and almost gets you to forget the hour of mediocrity you just watched. The filmmaking is imaginative, we are involved in the fate of the protagonists, the battle scenes are breath-taking and our long gone interest is piqued again but it's only to get us exited about Godzilla 2 (when I heard about the upcoming sequels I lost faith in humanity, yet again).
Godzilla wasn't all bad, but it had such a potential to be good that having it be mediocre is very disappointing.
Like my review? More like this at http://www.rebekahfieschi.com/movie-reviews/