Reviews

The movie in itself deserve a better rating - even if there are indeed some unrealistic scenes.

The problem of that movie lies in the set up they create to guide us to what is morally adequate.

As we say, the way a question is asked is the result and looking at a lot of the comments, that truth is not denied here.

I'll still give 3/10 for the movie and the question you may ask yourself if you manage to distance from the spiderweb settings we are shown.

With a strong start, I was happily enjoying what I thought a great movie (a 9 or so).

However, after this excellent third of the movie, it seems nobody knew how to keep that good work. And the scenaristic worse happens, unfortunately introducing new events supposed to make the action progress, but actually destroying what was the core of the start of the movie.

I'll still give it a 6, for the movie it let me envision at first.

Not a bad portait of Trenet but too long - 2h! And too dithyrambic, I don't mind the director to be a big fan, however it's a bit too much. A bit more objectivity would not have diminished the documentary, nor Trenet!

I agree with andy's review, if the topic is interested, the documentary in itself is lacking in its building and the way it addresses this topic. It may have been better with a duration of 60 minutes.

There is however a powerful scene, with the live singing of the protagonists. Full of emotion and really moving and that only scene justifies the viewing of this documentary. Songs have been recorded by the way and can be found (on spotify for example).

Second feature movie from Klapisch, and first of many with Romain Duris, one of his favourite actors, "Le péril jeune" is a masterwork, and a cult movie. It manages to capture the spirit of a time (mid 70s) and of a generation and relies to do so on a group of talented actors.

I can only strongly recommend you this movie and hope you'll feel its magic! Compared to others movies around that main story - a group of youth, having fun, going to school, growing into themselves, living - it does so with such freshness, you'll want too, to be part of that group It will make you come back to your school time - even if you're not part of that generation, like me!

On top of that, we can feel that despite telling a story incorporating personal memories, he does so while laughing at that memory and the movie is infused with that fact. It will then be honed and used very efficiently in its most known work "L'auberge espagnole'.

More than the end of Zviad Gamsakhourdia state destiny - the main character isn't even named, this movie shows us a statesman who meets the end of this destiny through an odyssey that brings him in front of himself. It does so in filming Georgia and its beautiful mountains and songs, only to highlight the inherent loneliness that comes with power and the darkness he finds himself after a coup. Finding himself when running away, again and again.

With a slow pace, kinda poetic at some moments, it has also a persistent side - quite efficient there but some will find it repetitive. However, if you dive into the movie, it will move you into a story that tends to forget this specific story and aim being universal.

Main part of this documentary adresses the genesis of this classic, and the way Hugo became the humanist writer we know. That (hi)story is as good as the book!

A great documentary, showing that another kind of justice is possible, that may bring better outcomes to all the parties implied - at least in some cases. It illustrates with real cases, all taking place in one of the countries the most keen on the punitive solution: the US!

Outside presenting this another way of handling justice - most unknown, its strength is using real cases that follows great people choice of living their loss and powerful emotion.

In line with Bouli Lanners movies, this road movie presents comic and picturesque situation that comes one after another, with quaint characters. It manages to keep and mix a tender approach and punk-rock spirit (that Delépine and Kervern would not have denied - nor its 'Groland'-like humour). And to avoid clichés.

It stays however unequal,sometimes laborious and gives the impression to be a bit freewheeling and lazy int its story. It also miss a poetic feeling that makes that kind of movie works.

In conclusion, sympathic, some good smiles but average.

This movie is filmed as a false documentary by a son wanting to meet his real father, a past popular singer. With Alex Lutz behind the camera, but also in front - 40 years older than he really is - it is almost a one-man show, accentuated by the fact that the other main protagonist is almost never shown, as he's the one holding the camera.

The beginning amounts to nothing special. That plus the concert part made me almost dropped the movie but finally, the masks are dropped and the film begins to reach some truthfulness. These scenes remains however scarse, which explains my rating.

Actually, this documentary is not about Central Asia but about Tadjikistan, and mainly the desertion of a high-up of its army to Daech. Still interesting but not the topic and focus I expected!

This documentary shows how the big phamaceutical companies manage the health business. I think the first approach is a bit naive, as pharmaceutical companies are still companies, which aim is to earn money. And capitalism is applied, in health as in every other aspect - most of it as much unethical as health (to begin with how stock market bet on cereals, food, water...

However, pharmaceutical companies still benefits from a specific environment. Lots of products are paid not by the consumer but by social security systems, often national ones. Prices are not (depending on the country) market-based but defined in a way which is not always related with R&D and production costs.

And that position is the scandal there, as they use this to bill prices that cannot be related to facts and figures. When they do not cross the law... It is indeed strange to think that these practises are quite new and that such prices were not conceivable before (even for these exact companies), at times where they were generally investing more money in R&D!

This documentary shows how these companies lead their businesses, use their influences - and how countries begin to react to that.

It begins with a risky concept, but quite thrilling: make a movie during the 2012 presidential election, in the streets of Paris with the thousand of Hollande and Sarkozy supporters. With a second goal, make a movie about the thirty-old people with precarious situation.

However, the gamble is not won. The fact that a lot of scenes are made without retake, doesn't give the movie something special - and shows limitation of the improvisation actors can make with an undevelopped story. The scenes with militants and supporters aren't showing anything, we don't feel anything special about this historical event. You'd better not expect any sociological aspect. Placing the events on that day is only artificial. And the story in itself is a succession of hysterical and egotistic behaviours, shouts and verbal violence (not to mention the continuous cries of the babies).

This movie is quite disturbing, in different ways. First its story. Far from the rest of movies that can be seen, it is a simple story, that could happen to anyone, and of an injustice that nobody's doing about. The system shows no mercy and the people behing follows the procedures. In that, we have a political thriller very contemporary, very realistic of the way a lot people are reacting in their jobs (It isn't at the same scale but I guess anyone had already felt that feeling with administration, companies in charge of parking fines, etc.).

It is also disturbing because no answer is made whatsoever to this injustice. Nobody's trying to understand, trusting fully that the system is right and that if something happens, it is truly deserved. No need to even meet the man you're going to commit, by instance. And, contrary to the madhouse of The twelve tasks of Asterix, that madness is hidden, even the reactions of our main character stays confined. This absence of anger, of outburst was quite harsh on me, as this isn't a situation you can be ok for.

Finally, the movie shows in a second part, the effects it has on the main character and the path he has to take to overcome it. If I understand the aim in that, I think this was almost like another movie and did not display the same power. I was also wondering if the first part would not have been more impacting if we didn't see the start of the action in the movie beginning, letting doubt about legitimacy during a while.

You'll maybe ask why I didn't give it a better rating with all what I have said before, but I think that outside the story, this movie is less amazing. Acting is ok, no more. Directing is nothing special and I was definitely expecting more on that part. We even have some scenes that doesn't bring anything in my opinion.

With Pauline detective, you'll get a light comedy, that is not without qualities. Fresh, some nice situations and smiles. Sandrine Kiberlain is used on a different note, as she never was, and shows another side of her talents.

However, this is also a movie you'll instantly forget, with nothing memorable.

Lots of good can be said about this movie. If it doesn't avoid every cliché, the story of that young libanese woman is well filmed, the acting is good and 90's Paris is well re-created. The quality is enough to let pass some story issues (like the royalist woman that disappears once she fulfilled her role: supplying an appartment, or worse the justification she's giving for the risk ran after the police control scene).

No, with all that taken in account, this gives a nice movie, at least worthy of a 7. However something's missing and outside recreating Paris atmosphere of the 90's and following the lead character, the movie driving force diminishes after the first half. Plus - and one of the final scene, with the East-European woman tells exactly that - her situation, as difficult as it is, stays under a level many migrants meet and some of the debates can be perceived as a bit overtaken by reality.

Made of different short documentaries: "Les fous d'Allah", by Thomas Lelong and "Hayat : la menace fantôme", by Rola Tarsissi and Julien Daguerre. I was really disappointed in the way these topic were treated, especially for a public channel. It seemed to me made for inspiring fear more than to explain and decrypt a societal topic. The worse being the first, with a narrator voice worthy of scandal emission and dramatization that is completely out of topic (as the first doctor interviewed calmly explained: we are speaking of mad people, religion can be an aggravating factor but is not the primal issue - proof being we were speaking of 2 people over 40 of that mental hospital.

It starts with a good idea: make a movie showing how women have fought in the occupied France. Casting is quite good actually, managing to gather 4 reputable French actresses : Marceau, Depardieu (daughter of but she has proved her talent in more that a handful movies), Gillain and François. It even is inspired by an historical figure, Lise de Baissac.

Unfortunately, it stops there, Overdramatic scenario. Story not believable. Direction worthy of a TV movie. Nude scenes that seems mostly completely fishy and only there to attract the male public. Even the character casting phase - a classic and generally a good start - is no good. It shows an amateurish and bemusing resistance and it's better to not search historical credibility either. Of course, with all that, even the acting is quite bad, I guess only Julie Depardieu manages to make something from her scenes.

To top it all I think this movie quite sexist - despite the original idea! There are way better movies speaking about French resistance, some of them showing also women (Lucie Aubrac, L'armée des ombres, Odette) and that one finally is one too much!

I fail to comprehend how Salomé, the director, managed to convince people to make this movie (financial, actors and actresses - even to the point to accept nude scenes). His previous works were already far from what could be called good movies. Strangely enough, he's still directing with a last movie released this year 2020. I guess he should be a man that knows how to persuade and talk people into what he desires. (To be fair, I have to underline I enjoyed "Je fais le mort " released after this one).

As interesting it can be to discover and follow Françoise Dolto's journey and fight to change how medicine consider children, that movie stays a plain TV movie, with nothing special in any way (scenario, direction, acting). Should have been better but still shows an important figure and how things were not far ago...

Movie with a slow rythm, this movie seems to be used by its director Elise Girard as an opportunity to mix personal and social topics with anachronism and absurd. Views of a discreet Paris, almost empty. A strange relationship (unfortunately partly fishy). Nuclear protests. Strange birds death. Books. Silence and eye dialogs. This gives it a je-ne-sais-quoi that can be enough to follow without failing this short movie to the end. It isn't a great movie but the delicateness that transpires from it - even if it is sought and does not always achieve the feat to feel genuine - is pleasant.

The first scenes is actually a good test. If you enjoy it, I think you'll love this movie. If not, I strongly advise you to stop there. The whole movie is indeed made of the same substance: long motionless sequence-shot. No action per so. No dialog.

When reading the reviews, this movie seems to get dithyrambic or at least rather good critics. I unfortunately did not enjoy this movie.

First, when it comes to the movie itself, it is far too long and the last part seemed to me completely unnecessary. Ok the police car is worth it, but that's all. Where's the need to hammer again story, message and characters come from? On top of that, if the approach is quite original, it did not take me anywhere. And I could'nt manage to relate to the apathetic main character, who's showing the same beaten look the whole movie and seeming only to follow without a second thought what the last person may advise her to do.

Secondly, when it comes to movies speaking of modern Russia, its bureaucracy, and life in small cities, there are far better ones. Take Durak from Yuriy Bykov. Or Zvyagintsev's movies for instance.

Finally, having an ukrainian making a fiction movie on Russia seems quite strange to me knowing the recent history between the two countries... Overall with such an unmoving and hammered vision (which - to be clear - I do not criticize in its content or conclusion, but this is a fiction and a film that was shown in Cannes on top of that. It ought to propose more than a critical point of view)

It may be surprising but I'll begin with the movie weaknesses in my opinion:

• First, its title (at least the French one). I don't understand that choice. Even if this Mediator affair exists thanks to Brest doctors whitleblowing - and the fight the movie will relate, I doubt it was an important point in the public mind, and was not at least in mine.
• Second thing, it risks having people thing that this is a French "Erin Brockovich". Which is not.
• And last, its start, which is a bit weak, especially the study part which could have been shown differently (Spotlight is a great example in that regard).

Despite these, it is a great movie. It tells without fault this scandal. A double scandal, as the company clearly cheated to make money on the health of the patients but French State has also failed in its mission of pharmacological surveillance. It tells this without relating to special effect, distorting the truth or simplifying facts. Worth the fight of Irene Flachon actually. Speaking the truth, unvarnished, is not an easy fit (and we see in many movies that directors fears it won't be enough) but Emmanuelle Bercot trusts this story. She sticks to a simple way to film it, but that works and the movie get you involved in this fight. On top of that, Sidse Babett Knudsen is doing a great job and I guess Irene Frachon can be happy with this casting.

It also shows how difficult is to escalate something abnormal, even in a country like France, as soon as there is big money implied. "The Clearstream Affair" illustrates the same thing when it comes to finance, still sticking to EU countries, as well as a lot of other whistleblower stories, less known. Learning how to recognize and hear them is also an important aspect in "La fille de Brest" and I do hope this society issue will be tackled serioulsy (Law changed in France in 2016, with difficult debates about what can be done, giving birth to a better but still unsatisfying solution).

I honestly don't see what this new adaptation (shall I call it a remake) brings. Past adaptations are far better and Fukunaga does not offer a new vision of the book nor of any character.

It really lines up with current tendency to make remakes with illustrates more a lack of ideas and originality. One of a thousand may be the equal of the original or even better. A handful deserves to be shot as it brings new ideas to the original. The rest brings at most modern special effects or an opportunity to see great actors in famous roles, when it is not a simple downgrade.

This movie fall in my opinion in the last category. Do favor the classic, to begin with Orson Welles'!