Change Your Image
ElMaruecan82
There was a time when "The Simpsons" were influencing Pop Culture. Now, it's Pop Culture influencing "The Simpsons"
I love movies that challenge my intelligence, please my eyes, and talk to my heart
Personal Top Lists:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur4234119/lists
IMDb Daily Poll Selection History :
Most classic one-word movie quote : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2009-02-27
Most classic "written" quote : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2009-04-02
Movie quote said in front of your mirror : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2009-04-15
Favorite cinematic 'Frank' : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2009-04-28
Most classic 'three-word' movie quote : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2009-05-25
Movie title best defining your life right now : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2009-06-09
"Morning" movie quote best defining your mood when you wake up : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2009-07-07
Most elaborated revenge scheme featured in a movie : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2009-08-09
Most iconic three-word movie quote (with a contraction): http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2009-09-17
Favorite pairing from the list of Best Actor nominated duos : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2009-10-11
Favorite female villain from the American Film Institute's list : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2009-10-16
Favorite Actress from the top 10 of AFI's "America's Greatest Legends": http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2009-11-09
Favorite Actor from the top 10 of AFI's "America's Greatest Legends": http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2009-11-10
Most classic 'two-word' movie quote : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2009-11-27
Movie genre matching your own resolution for 2010 : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2009-12-31
Favorite cinematic hero from a Best Picture Winner : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-01-05
Favorite gangster film from AFI's Top 10 : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-01-28
Favorite one-word TV catchphrase : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-03-06
Most memorable "walking" movie scene : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-03-14
Favorite TV Duo with names beginning with same initials : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-03-24
Favorite highest ranked movie by genre from AFI's Top 100 : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-03-25
Favorite iconic female movie quote from AFI's Top 100: http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-04-05
Favorite of Top 10 Voyeuristic movies: http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-04-16
TV show title best defining your life right now: http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-05-01
Favorite Harrison Ford movie nominated for Best Picture oscar: http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-05-04
Film icon most likely to win a staring contest: http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-05-15
Favorite gangster from one of AFI's Top 10 films: http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-06-01
Favorite movie set in a hotel (or motel): http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-06-03
Movie with the most claustrophobic feeling : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-07-01
Favorite "Flying" movie moment : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-07-05
Favorite cinematic pig : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-07-12
Favorite cinematic photographer : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-07-13
Favorite one-word Mystery film : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-07-19
Favorite TV-themed movie : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-08-04
Favorite actress with oscars nods in at least 4 decades : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-08-12
Favorite actor with oscar nods in at least 4 different decades : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-08-13
Favorite TV/movie cliffhanger quote : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-08-14
Most iconic TV item of clothing : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-08-25
Movie quote best defining Al Pacino : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-08-31
Favorite TV/Movie Butler : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-09-25
Favorite narrator from IMDb's Top 50 : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-09-27
Favorite TV large group of siblings : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-11-06
Most iconic four-word movie quote : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-11-15
Director most likely to direct a Best Picture winner first : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-11-26
Most enjoyed TV's opening credits sequence : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-12-01
Most memorable cinematic question : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-12-10
Most tiring ciliché movie profession : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-12-19
Most memorable child's movie quote : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-12-26
Favorite TV's male and female team : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-12-29
Favorite TV show that regularly broke the 4th Wall : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-01-05
Favorite TV's "acronym"-named character : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-01-08
Most memorable mystery from a TV series : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-02-02
Favorite 1960's tough-guy film : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-02-13
Best written film from Top 10 Favorite Screenplays : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-02-25
Favorite medical doctor from a non TV medical show : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-03-09
Favorite horror-themed TV series : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-03-11
Favorite classic sci-fi film released in 1982 : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-04-07
Favorite cinematic moving object : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-04-17
Most original cinematic deadly object : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-05-05
Favorite TV series with a titular setting : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-05-11
Most iconic TV gameshow cathcphrase : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-05-18
Favorite TV bespectacled character : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-05-25
Most deserving film-maker of a theme park : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-05-31
Favorite Western-themed TV series : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-06-08
Most iconic movie cop : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-06-17
Favorite Best Picture moment from Ebert's 100 greatest : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-06-21
Disney film that should be remade by David Lynch : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-06-28
Favorite oscar-winning Columbo "murderer" : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-06-29
Favorite 1999 existential film : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-07-01
Favorite TV show featuring puppetry : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-07-02
Favorite first performer to win Oscar twice in the same category : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-07-18
Favorite TV show aired during 11 seasons : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-07-20
TV kid best defining your childhood personality : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-07-23
Movies with the most nightmarish feel : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-07-25
Favorite character "good" or "bad" : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-08-14
Favorite TV character using a wheelchair : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-08-17
Favorite top ranked 70's one-word title film : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-08-30
Director that "owned" the 60's : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-09-01
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
Indeed, Al Pacino is probably one of the most quotable actors of his generation with so many sayings, shoutings, warnings, shoutings again and last but not least, speeches that forever enriched Pop-Culture. But this is a poll about his quotes.
So, even if you're not a fan of the actor, if you could pick just one, which is your favorite from these 35 Al Pacino's memorable quotes, that don't come from a speech or a monologue except if it's a conclusion that can stand alone as a classic quote?
PS: 75% of the list belongs to his two most legendary roles : 12 quotes from Michael Corleone and 9 from Tony Montana
Yet, here are pictures of them taken before their prime and the least that can be said is that they look younger than the usual adult/virile image that forged their legend. So, which actor, would you say, looks the most boyish, in a cute, charming, pleasantly surprising way?
This is not to say that all great comedies culminate at the ending, some like romantic comedies have a rather conventional closing scene, other can be surprisingly emotional or bittersweet endings, but it's precisely on these memorable endings, regardless of their effects, that this poll focusses on.
So, which of these 22 classic comedies has the greatest ending?
(the question and answer can be delivered by the same character in one single quote)
The exchange shouldn't exceed four sentences, otherwise we're not talking about quotes but about dialogue, so sorry for the Pulp Fiction (1994) fans but the iconic "What" sequence between Jules and Brett is ineligible for this poll.
Want to discuss it? -It's here my friend."
PS: Some classic quotes are actually answers to questions ("These go to eleven", "Badges? We don't need no badges..." "We'll always have Paris") but they're memorable without the need to quote the question question while "What have you got?" loses its impact without "What are you rebelling against?.
As there are also questions memorable enough without their answers ("Is it safe?", "Are you gonna bark all day little doggie or are you gonna bite?", "... do you punk?"...) They aren't listed either.
How many of the 100 Greatest American Film of All Time have you seen?
The images correspond to the Top 10 movies from the list.
So, from these 12 justice-related films (as in 12 Jurors), ranked in order of IMDb ratings, which one do you plead guilty of liking the most?
Celebrating the 20th anniversary of this unforgettable triplet, which other actor' "3-set of major performances from the same year", is your favorite?
Latest Message Board Posts
Reviews
Papy fait de la résistance (1983)
French Comedy's Finest Hour about French History's Darkest Hours...
1983 started sadly for French cinema, the heart of Louis de Funès, that was endlessly pumped of a manic energy that enchanted kids and adults for thirty years, succumbed to a fatal stroke. After Fernandel and Bourvil, his death closed the most glorious chapter of French comedy.
But laughs didn't stop for all that, and left the door open for the new generation. And the most emblematic group of this comical New Wave was the 'Splendid' actor's troop (from the name of the café-theater they started in), with such names as Clavier, Jugnot, Balasko, Lhermitte, they would define a new brand of French comedy, based on realistic humor and the elevation of losers and outcasts to the rank of pop-culture icons. And in 1983, they had already competed with De Funès on the box-office field (and honorably lost).
The Splendid Troop made the 'French Fried Vacation" series, with a first opus set in Club Med, and the second in the mountain, then they would make the hilarious "Santa Claus is a Bastard", a magnificent satire about Christmas spirit and its unlikely mixing with loneliness, poverty and depression. After Patrice Leconte, this third movie would be directed by Jean-Marie Poiré, another significant name of French comedy, and the result was such a success that they teamed-up the year after, and for another classic set during the darkest hours of French history: "Gramps is in the Resistance".
But if anything, "Gramps" is a story of a missed opportunity, the film was supposed to feature De Funès. What a splendid tribute to the old generation, and a touching torch- passing moment it would have been had fate not decided otherwise, and this is why the film opens with these beautiful words: to Louis de Funès. And as a fitting homage, many actors who worked with him were cast in the film. From Jean Carmet who plays the heroic father to Jacqueline Maillan who plays his wife, the great operatic singer Héléna Bourdelle aka "La Bourdelle" and even Julien Guiomar who played his eternal rival Tricatel in "Breast or Leg?".
The casting doesn't waste any character and reminds of another star-studded and cameo-filled WWII film: "Is Paris Burning?", the tag-line even says tat the film cost more than the landing on Omaha Beach. But there's more in the film than a simple spot-the-star game. You never feel it forced or useless, the story is remarkably multi-layered until a grand finale reassemble all the pieces of the puzzle, and each actor plays his part remarkably without trying to steal the show. And the writing doesn't indulge to cheap gags, some parts make you smile, not laugh, but their purpose is to expose characters and their personalities. At the end, you genuinely care for them, hell, you even feel sorry for the traitor.
But the heart of the story lies within this Bourdelle family. The father dies early in the film, but since he dies from the first gag, it's rather late, but it's so funny it was worth it. That's the secret of the writing, there are no five minutes without a funny moment and your patience is always rewarded. The daughter of La Bourdelle is Bernadette, a violinist played by Dominique Lavanant, she's a fervent fan of De Gaulle, and she's engaged, not so passionately, to the Bourdelles' tenant, Michel Taupin, played by Christian Clavier, a nerdy guy who fails to exude the resistant vibes. And then there's Grampa played by De Funès' long-life accomplice, Michel Galabru, an ex-doctor and WWI veteran, who behaves like a modern version of Abe Simpson.
To complete the family picture, there's Martin Lamotte as the effeminate hairdresser whose flaming and sassy mannerisms are so over-the-top that they work as the perfect cover for his real identity. It's even more crucial since the family live in the opera back-rooms when General Herman Spontz became the new resident. Roland Giraud is the General, and surprisingly, doesn't act like a typical movie Nazi, he's fond on Bernadette and his charm operates so efficiently the contradiction becomes interesting. We're not dealing exactly with a movie that expose things in black and white.
This attitude from the writers contributes to one of the film's best running gag; Jugnot as Adolfo Ramirez, the collaborator so zealous to please the Kommandantur, so eager to scream a hilarious "Heil" with his high-pitched voice that he inspires the Nazis more contempt and suspicion than sympathy. At the end, he's the one being arrested although he's only trying to help 'Ze Germans". This character illustrates the absurdity of a war where French people acted more Germanly than Germans. And Jugnot was born to play this part, with his average guy physique, mustache and bald head, he magnificently turns into derision his ungrateful traits.
The film takes you from a poignant scene with fighters about to be shot (Giraudeau in the shorter role of the film) to savior named Super Resistant, a sort of Arsène Lupin like figure who's one of the film's best inventions. It climaxes with the last-minute performance of Jacques Villeret as Hitler's brother-in-law Maréchal Van Apfelstrudel, who gives an unforgettable musical moment, one that would carry some strange nostalgic, almost sad, resonance. As if the film was as pivotal for French comedy as its setting for French history.
And if you love comedies because they catch you off-guard, then get ready for a superb twist. I won't spoil it but let's say it's one of these masterstrokes that proved that there was more intelligence under the parody facade. Collaboration or resistance is one of France's most painful memories and from the way it is questioned, even mocked, earned "Gramps is in the Resistance" its significance in French Cinema.
Speaking of which, 1983 might have had a sorry start but the film was the best way to pay tribute to De Funès, the "Gramps" of Comedy.
Les Visiteurs: La Révolution (2016)
The Visitors: The Rev... isionist Take on French Revolution...
Almost twenty years ago, "The Visitors" saga concluded on a rather disappointing cliffhanger. Godefroy the Brave (Jean Reno) and his faithful servant Jacquouille (Christian Clavier) were, once again, misdirected in the corridors of time and left prisoners during the French Revolution. The film ended on a note that seemed to say, we don't care for continuity as long as there's a gag, for some reason, Jean-Marie Poiré thought the sight of our beloved characters prisoners in a cage would please the viewers.
The film met with commercial success, but apart from the American remake (which I thought was better), it seemed like the director, the actors and certainly the spectators were done with "The Visitors". Until 2015 when the first teasers of two aging and uglier looking Godefroy and Jacquouille made it clear that "The Visitors" would finally make a trilogy, how about that?
On the positive side, I thought it was inevitable since they had to come back to their time. Besides, there was no way it could be worse than the sequel and maybe the writers' team made of Poiré and Christian Clavier had time to prepare an entertaining and funny story that wouldn't rely much on cheap jokes. I was afraid the film would be an attempt to give a 2000's flavor to the film with so many bankable stars and the casting of bankable Frank Dubosc and Ary Arbittan didn't reassure me. But I didn't have time to set up my anticipations as the first negative signals started to ring: the press couldn't watch the film before the release, talk about self-confidence.
And then came the critics: the film was disastrous, afflicting, with an overuse of poo- poo jokes, an insistence on their smelt, even more incongruous since people in the unhygienic context of the Revolution. More constructive critics denounced the disjointed aspect of the scenario, the overdose of artificial lighting to suggest night and the wooden acting of Reno who seemed more absent than usual. But the criticism that worried me the most was that: the film had no end. Whatever it meant, it really set my worries high and my expectations low, very low.
The start was promising though with the summaries of the previous films crawling à la "Star Wars", I didn't expect to smile so early. Then we're put in the Middle-Ages, who looks paler and more pastel than in the first films, Godefroy and Jacquouille make a spectacular entrance, but how confusing since they're supposed to be in 1793. Rightfully so, it was all a dream by one of the soldiers. Later, the King asks him to find Godefroy, otherwise, his lands will be taken and he'll have no descendants. Why did they bother with that subplot since Godefroy had a mission already? As uninspired as it was, Godefroy was supposed to come back, marry Frénégonde, give her some sacred relic and close the corridors of time to prevent the plague. No continuity isn't such a big deal, but so early, it makes you expect the worst.
But I guess, I've been so thoroughly prepared for the worst that as long as they were not shown defecating on the screen or farting on others' faces, it was okay. At the end, that wasn't too bad. Actually, I've been even pleasantly surprised that the film contained more restrained part than the sequel, moments full of discussion about the Revolution, the classes, the meaning of this fight and a great dinner scene with Robespierre (played by a chilling Nicolas Vaude). It's true the two protagonists were left behind for a while, but at least the film was consistent with the title.
And they were a few nods to the first films: Marie-Anne Chazel among the cast, Godefroy ibeing again mistaken for a distant cousin.. Still, it is true that the film insisted upon itself when it came to the smell and fecal jokes, even during conversations between between the Brave an aristocratic played by Arbittan about the honor to wipe the Royal ass, to which Godefroy replies: an ass is still an ass. Ten seconds is the limit to maintain such a joke, but the film gratifies us with countless reference to bad smells, to feet, that it almost spilled over the script. It came to a point I was breathing heavily when Jacquouille had to serve a chocolate pie to Marat.
But I guess I liked the way this film connected with the first where 'Revolution' was a preeminent theme, one that even inspired Jacquouille to stay. It also showed Jacquouille"s descendant one of Robespierre's friends, taking his former masters' land, starting his family's fortune. Even Dubosc, more restrained than usual, shone as Gonzague de Montmirail, referenced many times in the first. The others Montmirails were not foils for Clavier's antics, and happened to be so efficient at times that they didn't need Goedefroy and Jacquouille, and they provided great insights about the revolution from their own standpoint. They're the refugees and citizens, from the people, are eager to denounce them for some money.
When you know the weight on the word denunciation in French history, it doesn't honor the Revolution. And who knows maybe this revision of Revolution did bother republican press, who thought it was reactionary. But it was gutsy to have such a taboo-breaking approach, it just get diluted in too many jokes and twists that the film inevitably failed to deliver its premise. Worse, it indeed didn't have time to end, and what could have been a terrific redeemer made it worse. Even as a joke, the ending could have worked, but it seems like the film suffer from eternal syndrome of French comedy, rushed out ending, and it shows.
The ending (or lack of) wasn't without a meaning, and a strong one, but gosh, I wish they had time to rework the film, a few scenes cut, a few adds, it could have been something.
Spaceballs (1987)
Kind of films you'd rather go to Youtube and directly watch the best parts...
"I am your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate".
"What does that make us?"
"Nothing. Which is exactly what you're about to become"
This is the fight scene between Dark Helmet and Lone Starr, echoing the famous confrontation between Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader in "The Empire Strikes Back"; This is a joke viewers could see coming from a mile, but I'll use it to point out the main problem with "Spaceballs". Basically, the film is saying "I'm the official parody of the "Star Wars" saga". What does that make it? Well, not nothing, but not anything more than being the official parody of the "Star Wars" saga.
That's how we all remember "Spaceballs" and there are worse reputations, but it's very revealing when the funniest gags have nothing to do with "Star Wars". Take that hilarious moment when Helmet's right-hand man uses a VHS of the film to spot where the good guys are, they pause the film at the present time so that we seen on the TV what happens in real time during the movie. It's just the most vertiginous and dizzying 'mise en abime' process ever used in a film, and the funniest too with a dialogue using the word 'now' like the famous 'Who's on first?' routine. It's for moments like these that "Spaceballs" should be appreciated. It's a shame that there are more smile-inducing little gags than creative hilarious bits like this.
And I feel almost guilty to write that, because I used to love the film. Well, in fact, my history with "Spaceballs" was is in three acts.
Act One: I'm eight, I discover the film on a Saturday afternoon, I can't stop laughing at Dark Helmet's antics and I really, really enjoy the film. My cinematic knowledge wasn't as extended as today, for what it's worth and I don't even think I was familiar with the original "Star Wars", because when the real film was aired a few weeks later, I thought it was actually copying "Spaceballs", in an uglier way. Yup, "Spaceballs" introduced me to the "Star Wars" saga. And it was one of my favorite comedies.
Act Two: I'm sixteen. I'm a comic-book nerd, I love Tex Avery cartoons and I adore parodies. I'm discovering the Zucker Abrahams Zucker movies and I'm looking for "Spaceballs". There was no Internet, no way for me to remember the title, so it's only by pure luck that I find the VHS in the video store. I finally discover Mel Brooks (although I was familiar with many of his films). I see the film with excitement, alone, in a dark room, expecting to have a Madeleine Proust sensation. I find the film enjoyable, amusing with some funny parts I didn't even get as kid, notably the Virginity alarm and the Valium yawning Prince. I realize this was John Candy as Barf, that Melrose Place girl (Daphne Zuniga) as Princess Vespa, Rick Moranis from "Honey I shrunk the Kid" and good old President Bill Pullmann as Lone Starr. Overall, the rediscovery adds to the enjoyment.
Act Three: I'm thirty-four. I watch the film. I like it, but the pleasure relies more on the nostalgic effect. The film is as much about the 80's as "Star Wars" actually, no CGI, good old miniatures, even though a little cheap-looking. Of course, some parts have aged better, most of the good stuff involves Dark Helmet and his crew. But overall, you get some amusing jokes, that are so innocent and fun you don't feel like criticizing them. So, what exactly lacks in the film? I don't know, it's droll and funny but it has the appeal of TV sketches and never really tries to transcend its material, the film only exists for the sole mission to make as many references as possible to "Star Wars" and the Sci-fi genre.
This is typical of Mel Brooks, either he tries to make a unique original film and you get "The Producers", "Young Frankenstein" or "Silent Movie" or it's a matter of parodying classics by the book and you get "Blazing Saddles", "High Anxiety" and "Spaceballs", funny movies that work because they know what they should remind you of, all the time. This is the problem with "Spaceballs", once you know "Star Wars", apart from a few original bits like Pizza the Hutt or the 'One Froggy Evening' homage, it's routine humor that makes you want to go directly on Youtube and check the best parts rather than see the whole film. The film has this biting Brooksian humor with the character of Yogurt whose main occupation is to work on the merchandising but that bit had been used in the 'now' scene.
And I guess Brooks might have sinned by being too confident that his film would be a sure hit and overestimated people's interest for "Star Wars". But this obsession for parody made the director lose his way, and the disastrous "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" proved that he was already slipping by the 80's and the popularity of "Spaceballs" had more to do with the actors' performances, Moranis, Candy, and even Brooks himself as Yogurt and President Skroob. There was some potential for satire in this film, but it's so busy retelling the "Star Wars" story that it loses its time on cute little jokes, and some that you know they sound funny but for some reason don't really make you laugh. All right, "may the Schwartz be with you". Ha-ha.
The saddest thing is that the parody genre has still brighter days to come. One year later, ZAZ brothers' "Naked Gun" would make the box-office Top 10, and you know why it worked? Because it copied a genre, archetypes and situations, but not a specific movie, so it could stand alone as a movie, and as classic. Sadly, "Spaceballs" comes across as a SNL sketch of epic proportions.
La cité de la peur (1994)
French Milestone in the Parody Genre...
What can you say about a film featuring a serial killer wearing a boiler suit, safety goggles and armed with a hammer and a sickle? Well, either it's an anti-Communist propaganda film or one that shouldn't be taken too seriously or it better be a comedy. "City of Fear", the movie of the famous group of comedians who called themselves "Les Nuls" (in English, the "Nobodies") and directed by Alain Berberian is not just a great comedy whose story shouldn't be taken seriously, it's a comedy that takes seriously its mission of making us laugh and it's centered on a movie that actually takes itself seriously and make us laugh as well. Talk about 'mise en abime'.
The film within the film is a lousy horror Z-movie titled "Red is Dead" (an obvious wink to "Evil Dead") a movie so bad a critic doesn't even want to waste his time reviewing it, and tells the director Odile Deray (Chantal Lauby) to go to hell. And she deserves it, the film is so bad it's unwatchable, but it's also so bad it's a laugh riot, and can even be considered one of the film's highlights. All the archetypes of cheap slasher films are there, from the chain-killing of the friends, the false alerts, the chase, the death, and the ending with an interrogation mark. This opening is like the first cartoon in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit", it wins us, as we're excited to see what's coming next and it sets the tone of the film, it's about the world of cinema. Even the victims of the killer who looks like "Red" from the film are the projectors of the film. This is not just "Les Nuls"' film, it's a film's film.
I guess there was something about Cinema and TV in the middle of the 90's, a sort of symbiosis that no one would have thought possible but that efficiently translated into the big screen at least, on the field of comedy. Basically, in French TV comedy, you had two teams, two branches of humor : "The Unknowns" (Les Inconnus) who came from theater and specialized in satire. Their 1995 "The Three Brothers" was the highest grossing movie. But they were preceded by their eternal rivals, "Les Nuls" who were raised by TV and were closer in tone to the Monty Python and SNL humor. Their most famous acts were parodies of commercials and TV news, and I can't resist to reveal my two favorite jokes. I'll Americanize the first: "Madonna said "I have a foot in New York and another in L.A we pity Kansas City" or Chabat telling his co-anchor "Penelope, is that a tampon on your ear" her answers is "Oh. Where the hell did I put my pen?"
This humor was often branded as "Canal +" spirit, the young and free-spirited channel (it wouldn't last), created in 1984, launched the career of many famous French comedians "The Nuls" were the first and most emblematic. There were Alain Chabat, Chantal Lauby, Dominique Farrugia and Bruno Carrete, the only one who doesn't star in the film as he passed away 5 years before of a devastating virus caught in some trip in Egypt. His friends paid tribute to Carrete by inserting some footage in a news report. Out of the remaining trio, Alain Chabat would live the most successful career, that would pinnacle 8 years later, by directing "Asterix: Mission Cleopatra", the second highest grossing movie at the time. And it says a lot that Chabat directed Asterix and made a big hit out of it.
Indeed, even if 95% of the movies parodied in "City of Fear" are from the other side of the Atlantic, "Evil Dead", "Basic Instinct" or "Terminator", Chabat's main influence was the master of comic-book writing: René Goscinny, creator of Asterix and Lucky Luke and whose trademark was a form of parody humor with no holds barred for the sake of laughs, a very fun, lighthearted and not too controversial humor. Goscinny's specialty was characters who were both marvelously stupid and touching. In "City of Fear", the film's star is Simon Jeremi, a guy who throws up whenever he's happy, he's like a mix of Averell Dalton and Rin Tin Can with a little touch from Alain Chabat. The film is very American-like but the comedic treatment of the story is much European. And this is why the film aged better than serious French films trying to look American.
So, let's get to the story. Projectionists die whenever they project "Red is Dead", they're played by iconic character actor Tcheky Cario, classic legend Daniel Gelin, a pal, Jean-Pierre Bacri and former rocker-turned-actor Eddy Mitchell. To lead the investigation, there's an elegant charming police detective played with cool seriousness by Gérard Darmon. And there's Chabat as the bodyguard hired by Odile to protect Jeremi. And with that crazy joyful bunch, you just have one of the highest ratio of gags from any French film. It doesn't necessarily make it the funniest, but at least, it's the most consistent, and it never gets too shy on pushing a gag further and further. When, at the hotel, Jeremi declares he wants to eat pig's gums, it's funny already, but then Serge asks for a restaurant that serves pig's gum, and get an answer, Martinez, the best pig's gum in the city.
There are bits of humor that would have made the Zucker Abrahams brothers and the Simpsons writers extremely proud, and what is so impressive is that the film, in that midst of hilarious gags, finds the time to tell us a story, with a beginning, an end, a climax and a resolution, and a fine musical number between Chabat and Darmon, that might give you a foretaste if you want to check on Youtube. It's called "La Carioca".
As for "City of Fear", fear not to watch it, as it's first class A comedy made-in-France.
7 ans de mariage (2003)
Either there was too much sex, or not enough ...
... it's quite hard to tell.
Anyway, as the title indicates and the poster illustrates, "Seven Years of Marriage" is about a crisis within a couple, Alain (Didier Bourdon) and Audrey (Catherine Frot) whose lives have sunk in boredom and monotony, and sexual dissatisfaction seems to be the cause. Well, I'm only married for four years (and we have a daughter too) and I'm not sure everything is a matter of sexuality, but it's true it does help a lot when things go bad, and when they don't, it makes them worse.
The film starts quite well, with a promising exposition of a rather ordinary middle-aged bourgeois couple with so typical professions: Alain is a doctor and Audrey a banker, they are very well-educated and well-balanced people, but only on the surface, once you scratch a little, you find melancholy and sadness. And the tragedy of most couples is that they only allow their hearts to speak during arguments, if a wife and a husband dared to speak a little bit about their fears and insecurities before the storm, they would learn to avoid them. It's a simple matter of communication, a way to reach the other.
But we can hardly communicate because a couple speaks two languages and sometimes works in autopilot mode, we pretend to care, to listen to one another and time pass by. There are some hits of genius in the film with the husbands secretly watching pornography or flirting with pretty girls, it's not the typical mid-life crisis, Didier isn't in quest of new personal thrills, just the assertion that his sex-appeal still works, he 's looking for it as sheer escapism from a poisoning condition. It's not until a friend of him, a doctor, played by Jacques Veber, shows the salvation: transferring this world of sexual profusion in his boring domestic life, making a pornography film out of marriage.
At this point, it works as the film starts like a French version of "American Beauty" with a little something slightly reminding of "Scenes From a Marriage". It even introduces us to Audrey's perspective, she's restrained, very straight-laced, but not that narrow-minded as her husband believes. For instance, when her (embittered) friends calls a woman a slut because she's wearing a thong in the swimming pool, Audrey is rather serene about it, such a good woman can afford it. Right after, the friend shouts at kids who were staring at her under the pool, incarnating a certain attitude toward sex-appeal resembling the sour grapes effect. Surprisingly, Audrey isn't sour, she's not confident either, only confident that she has no reason to feel so when it comes to her body.
It's all a matter of confidence, and this is where the film derails from the intelligence initially displayed. It becomes a matter of 'performance', it's all about going as far as possible in terms of sex, overcoming the curiosity and trying everything for the sake of trial, swingers' party, accessories, even threesomes. These were obligatory subjects to exploit but it occupies too much of the film that it becomes redundant, if not unrealistic, the presence of a transvestite brother was already a signal (he could have been just gay and give an interesting insight on similar couple issues within homosexual couples). The film makes it a running-gag that sex is everywhere, and all you have to do is pull an "American Beauty" and look closer, everywhere.
It's a point of view after all, maybe sex, like money, drives the whole society, it's even truer now with the profusion of pornography and Internet, there are websites where couples, average looking can submit pictures and videos, it's called cuckolding and some husbands get their kicks by having a desirable wife. In societies, where modernity prevented people from dying of hunger, sex will be the only available pleasure. This prospect, within the framework of marital life, seems encouraging, but in a way, sounds the death knell for marriage as it becomes impossible to commit oneself to the idea of one body when there's so much to discover. The film ends with the couple revives and guys peeping at her legs. Alain smiles seemed to indicate that he was turned on by his wife's effect on men, there's a thin line between that a cuckolding.
But it's no holds barred, and the film has one merit, to stick to that issue and provide the interesting twist that the doctor has in fact the most miserable sexual life of all. It's just that after one hour, the film is already in its resolution and doesn't offer much except the possibility reconsider a few limits within these evolutions. It also provides the fraudulent idea that the couple's stability rely on this sexual complicity. "Seven years of Marriage" works on a bed level, but it provides such an interesting gallery of talented and serious actors that it could have been more audacious in its exploration of marital problems. I'm sure there was more than sex in it.
It's rather thin, but sex itself isn't a subject that offers much to explore without drowning the story into an exploration of all the sexual fantasies.
Ratatouille (2007)
The Cook is a Rat, his Cooking is an Art...
While in the past, an imposing belly was the sign of good wealth, today: the poorer, the fatter.
Indeed, good and healthy taste, in our junk/frozen/industrialized-food consuming society, became a luxury. This might explain the success of cooking-related TV programs, the sight of an appetizing meal is as rewarding to our senses as if it was eaten. Some surrender to bad food, out of laziness, those who don't learn to cook and are rewarded by the certitude that they'll always eat well, in total respect to their tastes and their stomachs.
But can anyone cook?
The question is raised in Disney Pixar's animated movie "Ratatouille", released in 2007, and it's as serious and defining as a problem in a high school essay. Everything in the film subtly relates to that simple question. Is the required discipline and dedicated available to the common mortal? The film doesn't provide answers, it's too adult for that, it just gratifies us with two great characters and let us figure out for ourselves. Of course, the most important and fascinating one is that blue rat, Remy, whose dream is to become a chef. The title "Ratatouille" is very well chosen as it plays on the word 'rat' and an iconic French meal, it also contributes to one of the most original climactic moments for any film.
Remy is a fascinating character, even by Pixar standards, contrarily to many usual leads, his goal isn't conditioned by a specific mission, limited to the film's time-frame. This is a rat with a highly developed sense of taste and smell that was first used in order to detect poison. But later, Rémy felt he had a gift, he could recognize good food and from that, could learn about cooking. His idol is Chef Gusteau, a French cook whose motto was "anyone can cook". Remy used to watch him on a TV belonging to the old lady (whose house served as a refuge to the rats' colony) until discovering the chef died a long ago because of a scathing critic from Anton Ego who was probably to food what Pauline Kael was to the movies. This is a rather dark moment in the film where it's impossible not to believe the chef committed suicide, this is no joke in France as previous chef Bernard Loiseau committed suicide after losing one star is the fear Michelin Guide, the book whose effects can either be beneficial or disastrous.
But it's still a Disney film and not to discomfort young viewers, Gusteau is resurrected in Remy's imagination. After escaping from the old lady's gunshots, his family vanishes in the sewer while he floats on the cooking book and maybe hallucinating out of hunger, discusses with the illustrated Gusteau (who's like 'Ghosto' all through the film). Remy wonders if anyone can cook as the chef pretends. But he actually gives another meaning to the question, it's not "can anyone cook, even an amateur?" but "can anyone cook, even a rat?" Remy will prove that, even as a rat, he can cook to perfection because he belongs to the category of gifted people who take cooking seriously. And he's immediately gotten the opportunity to prove his talent by fixing a soup almost spoiled by a new sous-chef hired in Gusteau's restaurant.
Linguini is a lanky and awkward boy in his early twenties, he's hired by Gusteau's former sous-chef, a diminutive and sneaky-looking cook named Skinner. When he accidentally spills the soup and blindly drops ingredients in it, Remy manages to fix it, and the soup catches the attention of a prestigious critic. It's a matter of time before Linguini and Remy discover that they can communicate, and Remy becomes to Linguini what Cyrano was to Christian, a Ghost cook, so to speak, managing to guide his body in order to cook the perfect food. This is also a nice pretext to some of the film's best visual gags, the most explicit manifestations of slapstick and visual humor in a rather serious film. The smallness and fastness of Remy, the nonchalant and thin silhouette of Linguini creates great interaction, but it's the complicity between the two that drive the story.
The second act allows us to discover that Linguini is Gusteau's unknown son and is likely to inherit the restaurant, which gives Skinner a status of clear antagonist. Meanwhile, a conventional romance develops between Linguini and Colette, the only female chef of the team (made of very interesting characters) and I think there was enough relationships in the film, Remy and his brother and father and even Linguini to really make us care for the romance. The crew was made of intriguing and interesting guys but their under-use didn't come as a surprise given how Rémy and Linguini formed a solid pair. Colette was a colorful and interesting character on her own but she didn't need to be in love with Linguini to help him. So, the film loses its track until a fantastic climax whose merit is not to rely on the traditional confrontation of good vs. evil.
Anton Ego, tastes a piece of 'ratatouille' and lives a wonderful Madeleine Proust episode. In a way, this Madeleine moment makes the film's point about cook, it's an emotional connection, we love food that reminds us of something. I'll never forget the first tiramisu I ate, the best and I couldn't find the same taste. Food is something that revives emotions, mostly positive, it can indeed draw a smile in your face, and this is the power of "Ratatouille", it's inspirational on countless levels.
I can imagine a kid dreaming of being a cook thanks to "Ratatouille", which is a serious vocation-inspiring film, but supposing Gusteau was wrong and not anyone can cook, then I hope the film's beautiful story will inspired kids to dream of being capable to bring the same joy and happiness to people by doing something with as dedication, love and passion as Remy.
Tangled (2010)
Surprinsgly good and severely underrated: the 50th Disney film might be one of its best...
When it comes to setting up the story, "Tangled" doesn't take chances, it goes straightforwardly to the point like most Disney movies do, and that's the privilege movies based on fairy tales can afford, we expect them to begin by "Once Upon a Time ".
So, once upon a time
Gothel, a vain woman who found the power of eternal youth in a flower that magically grew out of a sunshine drop. Unfortunately for her, the flower is taken by the Royal guards and is used to cure the Queen right before she gives birth to Rapunzel, a beautiful girl with long glowing hair. Gothel understands the hair have inherited a part of the flower's powers, but when she cuts them, it turns to a plain (and powerless) brown. She then kidnaps Rapunzel and traps her in a tower where she treats her like a mother.
18 years later, Rapunzel grew with such a long and thick head of hair, she can actually hang on them, dangled from them and seize things like a chameleon's tongue, which is a funny coincidence since her pet friend is a charming chameleon named Pascal. Rapunzel is also a beautiful creature (who strangely reminded me of Amanda Seyfried) confident about her hair's healing power but like any girl of her age, she's got fears and issues. For one thing, she never discovered the world, and can only watch the stars that illuminate the sky, ignoring that those that appear every year during her birthday, are sky lanterns launched by the king and the townspeople as a desperate attempt to reach her. There is a lot of glowing in the film, but there's more than yellow brightness to that.
"Tangled" is the 50th animated Disney film, it is a long way back to "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" but there are similarities despite the seven-decade gap. Like "Snow White", it's a story of a fallen princess held prisoner by an abusive 'mother-figure'. And if Snow White found escapism while looking for a Prince, Rapunzel found a prince while looking for escapism. Like "Snow White", "Tangled" was the most expensive animated movie of its time and the product of a great combination of talent and perfectionism, like "Snow White", it's based on a Grimm brothers story, and provides everything children and grown-ups except from fairy tale while translating to the big screen: action, fun, visuals, romance, fantasy, magic, emotions and a memorable villain.
To a certain extent, "Tangled" is Disney coming full circle with the very magic that enchanted many generations from all over the word, with a creation made for the 2010's but not so far in spirit, from the enchantment of the old classics. It's a delight to the eyes and it features two irresistible leading protagonists, in charm and personality, a not-so rebellious girl and a not-so unredeemable criminal, named Flynn Rider, a guy actually sensitive about his nose and wrapped up in the conviction that he's the most charming person on Earth. And for a change, the two characters don't really start their relationship through mutual dislike, their encounter is rather funny and uses some slapstick rarely exploited in legitimate Disney features.
It needs to be pointed out that "Tangled" belongs to one of the most refreshingly funny Disney movies. Seriously, how many of them feature a horse that is more efficient than his rider and is obsessed to the point you might discuss his psychological sanity or wish he was in the good guys' side? How many feature a frying pan as a deadly weapon and running gag? How many Disney movies feature frightening pub regulars who dream to be pianists or pantomimes', or a giant thug whose secret passion is to collect miniature unicorns? Describing these gags doesn't do them even justice because they work so well on a visual level. But I mention them because they highlight the best thing about "Tangled" humor : it's unpredictable even when relying on predictable situations.
Another example is that "Tangled" follows a simple and conventional plot-line through the heroin's journey, basically, her discovery of the real world leading to her self-discovery until the final confrontation with the mother (with a few Oedipal undertones). But the plot matters less than the rich gallery of colorful characters it invites us to discover and personality traits of the two heroes that manages to transcend the usual requirements. The 'hero' is handsome but takes himself so seriously that he becomes pathetic, she's a free-spirited, idealistic and barefoot-walking teen who enjoys discovering the real world, but she's also reluctant to disappoint the woman she still believes is her mother. These traits are first mocked until they're exploited for more dramatic effects.
Overall, the dosage is well done and makes the romance between the two outcasts believable. Naturally, some parts get predictable, when Gothel warns Rapunzel about Flynn looking only for the crown he stole, we know there'll be a quid pro quo, where she'd believe Mommy was right, but the conventional stuff is handled pretty quickly and the final third act is surprisingly efficient in its minimalism: no fight scene, no overdose of action and kinetic special effects, a simple display of love gestures and the perfect spectacular ending and feel-good twist. Rapunzel, in the tradition of coming-of-age stories, which are why fairy-tales were made for, was ready to trade her freedom for Flynn's life while Flynn decided his death was worth Rapunzel's freedom.
This is the stuff great romances and fairy tales are made on. There are a few little things to criticize, some songs are less inspired and more forgettable than Menken's usual work, and the title could've been better chosen, "Rapunzel" would've done fine actually. Still, I believe "Tangled" is one of the best Disney films, one that magnificently reconciles between the old and the new.
RRRrrrr!!! (2004)
Pretentiously Unfunny...
Three major R, four minor ones and three exclamation marks, this is the (so) unconventional title of the "Robin des Bois" movie, the first one and in a sense of poetic justice, the last one, too.
Would you be surprised? This is not the kind of film you 'review', this is the film you warn people about not watching it. But I doubt there are still people in this planet having this on their watch list. Well, I'll save you time, watch the 'other film', whatever it is, it might at least try to tell a story, or to awaken some emotion. That prehistoric thing, doesn't even deserve to be called a movie, it's not even so-bad-it's-good, it's not even so absurd it's funny at least, not if you intend to watch the whole movie at once because the longer you stare at the screen, the less you understand what's going on.
Anyway, the first time I saw it, a quarter had passed before my mind was in autopilot mode, somewhere I was wondering whether I was missing something or not. Was there an attempt at a plot or have I been dumbed down. The story is about a prehistoric tribe, the Clean Hair. They live during Stone Age, and guess what? They're all called 'Stone' (Pierre in France) a passable gag whose only brilliance is that they had to build the whole character-naming on that. There's a rivalry opposing them to the other tribe, the Dirty Hair who wants their secret to have clean hair. The story also involves a murder, the first 'crime' to be committed as in Tex Avery's "First Bad Man" cartoon.
That's it, these could have been interesting premises, these are just crumbs on the scale of the film's length. Yes, there are some funny moments but most of the time, the characters wonder and exchange words that doesn't work even on the basis that they're ad-libbed. It's so blatant that I doubt the actors could endure their own movie if they had to. I stopped watching it the first time, the second, after twenty minutes, I was on IMDb with the sound left on, just in case I would hear something interesting. But take my word for it, no matter what you do, it will be more precious than watching this film, even staring at a blank screen.
The film had one merit though: it put an end to the previously harmonious marriage between TV and Cinema humor. TV incarnated with the 'Canal+' channel. Founded in 1984, 'Canal' paved the way to a great generation of comedians: from Coluche to Jamel Debbouze. In 1994, the most emblematic alumni of Canal+, "Les Nuls" troop made a great crime thriller parody named "City of Fear", it was a success and made a star out of Alain Chabat, the leader. Many comedies would follow, and Chabat would be the king of French box-office with his "Asterix : Mission Cleopatra", 14 millions of viewers, the second highest-grossing French film at the time. In 2004, his "RRRrrrr!!!" would attract 1,7 million viewers, a great start spoiled by a bad word-of-mouth.
And there's no excuse for that. While Chabat directed his 'Asterix' with the heart of a fan, in this mess, he let the control to the 'Robin des Bois' . A few words about them, the Robin des Bois were a group of comedians specialized in a form of awkward geek-humor oscillating between Monty Python and Andy Kauffman, in the five-minute format, they were hilarious, but in the movie, they're just incomprehensible. It seems like the film wasn't even prepared, as if the comedians were brainstorming five minutes before they hear 'action' and they instinctively believed that whatever would make them laugh, would translate well in the theater, a proof, if needed that even a comedy can be 'pretentious'.
It's not the first time, comedians make a film for the big screen: in the 70's, it was the Splendid troop but their director was an outsider who could have an external view and make them leave their comfort zone. "RRRrrrr!!!" is the product of people who, unfortunately, took their popularity for granted. Chabat lost his magic touch and the Robin des Bois would follow different paths, the more versatile Jean-Paule Rouve had the most successful career so far. Finally the dreadful adaptation of "Lucky Luke" would hit the final nail on the coffin. It was the end of an era started in 1994.
That's what you get with empty plots, a few cameos (Depardieu again and even jean Rochefort indulge to this ugly-looking cinematic mess) and a huge marketing publicity. The only justice is that the film was a flop and there's nothing more to say about it, except that it's crrrrrrap with more 'r' than the title, which I think refers to the sound of people groaning at the abysmal non-sense they're watching. It deserves a "1" according to IMDb standards, but you know what, I give it a 3, and you know why? Because of the first gag.
The first gag has to be one of the most hilarious opening voice-overs to any film. Since I told you, not to watch the film, I'd feel hypocritical not to spoil the opening. So here it is; with a war-sounding noises in the background, on a black screen, the narrator presents the story of a 1969 Vietnam troop that had a routine mission but ended up being caught by the Vietcong for a ferocious battle. It ends with "This film doesn't tell their story". A laugh-riot, it's all downhill after.
But it seems that this gag was so great it drained out the authors' creativity, a pity because if the rest of the movie was 10% as funny as this gag, with a 'conventional' story within an unconventional tone, it might have worked. Instead, it's a waste of talents that will waste your time.
The Producers (2005)
Wintertime for Mel Brooks and Hilairity
Released in 1968, Mel Brooks' "The Producers" was a masterpiece of vulgarity that pushed the limits of political correctness for the sake of heartfelt belly laughs. That it deals with Broadway and musicals is besides the point, the film is a comedic milestone: it didn't get to be such a classic because of the songs, but because of the story, a fresh irreverent script that earned Mel Brooks an Oscar. Well, to be fair, it became a classic thanks to a song, one song that defined the whole fraudulent concept of a sure-to-flop-musical but that succeeds in a brilliantly self-referential way because the public could see such bad taste can only be deliberate.
The song was "Springtime for Hitler" (and Germany) and if there ever was one needed in the entire film, it was this one. The rest was just hearing ornament. Yet the remake, as pointless as it is, gratifies us with countless songs supposed to drive the narrative, but instead slowing it down and down till the 120th minute. I don't know much about the Broadway version of the original movie, but if they wanted to 'remake' something for the big screen, they could've remade the original, not the musical. A Broadway hit doesn't necessarily make a great film but the director Susan Stroman, took the film's reputation for granted. And no offense, but I want to ask 'who is she anyway?'
Seriously, if anyone could remake the film, it should've been Mel Brooks himself, although he lost his touch in the 90's, he might have kept a few tricks under his sleeve. Unfortunately, 2005 coincided with a sad time for the legendary comedian, with the illness and death of his wife, actress Anne Bancroft. The film was certainly not a priority and I don't think the flop broke his heart and in a way, I'm glad the flop didn't hurt his legacy, and Stroman courageously carries the guilt of this remake. But she's not the only one to blame. The whole idea of remaking the play was ludicrous but it had chances to work, it went all wrong with the casting.
The actors are good, in the sense that they're not bad. But Nathan Lane ain't no Zero Mostel and Matthew Broderick ain't certainly no Gene Wilder. In their defense, Mostel and Wilder created such a dynamic duo in the original that it was impossible to match their energy. I'm partial to Lane though, if he had Wilder's physique, he could have repeated his antics from "The Birdcage" and be as hysterical as him, I'm certain about that. But come on, how can you put Broderick and 'hysterical' in the same sentence? No offense again, but his emotional range can't get rid of that wide-eyed expression that made him look cute in his 20's, but awkward in his 40's. Even if his career depended on it, Broderick can't look wild, let alone 'Wilder'.
But seeing is believing and the test-scene was the 'hysterical' one, and unfortunately, while Lane could pass as a Max Byalistock, I cringed at Broderick's impersonation of Wilder, maybe because his reputation precedes him, and creates a bias, but when the supposed-to-be highlight of the film makes you cringe, you know it's a bad signal. That's the tragedy of remakes, they can't escape from the original's shadow, and watching "The Producers" is like being submitted to an exercise of redundant comparisons. To make it short, when it's like the original, the original is funnier, when the film adds extra-songs, the original is shorter. So why the remake anyway?
Of course, it's a very legitimate comedy/musical, nominated for four Golden Globes with songs that are well-choreographed as much as well-forgotten. The new actors are good, Will Ferrell does an interesting Franz Liebenkind and Gary Beach a remarkable eccentric director still, you can't help but keep Kenneth Mars and Christopher Hewett in your mind. Only Uma Thurman (and that was a surprise) does an interesting and refreshing performance as Swedish Ulla and plays her more than a foil for the two leads' nastiness, she literally illuminates the screen. But even these good performances can't save the film after the musical (the one in the film) ends and the public applauds. The film loses its rhythm and there's still more to come.
Even the original had its share of slow moments, but you can't have a high spot without a few low ones. The problem with the 2005 version is that by the time you get to the high spot, the film has given us two long patience-challenging songs that incredibly lowered your enjoyment. So mathematically speaking, when you consider the film's length, you don't have many gags to enjoy. It's like a dosage where the level of music has increased so much it made it lose the taste of fun, like a lemonade with too much water. The first one had bad taste, the second is tasteless.
Speaking of the original, it was one of Ebert's favorite comedies and as far as he was concerned, he couldn't say he didn't enjoy the 2005 version, but couldn't say he loved it either. He knew there was some quality and professionalism in the making but that was it, the film couldn't make him forget the extraordinary experience the 1968 version was, at its time, and it still held up. And that's the magic of cinema, movies owe their classic reputation to the timing of their release.
Brooks' film was a comedic milestone because it broke many grounds of political correctness but it's modern within its own context. The theme is relevant but the execution is a reflection of its time, now the 2005 version can't get away with that excuse, so at the end, it's not only outdated, but irrelevant. And to make it worse, it's longer, more boring and less funny as if the film's 'producers' wanted to pull a 'Byalistock' in this project.
Chouchou (2003)
You might like Chouchou, but not enough to love "Chouchou"...
You don't expect many young Arabs to openly speak about their homosexuality or their passion for cross-dressing, let alone those who grew up in the 'country' and still have the accent to prove it, yet that contradiction was the basis of one of the most popular sketches from Gad El Maleh: about Chouchou, a Moroccan transvestite in Paris.
The accent and the French loaded with untranslatable jokes make all the fun: the story touches us for the warmth but the storytelling is a laugh riot. Gad is a true master when it comes to accents and the 'country guy' trying to fit in Gay Paris is absolutely priceless. I'll spare you the broken French because it won't ring a bell, but there's a moment where he speaks about a game show question: "how do you call people who don't eat meat?", he answers "poor people!" That bit got the most laughs; it defines the character as it's hilarious in a naive, touching way.
So there were great expectations surrounding Merzouak Allouache' "Chouchou" (co-written with Gad), because within a five-minute sketch, the public had a character with a back-story, funny speech mannerisms, friends and dreams, a likable guy played by a likable comedian. But for all the premises it carried, the film just forgot to have a story. Not to lecture the reader with a screen writing course, but if you're not intending to make a silly comedy with 10 gags per minute, then you need a story, and what drives the story? Conflicts. And conflicts, there were none.
Ever since "Chouchou" starts, everyone he meets is receptive to his pleas: he's hosted by a benevolent priest played by Claude Brasseur, he meets defiance with Brother Jean (played by Roshdy Zem) but they get along pretty quickly. Later, he gets a job as a help to a psychoanalyst played by Catherine Frot. She's open-minded and allows him to open his heart and tell his story. You know "I'm just a poor boy, from a poor family" and the whole rhapsody, concluding with his dream of becoming a woman. The doctor promises to treat him as such, and from that day, he can work dressed like a woman. Naturally, Chouchou reacts "like a woman" and is moved to tears.
Finally, Chouchou meets friends from the country, who are transvestites in Paris and all sing in a cabaret called "The Apocalypse". They get him a night job, and this is where Chouchou finds his love in Stanislas, a bourgeois mustached guy, played by Alain Chabat. And guess what? Stan's parents are totally okay with the relationship. Actually, that's the biggest problem with "Chouchou", it's too good-hearted for its own good, everything works so well that the characters, who're all well-played, become insignificant, and cause Allouache and Gad to add some pointless filler-subplots (one involving Jean's hallucinations) and worse than all, a weak villain.
A gay Arab illegal immigrant can be a source of conflicts as much as gags, but all they came up with was an obsessive cop, indulging at a point to an embarrassingly bad maniac laugh, and to be defeated in a very anticlimactic and cheap resolution. "Chouchou" is almost a school-case of why a story can't do without true antagonism. Chouchou has dreams and goals, but nothing really undermines them, people fix his problems, and he doesn't evolve, he simply gets what he wants, and I'm not sure he made people evolve either as they were good from the start. There's just a feeling of emptiness in the story aggravated by the dryness in gags.
As for Gad's performance, it's good but as good as the scene calls for (good acting doesn't mean a good scene). Chouchou talks like a woman, walks like a woman, stares like a woman, starts crying when he hears 'I love you' like a wait a minute, do all women behave like that? With the finesse of a tightrope walker, Gad manages to avoid caricature, yet the film insists too much on his femininity. And don't get me started on his friends (one of them played by Gad's brother Arié), they talk about the shoes they bought, the cream they use and ululate like Oriental women. As Ebert said, "there's a limit to how long a gimmick can be maintained" even if it's part of the characters.
"Chouchou" features many drag-singing moments, and these are very well-made scenes (and well-chosen songs) but I was always puzzled by the love-at-first-sight moment. Gad had the make-up and the stare right, except that he looked rather awkward, as if he forgot a wig. I know, I shouldn't assume that he's supposed to always look like a woman, I just think there was something confusing about it, in the way it drove the romance. I'm not sure whether Stanislas falls in love with Chouchou the man, or the man dressed as a woman, or the woman trapped in a male body. Is it homosexuality, transvestite-fetishism or even latent heterosexuality?
The fact that the film leaves this question unanswered proves that no one really cared about it, as if the insistence on playing guys showing their feminine side was the guarantee of the 'acceptance' message delivery. Well, I'm sorry, but the end speaks differently and not in favor of the movie. When the two lovers run toward each other in slow motion and in a meadow-looking setting, it's so schmaltzy, so syrupy that there's no way this cheesiness wasn't deliberate and meant in a semi-parodist way. At the end, the actors smile as if they were thinking 'finally, we did it'. And that's that, they had fun playing drags and feminine guys but the game was over.
Ultimately, there was more poignancy, humor and sincerity in the five minute of the original stage sketch than the one-hundred minutes of "Chouchou". It's a shame because such a sweet and complex character deserved better.