Reviews

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

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

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

In the background of "Jim's Story", any fan of cinema will see a revisited "Jules and Jim" (the famous film of François Truffaut of 1962) with other taboos than in the 60's. While "Jules and Jim" spoke about the freedom of sexuality for a woman in the 60's (a scandal back then !) Jim's Story speaks about taboos of the XXIst century and invents new rules for modern families. What is being a family in modern times ? What is being a father ? Can a child have several dads ? These are the questions the film will try to find an answer to.

The Larrieu Brothers take back the narrative of the 1962's film, but they bring new themes and a unique originality. You might find back a lot of winks to the 1962's film in the details of the film: the little house in the woods, the back and forth with the city and the letters (or email) exchanged however this story (Jim's story) has its own originality, its own authenticity and the theme of the film is more about fatherhood than anything else.

A heartbreaking story and a very sensitive and touching film that should bring new shades of thoughts towards how and when fatherhood is born.

All in all, this movie is an ode to tolerance, to freedom, to good people and to country side (a beautiful region called: Le Jura in East France).

It explores what is being a family, what is a father, and whether fatherhood can be shared or not and what role can play strangers in the upbringing of a child. It has also interesting insights towards modern love (with no grudge !) and it goes deep into the strong bond created, lived (in their bones) by a father and his son.

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

Very original, sometimes upsetting by the reactions of Aymeric the main character (who never gets angry !), or the mother (who does not care whether she hurts or not) but a beautiful idea and a beautiful mood in this film indeed !

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't want to lash out at Gilles Lellouch who is a fantastic actor, who looks like a humble and good person, and who is, after all, a good director as "Le Grand Bain" (Sink or Swim), his previous film prooved us despite being very written and not very personal. "Breaking Hearts" on the other hand, is way more personal, but way less funny and way more pompous. Don't get me wrong. It's entertaining but it never ever approaches a cult or a very good film. And that's the problem because you can clearly tell that the director wanted it to be something big.

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

Despite being a cultural phenomenon here in France from which tik tok and social networks have cashed in, "Breaking Hearts" remains an average film done with heavy manners, heavy effects and classic tools (insisting nostalgia over the 80's and 90's represented by its music.)

Something does not work...despite the astonishing cast and the very expensive effects. The director relies too much on the weight of his stars, the weights of his words (the "cult" sentences fall short ) and too less on the power of the story or the input of supporting roles. Apart from Alain Chabat and his touching role as a widow father, the supporting roles are not to be remembered (and it has nothing to do with their performance because Vincent Lacoste is brilliant as the "vilain" for instance but his character is just quite irrelevant to the story, and quite trivial). Quite a pity for all these actors who thought they would be part of a "great adventure" or "cult film". It's clearly a failure on that aspect.

At the end, you may end up fed up with all these cichés that are everywhere to help Gilles Lellouch to give his audience what it was expecting.

In addition to this overdose of music, there is what I would call a very personal depiction of the 80's-90's which seem cool (it's fun to be brought back to theses memories with the recording tape and fake phone calls), but the decade is americanized with Gilles Lellouche's eyes. Especially in the way pupils take the bus to go to school, ride their motorbikes after school or wait on car's roofs. I am afraid to say that everything is like that. The family relationships are manichean (a beaten child stopps school and no one says nothing to him), the adventure scenes are very gendered (the girls hold their nose when they dive whereas the boys make a backflip), and basically everything from beginning to end is very classic (the bad kid climbs up on old cars and beats up adults despite being weak and skinny).

The discovery of the rising stars Mallory Wanecque and Malik Frikah could make you forget all this cliché mania for a while. In fact, the first act (half of the film) is saved by their performances. Despite being manichean and very often silly (but no need to be credible when it comes to gangsters, first love and street fights right ?), the first act is quite brilliant. This incandescent love is very well pictured in a classic style though. You expect a beautiful ending to it (you can't wait to see Adèle Exarchopoulos and François Civil from whom you expect to bring something new, more modern, after 12 years of gap in the plot).

The problem is that it is stricly the contrary that happens. François Civil and Adèle Exachopoulos bring nothing new, their performances are almost held back... with less intensity than their younger counterparts. Their performances are ok... but the story lacks sense in the second part of the film and they can't do mucho about it. I have to say they are not helped with the megalomania of the director that can't help to do too much to emphasize their love, their fate and their beauty, making long (too long) scenes focusing on their face. This, is being perfectly represented by Adèle Exachopoulos's first scene (that happens after one hour of film): dancing on a trendy night club dance floor by moving her head with sensuality and touching her untied hair. Did you get the picture ?

This image rings a bell (to me at least), and suddenly all the references are revealed: The very long discotec dance's scene of "Mektoub my love" (of Abdelatif Kechiche), West Side Story (the loving dance scene shot as a clip), Dirty Dancing, and "Hatred" (La Haine) with the three lads sitting on a building roof and drinking a beer can.

Clichés, solid cinema references, and a great soundtrack, this is what this film is made of. All in all it looks like the perfect recipe for teenagers, a cheesy gift offered to them with no limit over the budget and two fantastic picks (that's for sure): (way better than the famous stars of this film !): Mallory Wanecque and Malik Frikah. Hats off for their two performances. Thanks to them you want to see more of this film that the ending should please youngsters and despair other people with more experience in cinema.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not very credible is it ?

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

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

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

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

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

The seed of the sacred fig is the first relevant, powerful film about the Iranian rebelion that took place in 2022. The Woman, Life, Freedom's movement was born right after the arrest and death of Jina Mahsa Amini, a student that did nothing but remove her veil. The director takes us down to a family of an Iranian judge (working for the State and the Mollah 's regime) who is about to receive a promotion that is supposed to change his life right at the moment the 2022 revolution starts. We spectators somehow live this key period of Iran through the eyes of this middle class family which is about to upgrade its living conditions. We are emerged in their every day life until the gun of the father (the judge) disapears or gets stolen inside their home.

The film features a fantastic script, wonderful actors and images of an unknown Iran. You can see Iran like we can rarely see it, with its modernity, its rich history and ancient monuments, its poverty as well as its drawbacks. Like in many Iranian films, the spectator is plunged into complex situations with ethical questions which oblige to choose between moral, personal values and loyalty to the regime: Shall I wear this veil or another (less provokative one) ? Should I go the university despite of the strikes ? Shoulld I ask a favor to my neighbor and take the risk of revealing my family's problems? The ethical questions are everywehre, and they are direct consequences of the heavy oppressive regime that has ruled Iran for now decades. All these questions are faced with dignity and sense of duty by the characters , with sometimes even loyalty towards a regime who could not care less about its people. Through these situations are revealed the lack of freedom, the oprression over women, the complicity of those who take profit of this regime and of course the brutality of a regime condemned to sacrifice its own people in order to survive.

The latter will be perfectly depicted through the fate of the father willing to do his job respectfully but obliged to corrupt himself and sacrifice his people in order to survive to this revolution no matter how painful it is.

I particularly enjoyed the insight into the Iranian middle class. Being able to see and imagine what is an every day life for women in Iran is difficult to figure from the Western World. The more the film lenghts the better it gets as you can clearly see the impasse into which the country has plunged, and with it its inhabitants (and in this case this family) condemned to find a guilty among them.

Little by little, we can spot the seeds of discord germinating in this family, into the society, among students, and throughout the world thanks to social networks. That's the other revelation of this film. Social network is the key; that's the tool through which the song Baraye resonates, as well as images of police violence are spread, proofs of the oppression are accumulated, they are the hopes of Iran. The regime can no longer hide behind outrageous lies, the seeds of rebellion are now spread everywhere and the complice of the regime can no longer hide.

A promising outcry and a promising motto for the future Iranian society: Woman, Life, Freedom that we hope, will eventually change Iran for good.

"Volveréis" (the original title in Spanish) is a very unconventional movie whose characters don't want to make a fuss about their separation as a couple and therefore decide to take it all "the other way around" by organizing a joyful divorce party on the very first day of autumn.

While Ale and Alex seem to await this new season with some sort of expectation for their new life, the whole society (friends, family, work colleagues) puts up a resistance they were not expecting until they eventually doubt over this split up they were pretty sure of.

To turn a new leaf or to return to what they have always known and loved, that is the question the film will try to sort out.

First of all, the film features two fantastic actors, very accurate in their interpretation of a middle class couple in Madrid. Secondly I would say this film is undiscutably witty in its content but also in its direction with many echos to Jonas Truebas's (the director) life but also to philosophical issues. It will provide the spectator a revolutionary take on the couple as it turns the mores and stereotypes of a break-up with humor and optimism.

More precisely, it's an anthem to dialogue, to love, to respect. It's a modern tale about love, a modern point of you towards a break-up. In fact, its main characters barely ever fight or argue. The two of them respect each other at every step of their thinking despite the doubts that rise along and that are everywhere: in one look, one word , a specific place in Madrid or in one take.

This movie tackles the uncertainty, the sensation of being at a turning point of one's life . It also brings diferent shades of thoughts towards friendship, family and the "social pressure" felt in these occasions.

A complex thinking summed up in one simple sentence : "Volveréis".

Like a statement: For sure, you'll get back together Or like a question: Aren't you going to get back together after all?

Two appreciations of one reality. Just like the verb "volver" which has two meanings: to turn (a leaf) or to return (go back).

Jonàs Trueba (the director), a smart and gifted director of the new Spanish generation delivers a reflexive movie which in fact has a lot of himself in it: like being in the film industry for some time (he's the son of Fernando Trueba a very famous Spanish director and the main characters are also in the cinema industry), about the middle-age crisis (I believe he's in his forties) and about being in a relationship after 15 years .

There are many references to Bergman, to Truffaut in his direction but also winks to his father (director himself) who happens to be a key character in this film as he's the father of Ale (the girl) but also the "father" of the (freaky) idea of celebrating separations!

This film is rare because it overflows with sincerity and it plays with its spectators. For instance, you can tell that Jonàs Trueba shares "out loud" so to speak with us his thinking over the relevance of his film during the edit of the film that the main characters struggle to finish just like their relationship they struggle to put to an end to ! Or when Alex (the other main character) is rehearsing one of his last chance of getting a job as an actor by making a declaration of love to Ale with whom he's trying to split !

There are echos of the past, reflections of their love story everywhere and at any time but also echos of Jonàs Trueba's life, or Jonas Trueba's cinematography.

To the question: are you happy ? One answers yes and the other says no, but both seem to regret their answer right after prononcing it !

This melancholic tone matches with the turning point they are living, this puzzling moment of their lives, as they must turn over a new leaf, start a new chapter, begin a new season exactly like this rather sad, uncertain and ending summer in Madrid.

Little by little, and thanks to the characters' personal journey, we understand that life is like editing a film, and everything could be turned upside down: the beginning can become and end, a seeming end could mean a new beginning, and ending summer can become a bright new fall, and with one's decision it can be all the other way around.

A beautiful, sometimes funny, constantly witty film, with lots of winks. I recommend !

I'm warning you, I'm going to be very harsh. However, I do like the director of this film. I have always defended him. For instance I wrote a positive review about his previous film called "Une Vie Violente" which was also about the fate of the independentist struggle in Corsica. Maybe that is why I was so disappointed this time.

Thierry De Perretti falls into several shortcomings during that film and it does not help his goal which is I think to reveal the history of the independentist's struggle. First and foremost, the main drawback of this film is that it is disembodied. Its main character is cruelly lacking in charisma and coherence. The actress delivers a very poor performance. She appears detached from her character, as if she was waiting for the script to give her a reason to take her destiny into her own hands. The character of Antonia, a young Corsican who dreams of being a reporter keeps doing unexplained choices throughout the film. We never understand if she has a relevant political opinion nor if she approves or disapproves the independentist struggle. The same questions happen when it comes to her personal life choices: Why does she remain faithfull to her first love ? Why does she decide to go to Yougoslavia all of a sudden ? Why does she keep seeing friends that she does not seem to get along with? She is also forced to stage extremely poor, unrealistic dialogue, which does not help. She seems to have no charisma at all which does not help to like the story which is being told.

Secondly, the director delivers muddled explanations of the independentist conflict. We just don't understand the main stages of the struggle, who are those men who decide to kill, to kidnap and to struggle. We barely see their face ,we barely understand their motivations.

It seems to me that the director wanted to adapt a book which was complex and probably better pictured than his film. We clearly don't appreciate the photography of this film (not very well shot either !), nor its scenario, as we really don't understand the principle motivations of the main charachter (who she loves, what are her main goals) and it's the same for the Corsican struggle which is never clearly explained . Such a pity and such a bore for us, spectators of a disembodied fail.

A lumberjack cutting a tree trunk with an axe at a few inches to his own toes in a Basque competition you have never heard of is the first scene of the very first movie of Julio Medem. This first scene can sum it all up, and it will for sure give you the willies as well as intrigue you so much ! Quite an introduction and quite a way to mark history, and mark with a special touch as a signature of a very special director for European cinema.

Vacas (Cows) is a movie which has acompanied me for many years.

This first first scene, the whole mood throughout the film bring relevance to the strange rivalry pictured as well as it highlighs the tragedy. The weirdness of some scenes are huge features in this film, they keep the suspense alive, you feel intrigued you want to know more, and that is what defines best Julio Medem's cinema in his first films (intrigue, suspense and weirdness).

So let's get started, and what is it all about ?

Well, it's mainly about the rivalry between two families from a same village, but it also an insight on Spain, its rural world, country side's habits, ane the heartbreaking legacy of the civil war.

It's an atmosphere you will retrieve in almost all Julio Medem's film but for sure in no other director's film. Julio Medem is indeed a unique and fantastic Basque director (Spanish), with a cinema full of poetry, full of misteries and with his cultural heritage spreading through his filmography. The Basque Country will never seem more beautiful than in Julio Medem's film you can take it for granted !

A must-see one indeed for anyone who wants to know a bit more about Spanish cinema.

This film takes its audience back to the 70s and the political struggles that took place in the aftermath of the 1968's revolution in France.

As a young man accused of a double murder and numerous hold-ups, Pierre Goldman is depicted as a terrorist, radicalised by his communists parents (jews from Poland who left the pogroms back in the 20's) and by the people he met "along the way" in Poland, Cuba and Venezuela. As stubborn as impulsive, he seems to hold a grudge against the whole world, the cops and the heirs of aristocracy above all.

Will this be a enough to declare this man guilty of a murder ?

Will the French society of the seventies will decide to bury the values of the revolution of 1968 with this trial ?

Is he the scapegoat that everyone was expecting to blame the 68 revolution or a dangerous murderer ?

The fantastic adaptation of this trial will give some anwers for sure on that matter.

Beyond the suspense concerning the character, this film is to me a fantastic depiction of the French society of the 70's with the opposition betweeen conservatism ( those who clearly lean right and who are represented by DeGaule's supporters very keen to defend patriarchy and old bourgeois way of life) and some revolutionary's aspirations of the lefties (inspired by French intellectuals like Simone DeBeauvoir or other communists's supporters also present in the court).

Tensions, and moral values will pull their weight in this trial . The main character interpreted by Arieh Worthalter who definitely deserves an award for his performance (he finally got the Cesar) as well as the other actors (the lawyers, the witnesses, attorneys and prosecutor) are just perfect in the way they express themselves, in the tension and the moral stake they put in the middle of the room. The whole trial looks perfectly genuine and it's highly interesting to see what was at stake morally speaking back in those days.

In Europe, the 1970's are years of rebellion, violences and massive opposition between liberalism and communism. It is this struggle of ideas that is portrayed in this film.

A fantastic adaptation and reproduction of a trial that most of us have forgotten but that could have changed France for good.

First thing you need to know is that the trailer is quite disappointing and highly misleading. This film is not surprising at all, nor funny, nor well written.

All the jokes, all the so called suspense is in fact in the trailer. The whole film is in fact a never ending analysis of this very first scene with the bombing alert and the revelation of hidden secrets among this bunch of friends. And that will be it.

When the one and only idea of your film is a false bombing alert in Hawai, for a bunch of French middle aged tourists who are (because of their approaching death) obliged to reveal their so called "secrets" to one another (each secret is as boring as their pity lives), you know what you should expect with this film.

Sorry for being blunt but it's boring, absolutely pointless, and very rarely funny. A f.... waste of time ! (and money of course) .

Do not be mislead by the fact there are a lot of good actors in this film. It's part of the marketting isn't it? Many of them come with their comedy backgrounds and help to maintain the expectaction of a funny moment (that will never arrive) like Berenice Bejo (known for her part in OSS 117 Le Caire Nid d'Espions), Manu Payet and William Lebghill from whom we would expect much much much better scenes... Some others have surprisingly their part in this cast like Elodie Bouchez (fantastic actress but with a very poor role), Pierre Deladonchamps (used to very daring parts and probably the most surprising of them all) or the good-looking Nicolas Duchauvelle who is by far the most disappointing actor in this film with his (very classical) character of sporty macho that will never convince its audience.

A lot of very simple questions remain:

Why does it take place in the States ? What's the point ? Is it because it looks cooler ?

Why are there so many characters ?

Are we sure it brings something funny to the movie to pose nude on every scene ?

Is speaking bluntly about sex, drugs in front of teenagers a very original idea?

Does it bring anything new ? Did they need so many famous actors to deliver this piece of... ?

The answer to all these questions is: No.

I am afraid.

Pacifiction could look like a thriller when you watch the trailers however this plotless story will end up deceiving you on several aspects. As a matter of fact, you quickly realize there is no lesson to extract from this aimless story whose director seems to have had fun deceiving his spectators. All in all, it's a massive disappointement, for a total of 2h45 minutes of soulless and unattractive filming.

When you read the synopsis, one would expect a political explanation about Tahiti, this French "département" with special rules, and let's say an atypical population. Or maybe one would expect a focus on the problems of the islanders or some sort of a a criticism towards this new colonialism represented by this high commissioner called Monsieur De Roller (the main character of the film). However, nothing happens as expected in this film; worse; nothing happens AT ALL !

The so called high commissioner wanders around the island, speaks to his mates, argues with some unions guys, seduces some travestite dancer who is as admirative as suprisingly dumb, but the worst is that you just can't find out any logic to all his actions. You feel left in the lurch, and abandoned by the director after an hour or so as you clearly understand the film is going nowhere.

You never end up understanding who is this Monsieur De Roller (I believe he was a politician for real, but I have never found out his legacy), you never find out why he drives around the island aimlessly, by himself, without any goal, without any vice even (except the one of listening to himself), without charisma except his megalomania and narcissism. The film is full of scenes with long silences punctuated by De Roller's long speeches which are after the second one a massive bore.

Did you say suspense? There is NONE ! We understand quite quickly that the hallucinations of the high commissioner are only the results of his excesses and the contempt of the French government towards the natives.

A real pity if you think about the expectations one could have after having seen the trailers. I wonder if the director did not feel a bit of contempt towards his spectators by leading them astray on purpose with no taste for aesthetics what so ever.

I would keep one scene though... the surfers contest with impressive (one scene only) waves and impressive landscape. Don't waste your time please !!!!

What a fantastic tribute to dance, to creation, to the fact of reinventing oneself after a hard blow ! Cedric Kalpisch delivers a beautiful film reinventing his own cinema, making it "rise" to a high standard of aesthetics, which was not his best point so far.

First of all, let me underline the fact there is a clear pun in the French title "en corps" which would mean "into the body" or "by the body"... and again and again which is said "encore" in French.

For those who don't know much about the director of "en corps", Cedric Kalpisch has been a huge and popular French director of funny comedies in the 90's and the 00's. Some of Cedric Klapisch's main films became cult movies for my generation: The Good Old Daze, Family Ressemblances, or the Erasmus cult film called "Pot Luck" in 2002. Since then, it has been very difficult for him to renew his style, and reach his prime again.

For the first time in two decades, he's managed to find a new theme, a new style and has made a pleasant, interesting and beautiful film. That's why I allow myself a little review about it because it's really worth this time.

The film focuses on the physical, mental and sentimental reconstruction of its heroine, Elise, an injured dancer who must invent herself again at the age of 26. One of the feature of the film is the portrait of this heartbroken dancer, who is wisely played by Marion Barbeau who is quite convincing as a beginner actress . Another feature is of course the way he depicts the dance and the creation of contemporary dance, the energy of the dance itself, the freshness of the young dancers and their relation with classical dance. It's really fascinating and the participation of the Israeli dancer, Hofesh Shechter, is really a brilliant input.

The complex and suprising recovery of the main character reminds us that Cedric Klapisch knows how to portray complex, sensitive characters with broken and disturbed destinies. Despite a rather simple plot, you get surprises along the way and genuine laughters.

Her bleak fate (at the beginning) is enlightened by funny appeareances and the help of experienced actors such as François Civil (her physiotherapist) who is just hilarious,but also Pio Marmaï (the cooker) or Bruno Podalydès, (her father) who provide welcome humour, as well as depth in the story and above all they allow to have some hope for the rest of the film.

Klapisch really surprised me with the way he depicts the art of choreography (it's absolutely magnificient) in its various forms, aestitically speaking but most importantly respecting a fluidity in the film that allows us to be captivated by Eloise's fate throughout the film and understand it through dance moves.

En corps ("rise) is a fine way for Klapisch to renew himself, without denying himself. I am convinced it will be remembered as one of his most important films.

A few years ago I wrote a review about Julieta, and reckoned that Pedro Almodovar lost his "magic", this elctrifying spark of his, lost his imagination and craziness that had made him so much different from the others, but I added as well that maybe he did not lose all his personal touch, and praised the way he kept filming women, sexual appealingness and Spain in general. I was underlining the fact that what he does best now is post-cards of himself, taking key ingredients of his, such as a colorful salad bowl, a nice piece of jam and a gorgeous glass of wine or any typical Spanish habit and with all that he makes films which lack coherence and result to be a bit hollow. Unfortunately, Madres paralelas is a good example of this tendancy.

Paradoxically, it works. I can't say the contrary. A lot will like this film, many will be moved and sensitively touched by these two mothers at a different age. Pedro masters drama, her actresses are always very very good. However,you may doubt a little that a 40 years old mother let her child go away with another mother 20 years younger than her, you may wonder she ever feels anything more (love ?) than sympathy for a 18 years old girl that has little to do with her, you may not believe in the fate of this older mother (another touching characater) who prefers her job opportunity over the new motherhood of her daughter but in the end you accept being deceived because you enjoy Penelope Cruz (so much better in Spanish), you enjoy Rosie Di Palma (always funny, accurate) and you enjoy Pedro Almodovar's world (life in Madrid is fun with Pedro ).

What I personnally dislike and find ethically incorrect it is the historical excuse he takes to make a nice advertising of his film. I am talking about this terrible injustice that suffered loads of Republicans in Spain during Franco's dictatorship with the hidden mass graves that still exist in many places of Spain and that Predro Almodovar uses as a introduction and a conclusion to his film. I think it is a serious subject, it's something so unfair that he should not pretend to do a film about it if in the end his story has nothing to do with it. Apart from that it's an entertaining film but I wish he had the "cojones" to go deeper in the topic of the mass graves and the judicial impunity.

Indescribable film that reveals all the magic of cinema in the simplest way possible, talking about life with all its complexity, with all its heartbreaks, with all its joys and sorrows.

If you want to have an idea of the style of the movie I would say it has a bit of Woody Allen, a bit of the French Nouvelle Vague and a lot of a Scandinavian wit and crudness (especially in its dialogs). Without a shadow of a doubt, this film is at the very least, very original. I would even say it has some genius in its direction and I would probably call it a masterpiece (even if like many others here I would have prefered if the ending did not sour the magic - but what does represent 10 to 15 minutes of a film which lasts 2 hours ?). I prefer to recall all the rest, remind the good vibes it transmited and keep my good, very good memories of three quarters of the film.

So: What is it all about ? Well it is just about LIFE with capital letters (isn't it what cinema is all about after all ?): choices that you make, choices you don't make, doubts that you have, love that you live (cry or abandon), social pressure you suffer from and time that is passing by. It's marvellous, subtle, complex, and at the same time light, simple, funny, heartbreaking and... beautiful !

The form of the film is to me the most original feature. It's inventive at every shot, at every camera movement, it's very dynamic in the story telling despite the presence of a narrator; you never know if the director talks about the present or about the past, but you know for sure that things are changing fast in Julie's life while you try to piece the puzzle. As a viewer, you are left to guess what a look, a stare or a grimace means in July's life. Who know it goes fast in her head, that she's indecisive, sometimes unstable, but when she decides to do something she does it for good.

The focus is always on her, Julie, you pass from one period of her life to another, the transitions are fast, and you live her thirty years old life as if you were in her shoes.

I would definitely stress the importance of the Scandinavian touch which lies in its "crudness of words and thoughts" (so ahead of their time these Scandinavian people !...), that enables to tackle the major issues of our Western modern society without taboos, but most importantly without being too didactic (feminisim, environemental issues and other topics).

In addition to the perfect cast and the sharped, well written dialogs, the film features amazing scenes such as all the party scenes (which are just hilarious), and of course the one of the film's poster when Julie who recently felt in love with a stranger runs towards him with her surrounding standing still as if for a minute or so the director would allow his main character to wander and walk around the set of the film.

Joachim Trier's cinema is just like this scene, just like a video clip, the music lulls you from beginning to end, you're being emerged in a mood, in an epoch, in another country. You end up in Oslo (Norway), in a Scandinavian middle class woman's life, you share the issues of the 21st century in a liberal democracy and you start living in Julie's feet, in Julie's mind, you like sharing her doubts, her concerns, her loves, her fears and you will end up falling in love with the "worst person in the world".

Lost illusions is for many critics, the best Balzac's novel and the adaptation that Xavier Giannoli (the director) delivers is not only fairly pleasant, dynamic and very well interpreted, it also has a special resonance in our world controled by social networks, search for buzz, influencers, fake news and a few rich media owners.

However, the story seems quite far from our world as it takes place in the first part of the 19th century (around 1820-1830) during the period of "Restauration", when monarchy came back to power in France but also when the liberals were pushing for changing the regime or at least experimenting new liberties such as parliamentarism and freedom of the press.

Lucien de Rubempré is this young man full of dreams who comes from the French country side eager to live from his literary talents, driven by his forbidden love to a rich aristocrat . Sent away to Paris, little by little Lucien will lose his illusions to discover a world full of greed, machiavellianism and dishonesty.

Xavier Giannoli tackles lots of topics in what we understand is a very rich novel. One of the topic is the transformation of literature into merchandise. The depiction of the book publishers is machiavellian. The depiction of a new kind of journalism based on sensacional news is quite shocking. In fact, Xavier Giannoli doesn't make a plea for journalists, on the contrary, he even tries to discredit them and presents them as filthy people, greedy for money. It's sometimes a little bit too much but we understand that the new liberties conceded by the government back in those days have a repercussion on different fields of the society and we also understand it concerns a certain type of journalism and not all journalisms. However the resonence in our 21st century world is quite obvious concerning the search of buzz.

We clearly understand that what the director wants to make us some winks thoughout his film, winks that the attentive spectator cannot miss. There is notably the explanation of how the buzz is created among the press, but also how the media (for the time, mainly newspapers) are controlled and owned by rich entrepreneurs or by the big bosses of advertising agencies and how these influencers of the 19th century try to invade the parliament and get the hold of the main positions among the government. The sentence "there will be a time a bankier will be president of the republic" is clearly a wink to our French president Macron, former banker himself.

All in all, Xavier Giannoli makes a great adaptation, with a lot of characters and a fine depiction and understanding of the changes that were at stake back in the 19th century and that have a special resonance nowadays.

Goodbyes are meaningful with Albert Dupontel. After "Au-Revoir Là-Haut" (See You Up There) (2017), "Adieu les Cons" (Bye Bye Morons) (2020) is another farewell full of sense that Dupontel delivers with poetry, humour and a rebel spirit.

Bye Bye Morons takes place nowadays in France, a country he describes as crippled by its heavy bureaucracy, drowned in a consumer society that promotes individualism as a great value. Don't be mistaken. The film is in fact way less agitator than his first movies. I would call it a feelgood movie about people in need having their revenge on what the society imposes on them. It's trivial enough to entertain without needing to be too focused and at the same time, clever and inventive enough to catch all our attention and get the message behind it .

Albert Dupontel, the director, is a former stand-up comedian (who used to play outsiders of the society who did not adapt to the consumer society and who were ready to blow up the place for it), he's also a long time punk and anarchist sympathizer (it might help to understand the screenplay and the end of the movie) and now, he is an internationally recognized director (after his previous film See You Up There who was unquestionably a must see film of 2017). This film is a continuity with what he has always done, another farewell of his own to criticize our material society, individualism and the state repression of the most needing people. Beyond the story that is rather classical (a death diagnosized woman who wants to make a last good action before she dies ), what is joyful in this film is the constant humour Albert Dupontel resorts to, the hints to our perverted society and a colorful poetry that he disseminates throughout the film . One will recognize the nods to the recent police violence in France, to our over connected habits, our deshumanization in several places of our society . In this film, Dupontel shows a great sense of drama, with camera effects that serve the sense he wants to give , with a thin skinned sensitivity. All this sensitivity aspect would not have been possible without the amazing in-put of Virginie Effira, the "in fashion actress" of the French cinema over the last 5 years. Her work is once again remarkable in this movie. I believe the film would have lost part of his credits without her. However, to me, the main features of every Dupontel's film are his camera and graphics inventions. I guess the best example would be what he resorts to show the dehumanization of the administration, with the never ending spiral staircase as a representation of the vicious circle in which the characters find themselves and the never ending process that is required in a state administration. Another example is the rotating camera on several portraits of important managers at several levels of the administration to show how resortless are the characters of the movie. The reflection over the time passing by and the changes on the landscape in modern cities will certainly speak to many of us too. It is to me, this kind of details, all the camera effects and the graphics inventions that allow him to turn a rather classical story into a moving portrait of our individual consumer society. In that sense, this film is a success . I am more skeptical about the end of the movie (very foreseeable) and the photography of the film which has something to do with Amelie Poulain but which did not make that much effect on me. The red light through the film looks unreal, almost cheesy. Despite these little drawbacks, the film has the merit of bringing you into a special mood, a very Dupontel's atmosphere in which the two main characters (or the three, with the blind person who has got the funny part) kind of float over this colorful society that does not have time nor space for them. Bye Bye Morons has it all in its title, it is indeed a very good movie, well thought, done with creative effects and for this we hope it was just a good-bye and not an "adieu" from Dupontel who looks like he's got a lot to say left.

I am surprised with the marks given by Imdb's users. Three years after seeing this film I still think about it, its music, its caracters, its mood accompany me. Mektoub My Love is a great movie, maybe not a masterpiece you would re-watch on an on but it's a great film, with a proper mood and a sensitive artistic touch. Among other things, it features a great sensuality and some brilliant actors (most of them are beginners and turn out to be really good especially Ophelie Bau who delivers a promising performance). Abdellatif Khechiche has this capacity to take the best out of his actors, he is also capable of captivating and bewitching his audience in a multi sensory journey. Khechiche does not make entertainment, it's not an action movie you should be looking for, it's a travel into his adolescence in the South of France, an ode to the youth, the non-endind summer and the awakening of desire. I think this film, a bit like "La graine et le mulet" which also took place in Sète (France), is very personal for the director. In fact, the heroe, Amin, looks like Abdelatif Khechiche himself (a young French man with arab origins who studies cinema...), the seaside resort he depicts really exists and you can't help thinking he's put some of his personal affairs in this story. What is interesting in Khechiche's cinema is how he shows the awakening of desire and the aesthetics chosen. I believe critics define it as naturalist cinema, a cinema that focuses on the flesh, the bodies, the lips sometimes even the driblle with an unmissable focus on the curves of women ; it's a cinema with a strong eroticization of the body but it's also a cinema that requires time, some scenes can be very long and Khechiche does it on purpose to insist on the desire felt, the games of seduction or to insist on the lenght of the night. Mektoub my love is a brilliant example of what Khechiche does best in that sense. Along with all that, the film features a social accuracy that gives a true insight to the film. It's not only about the birth of desire at the age of 20, it's also about a certain category of youth and summer loves. His cinema is always very realistic, you can feel the mood of a seaside resort, you understand its youth, its seduction games and you feel so comfortable that you would appreciate being part of the film actually. Like in "La vie d'Adèle", Khechiche goes very far into the eroticization of the bodies and the scenes at the beach (so beautiful...all of them), in the night club (slightly long I admitt) and the never ending approches between young adults reflect so well his cinema and the theme chosen : the birth of desire and sexuality at a young age. If you take your time (I think it's the key) and let you drift by Khechiche's poetry, you will certainly fall in love and enjoy being young (again) for the length of the movie.

This movie deserves a round of applause for tackling such a big issue as the misery and social and ethnical diversity in the treacherous suburbs of France with neutrality, intensity and emotions. The fact Ladj Ly (the director) does that with a refine style and a cautious but reasonable neutrality makes this film even greater.

This film is a shock, a love at first sight and the well deserved heir of the masterpiece La Haine shot in 1995.

It may lack a bit of laughters, a bit of moral to the story, but it's a great great discovery.

The story focuses on Stéphane, a cop who recently joined an anti-crime brigade of a town next to Paris called Montfermeil. Stephane quickly discovers the tensions between the different ethnical and social groups of the neighbourhood . He also discovers the curious methods of his team mates that he disapproves in the first place. During an arrest, one of them gets overwhelmed by the events and made a terrible blunder but a drone has filmed all the scene - they must find that drone at all cost.

Beyond the police blunder, it's a denonciation of several misconducts in those areas and the complete state of neglect that all inhabitants suffer from that is tackled in this film.

The movie is in fact a real whistle blower of a latent conflict. A bit of a bolt out of the blue. In short: a warning cry.

Don't get it wrong. The film does not call for civil war. It's just a depiction of what happens every day in some cities of France.

The Victor Hugo's reference is just a wink, a little tribute as Monfermeil (the city where the story takes place) is also where the Thenardier family in Les Misérables (the book) lives. The movie is more about what the word "Les Misérables"' means than about the story of the book. The film focuses on the miserable people living , working, growing in Montfermeil, their interractions and conflicts in those abandoned lands of the French republic. The director wanted to send a message to the authorities and make them realize what are the feelings of the people living there who had been left in the lurch after so many political promises and this for so many years.

The fact that the director tackles this issue through the policemen' eyes is daring and intelligent since we quickly realize that the policemen are part of these miserable people.

Right after the blunder, starts on a vicious circle which leads to the final phrase of Victor Hugo himself: there is no bad seeds, or bad men but just bad growers.

In terms of rythm, intensity and style the film is a great success . You never lose the tension, you never want to take sides but you want to know where and how it will end up even if you presume it will end up badly. The amateur actors and profesional actors are all of them very genuine especially the bad and the good cop.. I highly recommend it. It's a great film and a fantastic suprise in the French film panorama.

On paper, this film is condemned and doomed to failure. A story about a writer (Marguerite Duras) and her internal dialogs about the waiting of her husband's return (member of the French resistance) could only be seen as something rather repellent. However, the fact that Emmanuel Finkiel delivers a heartbreaking film about this waiting is in itself astonishing and makes this film valuable, rare and beautiful for sure among the must see films' list of 2017. So how come did Emmanuel Finkiel end up with such a good movie ? Well there are several ingridients of course , but one of the secrets leans on the fantastic actors the film features and the way the characters were written: Melanie Thierry as Marguerite Duras of course, way above all the rest, so unsettling and seductive, torned apart and brave, but also, quite surprinsgly Benoit Magimel (recently so deep and good actor in recent years) with a deep twisted role of a cop you never end up to decipher completely. All this is accompanied by a beautiful and genuine reconstruction of the ocuppied Paris back in the early forties and the creative camera inventions the director resorted to during the film actually allow to maintain the supense you would not have expected from such a movie by revealing little by little the diferent feelings Marguerite Duras (the writer) came through (specially her twisted feeling towards her lover and the husband she must wait). Thanks to all this we can comprehend the unexpected turns of the historical events through the eyes of a "resistante" (Marguerite Duras), we live the waiting, the environment, the mood o the people in the ocuppied Paris, the suffering of the people, the watershed of history when the fear suddenly changed sides, the political commitment that some people decided to have and the one that others decided to avoid at all cost, all this is perfectly pictured, illustrated, narrated described and depicted with a true authenticity that never bore us despite the theme of the film. Melanie Thierry once again is just amazing (quite unfair not to give her the Cesar award for that utterringly good performance), we suffer with her, and never abandon her pain (the real title in French means pain). A great adaptation on screen and a very emotional moment . I recommend !

Leto is to me the best film of 2018 as its direction is so original, unique and magnificient. The story is rather simple. A confirmed rock star of the early eighties (Mayk) struggles to promote rock music in the declining Sovietic Union when another musician (Viktor Tsoi) arises as a new promising talent. His wife, Natalia can't help to be attracted to this new talent...and so does he. This film almost has it all. It features fantastic actors, an interesting story (who would not like to know what was being a rock star in the Soviet Union in the 80's ?), a great soundtrack, and some developments in the film you do not expect. I would definitely take on the direction of this film as its main feature, as Serebrennikov films so well, invents moments of magic, and has so much inventions that you can feel the soul of rock. Quite early in the film, you understand the movie is not just all about following the emergence of Viktor Tsoi the Kurt Cobain of Russia (or the Jim Morisson of Russia back in those days), but also about giving pride of place to the ideal of rock. Serebrennikov pays tribute to what rock and roll meant for his generation, what it inspired and what it felt to listen to this music in this oppressive atmosphere of Russia in the 80's. I believe that many many directors tried this before him, but Serebrennikov may be the only one to have succeeded in this initiative of linking music to political protest. The long take at the beach and several musica clips are simply fantastic ! For this and for his fantastic direction, the film has already become a must-see film to me.

Despite being threatened to death, Stéphane decides to come back to Corsica and attend his friend's and fellow fighter's funeral. Why is he sentenced to death ? How can a nice fellow, bourgeois of Bastia end up to be threatened by the mafia ? What was his journey, from a vague interest in independentist theories to political radicalism ? Thierry de Peretti the director, native from Corsica, tries to give an explanation, and delivers a subtle description of Coriscans, independentists and others, old fighters of the 70's and the new generation of 90's, full or realism and rythm. It brings out a very intersting story of a youngster (Stéphane) of the 90's, slightly lost, and slightly rebel at his age, craving to have a cause to live and to stand up for, who ends up militating for an alternative independentism whose values seem to be nobler than the old independentism. A descent into the depths of militancy, enlistment and fanatism, full of realism, simplicity. A modern tale of our youth craving for ideology - a really good surprise !

Que Dios nos perdone could be described as a classic, or even a filthy thriller but it is in fact a film directed in a superb manner. What is this all about ? Well at first, you've got a very unlikely pair of work, Alfaro (charismatic, self-confident, seducer but violent) and Velarde (starmmerer, quiet and witty), the two detective inspectors who are in charge of the investigation. Both under pressure at work and urged to prove their qualities in the Spanish police, the detectives will need to overcome their faults to resolve this investigation with the utmost discretion. From then on, a thrilling race against time and serial rape crimes starts with the eternal doubt whether the policemen they are, are that different (or not) to the murderer of these old women. To me, and above all, the film features a rare description of its characters, of the mood of Madrid during this summer 2011. You feel the heat, the smells of bodies and of the corpses(!) the tension at work, in the society, the hatred against and amongst policemen . It has all the ingredients that are needed in such a film: the crimes are definitely filthy, the detective inspectors are weirdos in their own way which make them plausible suspects, the rythm is relentless. You end up suspecting everyone, and you crave for someone to arrest the murderer. A very gripping film, with a fantastic direction. Most likely, the best or one of the best of 2016 so far.

Julieta is definitely not the best, but for sure not the worst of Almodovar either. It's a good story, with very good actors, good characters but the scenes Almodovar put all together are stereotypes of his own cinema and his own world. It's a bit like Tarantino who exaggerates what he does (or did) the best. Is it because he gets older and older ? Is it because he lacks inspiration ? I loved his cinema, I don't want to lash out at him but this film is not enough to resuscitate Almodovar's genius. Almodovar masters the dramatic art, the seriousness of scenes, the desire on screen but he mainly made a postcard of his own, a postcard of his own world. The salad bowl is beautiful, full of fresh vegetables and Spanish specialties, the house on the North coast features an outstanding view over the sea, the Spanish village in the south is authentic and calm, the kitchen's wall paper reminds the eighties but it is mainly "beautifully cheesy". It requires no effort to watch it, you can let you drive by his eternal love towards Madrid, the women, the Spanish country side, sexual desires and you can lie to yourself saying it's agreat one... it may work for some time and you'll have a good moment. The end of the film is just a non-ending story... and we (his fans) will wait for the next one.

Tony (Emmanuelle Bercot) tries desperately to recall the tempestuous relationship she had with Giorgio (Vincent Cassel). Why did they fall in love? Were they both in love or was it just her ? Who was Giorgio for real ? Was he himself at every moment or was he manipulating her ? How could she be so blind and how could she let this passion submit herself that much and that far into a circle of destruction ?

The controversial French director, Maïwenn, ex wife of Luc Besson has now proved (if she ever had to) she has reached maturity and mastery in every aspect of directing a movie from filming and directing actors to writing dialogs and a subtle scenario. The performances of the actors are just astonishing. Vincent Cassel seems he is like himself, smooth talker and bold, Emmanuelle Bercot gives it all showing restraint with huge pain,just like her character who cannot believe she has to go through that much but who needs to cope with every single situation. Anchored in reality, the cinema of Maiwen confirms it is based on genuine dialogs and a rough reality.

What is new and different from her other movies, it's that this time she tackles a very common theme: Love, passion, maybe with something less personal, but still with her rough way always at the limit of physical violence. Fortunately, there are light-full moments that make this drama pleasant to watch.

I was really surprised because I was not sure I liked the cinema of Maiwenn. I would even dare to say that this movie is not far from perfect (except the first scene with the psychologist that sounds so fake ! What a pity!). The strength of the film lies in its ability to hold the attention all the way through. It's indeed a breathless and thrilling experience to watch this film, because you expect the situation to worsen even more, you expect the character to realize what she is going though, you expect the director to make this passion a nightmare but she does not.

The film features an astonishing performance from the two actors (the actress received the prize for her performance in Cannes). It features as well intense moments of emotion interrupted from time to time with light-full and hilarious moments, especially thanks to the character of the brother. I would spot this as something new in Maiwenn's cinema, because she was not used to allowing us to take our breath... Very well done Maïwenn this time, can't wait to see the next one !

Do not focus on the rate. The film is worth watching even if it could have been much better and some of the details in the scenario are clearly a fail beginning with the lack of coherence of the characters. In clear, it's hard to follow them and to understand them. A Touch of Sin turns out to be a hell of a lot of sins, of violence, of crimes and of desperation. During the film I hesitated between skepticism, bewilders or admiration for this rough and tough portrait of China through different stories that are not necessarily linked together. A touch of sin is about four characters in four different regions in China who are going through hard times, because of globalization, corruption or a closed system. All these things will lead them to crime, suicide and the metaphor of the collapse of the system. It is always better to make a critic out of a movie you have fancied but not all of it is to throw away, and I would recommend to watch that movie for its originality and the ambitious scenario of the director. In short it was a great project and maybe some mistakes could have been avoided, but in the end it's indeed an interesting director to follow in the upcoming years.

Nos Jours Heureux is a definitely worthwhile film for many reasons. Of course, it has a lot of rhythm, authenticity, typical and hilarious diaglogs and a lot of good and now very famous actors in France (despite what some of us wrote here). I would even dare to say it will (or it has already) become a cult movie for the generation born between 2010-2020.

Nos Jours Heureux is a comedy with famous phrases that will stick in your head, it appeals to everyone's childhood and the summer camp we used to attend to. Morever, the eccentricity and the authenticity of the characters allow them to have hilarious freak-outs that for sure will make quite an impression to the audience. In addition to thatm the film describes perfectly the mood of such places. Anyone that has attended a summer camp like that would recall a camp counselor, a child or a chef De cuisine and for sure one or several of them who would have have been freak, violent, lady killer or simply misplaced and inappropriate. This film sums up it all. The stupid activities, the dishonesty of adults, the freak-outs, kids' tricks, adults' obsession for sex and maybe a subtle analysis of what is in an early-thirty year old adult's mind when it comes time to make decision and change his way of life. I found that last thing very subtle and very interesting in addition to all the laughters it provided. Enjoy !