John McClane is back after a twelve-year absence with LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD, an adrenaline-pumped series of action sequences that offer up familiar ground while managing to completely entertain and satisfy. Yet while the film is thrilling at parts, it attempts to develop the paper-thin plot fail and throw the film into the depths of pure stupidity.
America is once again on the brink of destruction, and it’s up to John McClane (Bruce Willis) to save the day. This time, a band of vaguely-intimidating computer geeks have gained control of everything in the country (and I mean everything) and are systematically shutting down the systems. McClane is called in to retrieve a well-known hacker (Justin Long), but soon finds himself in another duel with an evil genius who soon sets his sights on McClane’s teenaged daughter.
That’s about as much plot as there is, as it only exists in the first place to create action sequences. The film tries to develop the plot here and there, but it is then that the holes and stupidity of the film become clear. The film’s villain (played by Timothy Olyphant) is a typical monster of the monotone/sneering/never-blinking type, forgoing any sense of real intimidation in favor of having nameless thugs do all the actual work. Aside from threatening phone calls and an occasional slap here and there, Olyphant ultimately does nothing. And where there is a weak villain, there is an even weaker story. Most of the supporting characters range from roll-your-eyes-stupid to hit-your-forehead-stupid, from the envoys of constantly inept security guards to the henchman that follow the “if I can’t see them, they must be dead” policy. Long’s character suffers here as well; his attempts at being the comic relief fail throughout most of the film, save for a humorous bit involving the hijacking of a car. The rest of the time, he runs and ducks, his “save me!” routine quickly tiring.
Yet LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD delivers in the two key elements of any Die Hard film: Bruce Willis’s performance and the action. Willis is clearly having the time of his life, pulling off the dizzying stunts with gusto and an excited smile throughout. When the script tries to develop McClane’s character and explain his actions, it falls into deep clichés; but luckily, the filmmakers know not to focus on it. What the audiences wants is the explosions, and they certainly deliver. Each successive sequence grows in grandeur and spectacle, occasionally demanding an extremely high level of disbelief on the part of the viewer, but the film is too entertaining to write off.
The series has a new director in Len Wiseman (of the UNDERWORLD films), who keeps the tradition of solid action films going while adding nothing new. He has the distracting habit of filming too much in a tight handheld shot, often making it difficult to determine what is actually happening. Yet this became less frequent as the film went on, only heightening the enjoyment factor of the film.
LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD offers nothing revolutionary, neither to the action genre or the series. It’s simply what people have come to expect from a Die Hard film, softened a bit to let in the PG-13 masses. Several characters in the film refer to McClane as out of touch in the technology-infested America of today. Yet as Willis demonstrates, as long as evil geniuses are out there, John McClane can and will save the day in time to utter his signature phrase, “Yippee ki yay motherf(CENSORED).”
**
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Friday, June 15, 2007
La Vie en Rose
Some performances are so instantly memorable, so transformative and awe-inspiring that they simply leave the viewer speechless. Such is the case with Marion Cotillard’s extraordinary performance as Edith Piaf in LA VIE EN ROSE. She completely transcends everything else, giving a flawless portrayal in an otherwise incredibly flawed film. Whenever one of director Olivier Dahan’s creative decisions goes awry (and there are many) Cotillard comes in with extreme finesse and confidence, saving the whole film from disaster with a single pained stare or clever nod of the head.
The film spans nearly all of Piaf’s extraordinary life, starting from her days as a child being raised by prostitutes and moving to her death in 1963. The film is chock full of information, throwing a new twist in her life every few minutes. As a result, even though the film is 140 minutes, sometimes we are only given a glimpse into her life, rather than completely understanding it. (It is also a tragedy that her astounding contributions during the occupation in WWII were completely omitted.) But the sense of pain and loss that haunted her life and make her singing unforgettable are more than amply illustrated; in the sequences chronicling her later years, our hearts break for every pained step she takes.
The film is undermined by Dahan’s insistence on staying safely outside the norm. He employs a dizzying sense of chronology, flashing back and forth between time periods with no rhyme or reason. At times, only Piaf’s style of dress and look indicate where in her life the action is set. He also employs several highly theatrical techniques that add a level of higher realism to the piece; a scene where fire embers give voice as an angel, a sequence of Piaf wandering around her home in devastation, only to walk through a door and onto a stage and a curious montage of Piaf’s childhood blindness set to one of her cheeriest songs are only a few examples. Piaf’s first public performance at a music hall is told only through images, a risky feat that only is successful due to Cotillard’s unshakable presence. All these attempts are artistic with a capital “A”; they become distracting and turn the film itself into quite a mess. None of the other characters are given much of an opportunity to make an impression, most of them becoming a sea of faces under varying amounts of age make-up.
But still, Cotillard is the glue that holds the mess together. Her performance is a truly astounding experience. Even the random time-jumps serve their purpose here; the juxtaposition between the broken, dying Piaf, hunched over and wrinkled, and the young, energetic girl with an eager smile and springing step demonstrate her complete immersion in the role and the remarkable transformation she goes through in the film. She is completely unrecognizable as the singer, a small and diminutive presence throughout. She is completely committed in every frame, becoming a powerful force that the viewer cannot help but attach to.
Much is said about imitation whenever a new biopic is released, but Cotillard’s performance here is far more refined, far more transformative and committed than any of the performances given by her contemporaries. She has delivered the performance of a lifetime. I do not want to be the person who cries, “this woman deserves an OSCAR!!”, but if Cotillard is not remembered come awards time, the Academy should hang their heads in shame. Marion Cotillard has given us something spectacular; she has risen above the weaknesses of a mediocre film and will be remembered for years to come. The film itself is far from perfect, but the strength of her portrayal alone serves as a perfect tribute to a woman who poured out her pain and suffering whenever she performed. Thanks to Cotillard, we know understand how much pain there was.
***
The film spans nearly all of Piaf’s extraordinary life, starting from her days as a child being raised by prostitutes and moving to her death in 1963. The film is chock full of information, throwing a new twist in her life every few minutes. As a result, even though the film is 140 minutes, sometimes we are only given a glimpse into her life, rather than completely understanding it. (It is also a tragedy that her astounding contributions during the occupation in WWII were completely omitted.) But the sense of pain and loss that haunted her life and make her singing unforgettable are more than amply illustrated; in the sequences chronicling her later years, our hearts break for every pained step she takes.
The film is undermined by Dahan’s insistence on staying safely outside the norm. He employs a dizzying sense of chronology, flashing back and forth between time periods with no rhyme or reason. At times, only Piaf’s style of dress and look indicate where in her life the action is set. He also employs several highly theatrical techniques that add a level of higher realism to the piece; a scene where fire embers give voice as an angel, a sequence of Piaf wandering around her home in devastation, only to walk through a door and onto a stage and a curious montage of Piaf’s childhood blindness set to one of her cheeriest songs are only a few examples. Piaf’s first public performance at a music hall is told only through images, a risky feat that only is successful due to Cotillard’s unshakable presence. All these attempts are artistic with a capital “A”; they become distracting and turn the film itself into quite a mess. None of the other characters are given much of an opportunity to make an impression, most of them becoming a sea of faces under varying amounts of age make-up.
But still, Cotillard is the glue that holds the mess together. Her performance is a truly astounding experience. Even the random time-jumps serve their purpose here; the juxtaposition between the broken, dying Piaf, hunched over and wrinkled, and the young, energetic girl with an eager smile and springing step demonstrate her complete immersion in the role and the remarkable transformation she goes through in the film. She is completely unrecognizable as the singer, a small and diminutive presence throughout. She is completely committed in every frame, becoming a powerful force that the viewer cannot help but attach to.
Much is said about imitation whenever a new biopic is released, but Cotillard’s performance here is far more refined, far more transformative and committed than any of the performances given by her contemporaries. She has delivered the performance of a lifetime. I do not want to be the person who cries, “this woman deserves an OSCAR!!”, but if Cotillard is not remembered come awards time, the Academy should hang their heads in shame. Marion Cotillard has given us something spectacular; she has risen above the weaknesses of a mediocre film and will be remembered for years to come. The film itself is far from perfect, but the strength of her portrayal alone serves as a perfect tribute to a woman who poured out her pain and suffering whenever she performed. Thanks to Cotillard, we know understand how much pain there was.
***
Friday, June 8, 2007
Ocean's Thirteen
George Clooney and company are back and in the place they belong: the casinos of Las Vegas. After a disappointing and vapid Euro trip in OCEAN’S TWELVE, director Steven Soderbergh has wisely returned to the formula that made the original film so successful. The result is an entertaining film that makes apologies for its predecessor, while never reaching the heights of cleverness and pure enjoyment of the first film.
This time around, the motive is revenge. After ruthless casino owner Willy Bank (Al Pacino) betrays the lovably sarcastic Reuben (Elliot Gould), sending him into a near-death stupor, Danny Ocean (Clooney) and his camaraderie of thieves decide to get back at him in the best way they know how: an epic heist at his newest casino, the Bank. To tell any more would likely uncover one of the film’s many surprises, which is to be expected in an OCEAN’S film. The plot is tighter and slimmed down than the other two installments; this time around, the external emotional problems of the characters are largely ignored, aside from a few mentions here and there. Previous stars Julia Roberts and Catherine Zeta-Jones are nowhere to be seen. This works both for and against the film; it is stripped of the excess and inside jokes that made the second film so tiring, yet the audience is prevented from seeing the charismatic characters working on multiple levels.
It is even more of a shame because the one minor subplot that does introduce romantic tension is one of the high points in the film. This is due mostly to the presence of Ellen Barkin, playing Al Pacino’s seemingly all-business-no-pleasure assistant. Her dynamic and energetic performance as “the woman” in the film gives an adrenaline shot, particularly in her scenes with Matt Damon and his fake nose (suspiciously called “the Brody.”) However, her time to shine is all too brief, relegated to just a few scenes.
Yet the sense of fun from the first film has returned, and it makes up for many of the missing elements. Once again the audiences are in on the joke, which was the biggest problem with the second film. The film suffers from a slow first act, with things plodding along until the heist is actually set in motion. But the joy is there in seeing the characters back to plotting a seemingly impossible heist and dealing with the curveballs thrown at them. The actual heist isn't as clever as the first film, yet the filmmakers seem to realize that, which contributes even more to the film's laid-back nature. As always, Soderbergh imbues the film with a visual spark that hearkens back to the sixties while remaining cutting-edge and modern (the CGI-altered Las Vegas strip is particularly impressive).
While the film could never have topped the first installment, it apologizes for the grave mistakes made in the second film. What at first seemed a vanity project for a bunch of men in denial is now a decent enough summer escape. Clooney, Pitt, Damon, etc. are still joking around and having fun, but this time we’re having fun with them. We are welcomed back into Ocean's gang to ride along.
**1/2
This time around, the motive is revenge. After ruthless casino owner Willy Bank (Al Pacino) betrays the lovably sarcastic Reuben (Elliot Gould), sending him into a near-death stupor, Danny Ocean (Clooney) and his camaraderie of thieves decide to get back at him in the best way they know how: an epic heist at his newest casino, the Bank. To tell any more would likely uncover one of the film’s many surprises, which is to be expected in an OCEAN’S film. The plot is tighter and slimmed down than the other two installments; this time around, the external emotional problems of the characters are largely ignored, aside from a few mentions here and there. Previous stars Julia Roberts and Catherine Zeta-Jones are nowhere to be seen. This works both for and against the film; it is stripped of the excess and inside jokes that made the second film so tiring, yet the audience is prevented from seeing the charismatic characters working on multiple levels.
It is even more of a shame because the one minor subplot that does introduce romantic tension is one of the high points in the film. This is due mostly to the presence of Ellen Barkin, playing Al Pacino’s seemingly all-business-no-pleasure assistant. Her dynamic and energetic performance as “the woman” in the film gives an adrenaline shot, particularly in her scenes with Matt Damon and his fake nose (suspiciously called “the Brody.”) However, her time to shine is all too brief, relegated to just a few scenes.
Yet the sense of fun from the first film has returned, and it makes up for many of the missing elements. Once again the audiences are in on the joke, which was the biggest problem with the second film. The film suffers from a slow first act, with things plodding along until the heist is actually set in motion. But the joy is there in seeing the characters back to plotting a seemingly impossible heist and dealing with the curveballs thrown at them. The actual heist isn't as clever as the first film, yet the filmmakers seem to realize that, which contributes even more to the film's laid-back nature. As always, Soderbergh imbues the film with a visual spark that hearkens back to the sixties while remaining cutting-edge and modern (the CGI-altered Las Vegas strip is particularly impressive).
While the film could never have topped the first installment, it apologizes for the grave mistakes made in the second film. What at first seemed a vanity project for a bunch of men in denial is now a decent enough summer escape. Clooney, Pitt, Damon, etc. are still joking around and having fun, but this time we’re having fun with them. We are welcomed back into Ocean's gang to ride along.
**1/2
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Paris, je t'aime
This film is indeed a step away from the norm; a series of 18 short films dedicated to the City of Lights. Since the stories have little to no connection between them, I felt it best to take a look at them separately before looking at the film as a whole.
MONTMARTRE (Bruno Podalydes) – The film starts out on a decidedly sour note, when the segment dedicated to the land of AMELIE and Baz Luhrmann’s MOULIN ROUGE should be anything but. A drab and lifeless introduction, Podalydes brings nothing particularly memorable to his segment; merely a crabby man and a woman who tends to faint. Quite unfortunate that the film begins with one of the weakest segments.
*1/2
QUAIS DE SIENE (Gurinder Chada) – Chada’s segment, briefly studying race relations in Paris, keeps the film at a monotonous, waiting-for-something-to-happen pace. This segment fares better, however, based off the likeability and chemistry between its two young stars, Leila Bekhti and Cyril Descours. The little bits of philosophy and commentary thrown in the segment feel worn and tired as well.
**1/2
LE MARAIS (Gus Van Sant) – This segment feels more like a failed improv exercise than anything else. The majority of the piece is a one-man monologue delivered by Gaspard Ulliel, who despite his dynamic screen presence cannot manage to make his speech remotely involving. In the end, his lines feel like failed conversation starters with his acting partner tied together by a loose introduction.
**
TUILERIES (The Coen Brothers) – This is where the film finally breaks out of the monotonous and delivers something truly memorable. The Coen brothers, along with Steve Buscemi, give the film one of its very few laugh-out-loud segments about a dazed American tourist waiting for a subway train. The subtle Coen Brothers touches are all there (the dark humor, the visual motifs, etc.) and the heightened sense of reality in the golden subway station is a welcome change of pace from the first parts.
***
LION DE 16E (Walter Salles and Daniela Thomas) – The shortest film in the collection is also one of the most memorable, thanks almost exclusively to the performance of Catalina Sandino Moreno. A brief portrait of a single working mother, Moreno manages to convey a world of emotions through singing a song for children only twice.
***
PORTE DE CHOISY (Christopher Doyle) – Doyle’s contribution is a frenzied, confusing mess. Nearly all sense of coherence is lost in the loud and bombastic repetition of images. While they are dynamic images that play off of a sense of celebrity, the segment ultimately feels too glossy, shallow and empty.
*1/2
BASTILLE (Isabelle Coixet) – Coixet’s film is a bittersweet picture of dying love. What seems to be one man’s departure from his wife and everything he knows turns into a touching and sentimental examination of what love means when stripped bare of everything else. Sergio Castellitto and Miranda Richardson both give silent, affecting performances that make the segment ring true.
***
PLACE DES VICTOIRES (Nobuhiro Suwa) – A showcase for Juliette Binoche, never in finer form. As a mother grieving her young son’s recent death, Binoche manages to craft a portrayal in mere minutes that is comparable to her finest performances elsewhere. While vaguely similar to her work in the Three Colors trilogy, Binoche is still completely heartbreaking and gives the most memorable performance of the entire film.
***1/2
TOUR EIFFEL (Sylvain Chomet) – Following the heaviest film is the lightest and most whimsical. Some will see the story of a modern day mime as forced and tiring, while others will be charmed by it. Regardless, this segment is likely to be one of the most memorable, due to its noticeable heightened realistic state. It is designed in a way that none of the other segments are; it is the only segment that places itself firmly in a world other than our own.
***
PARC MONCEAU (Alfonso Cuaron) – Another brief oddity in the film. Cuaron creates a one-shot conversation between an elderly man (Nick Nolte) and his daughter (Ludivine Sagnier) with an unexpected pay-off at the end. A bit sweet and a bit sentimental, but nothing beyond that.
**1/2
QUARTIER DES ENFANTS ROUGES (Olivier Assayas) – Maggie Gyllenhaal as an actress on location in Paris. Another ultimately unmemorable addition to the film, as Gyllenhaal’s hints at a romance leave the viewer unsatisfied.
**
PLACES DES FETES (Oliver Schmitz) – Perhaps the most emotionally devastating of the segments, aside from Suwa’s contribution. The section is successful mainly because of the committed performances from Aissa Maiga and Seydou Boro, the former in particular. Their strength lifts the segment from a slightly unsettling trifle to an effecting and genuinely tragic piece of unfulfilled love.
***1/2
PIGALLE (Richard LaGravenese) – A sweet and quirky romance with Bob Hoskins and Fanny Ardant. The script throws several twists at the viewer which never really resonates, but the actors shine in their roles and give the segment its charm.
***
QUARTIER DE LA MADELEINE (Vincenzo Natali) – Probably the most recognizable of all the films, as it studies Paris’s apparent problem with vampires. Heavily gothic to an almost annoying level, the film maintains a sense of dark comedy that keeps it from becoming a complete failure. Completely removed from reality, like Chomet’s film, but this segment has nothing below its glossy cover.
**1/2
PERE-LACHAISE (Wes Craven) – An unusual effort, given the director. Another offering that is merely sweet, with Emily Mortimer as its saving grace. A bit of a disappointment, as one would expect something more noticeable from a director like Craven.
**1/2
FAUBOURG SAINT-DENIS (Tom Tykwer) – Tykwer’s film, as can be expected, is the fastest-paced of all the films, managing to include all his trademark visual cues and sound styles. An offbeat romance between Natalie Portman and Melchior Beslon, the segment ultimately arises as one of the film’s strongest.
***1/2
QUARTIER LATIN (Gerard Depardieu and Frederic Auburtin) – Witty dialogue and sharp performances by Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara make this piece, which could have easily fallen into the monotony of the weaker segments. One of the most resonant of the segments, especially the ones where marriage is concerned.
***
14E ARRONDISEMENT (Alexander Payne) – Payne’s tribute ends the film on an incredibly high note, delivering both the funniest and most touching segments. On the same playing level as Payne’s ABOUT SCHMIDT, yet he accomplishes a varying degree of emotions in such a short time. The film owes it all to Margo Martindale, who is hilarious, heartbreaking and uplifting all at once.
***1/2
In the end, PARIS, JE T’AIME is an experience more than worth having. Even the weakest segments have something of interest to offer, and never run too long to become unbearable. The segments manage to contain a steady pace and tone through them (with a few exceptions), which makes the film even more of a must see. The film never outstays its welcome, and the repeated moments of brilliance resonate with the viewer long after the film is over.
Average: 2.75
Final Grade: ***
MONTMARTRE (Bruno Podalydes) – The film starts out on a decidedly sour note, when the segment dedicated to the land of AMELIE and Baz Luhrmann’s MOULIN ROUGE should be anything but. A drab and lifeless introduction, Podalydes brings nothing particularly memorable to his segment; merely a crabby man and a woman who tends to faint. Quite unfortunate that the film begins with one of the weakest segments.
*1/2
QUAIS DE SIENE (Gurinder Chada) – Chada’s segment, briefly studying race relations in Paris, keeps the film at a monotonous, waiting-for-something-to-happen pace. This segment fares better, however, based off the likeability and chemistry between its two young stars, Leila Bekhti and Cyril Descours. The little bits of philosophy and commentary thrown in the segment feel worn and tired as well.
**1/2
LE MARAIS (Gus Van Sant) – This segment feels more like a failed improv exercise than anything else. The majority of the piece is a one-man monologue delivered by Gaspard Ulliel, who despite his dynamic screen presence cannot manage to make his speech remotely involving. In the end, his lines feel like failed conversation starters with his acting partner tied together by a loose introduction.
**
TUILERIES (The Coen Brothers) – This is where the film finally breaks out of the monotonous and delivers something truly memorable. The Coen brothers, along with Steve Buscemi, give the film one of its very few laugh-out-loud segments about a dazed American tourist waiting for a subway train. The subtle Coen Brothers touches are all there (the dark humor, the visual motifs, etc.) and the heightened sense of reality in the golden subway station is a welcome change of pace from the first parts.
***
LION DE 16E (Walter Salles and Daniela Thomas) – The shortest film in the collection is also one of the most memorable, thanks almost exclusively to the performance of Catalina Sandino Moreno. A brief portrait of a single working mother, Moreno manages to convey a world of emotions through singing a song for children only twice.
***
PORTE DE CHOISY (Christopher Doyle) – Doyle’s contribution is a frenzied, confusing mess. Nearly all sense of coherence is lost in the loud and bombastic repetition of images. While they are dynamic images that play off of a sense of celebrity, the segment ultimately feels too glossy, shallow and empty.
*1/2
BASTILLE (Isabelle Coixet) – Coixet’s film is a bittersweet picture of dying love. What seems to be one man’s departure from his wife and everything he knows turns into a touching and sentimental examination of what love means when stripped bare of everything else. Sergio Castellitto and Miranda Richardson both give silent, affecting performances that make the segment ring true.
***
PLACE DES VICTOIRES (Nobuhiro Suwa) – A showcase for Juliette Binoche, never in finer form. As a mother grieving her young son’s recent death, Binoche manages to craft a portrayal in mere minutes that is comparable to her finest performances elsewhere. While vaguely similar to her work in the Three Colors trilogy, Binoche is still completely heartbreaking and gives the most memorable performance of the entire film.
***1/2
TOUR EIFFEL (Sylvain Chomet) – Following the heaviest film is the lightest and most whimsical. Some will see the story of a modern day mime as forced and tiring, while others will be charmed by it. Regardless, this segment is likely to be one of the most memorable, due to its noticeable heightened realistic state. It is designed in a way that none of the other segments are; it is the only segment that places itself firmly in a world other than our own.
***
PARC MONCEAU (Alfonso Cuaron) – Another brief oddity in the film. Cuaron creates a one-shot conversation between an elderly man (Nick Nolte) and his daughter (Ludivine Sagnier) with an unexpected pay-off at the end. A bit sweet and a bit sentimental, but nothing beyond that.
**1/2
QUARTIER DES ENFANTS ROUGES (Olivier Assayas) – Maggie Gyllenhaal as an actress on location in Paris. Another ultimately unmemorable addition to the film, as Gyllenhaal’s hints at a romance leave the viewer unsatisfied.
**
PLACES DES FETES (Oliver Schmitz) – Perhaps the most emotionally devastating of the segments, aside from Suwa’s contribution. The section is successful mainly because of the committed performances from Aissa Maiga and Seydou Boro, the former in particular. Their strength lifts the segment from a slightly unsettling trifle to an effecting and genuinely tragic piece of unfulfilled love.
***1/2
PIGALLE (Richard LaGravenese) – A sweet and quirky romance with Bob Hoskins and Fanny Ardant. The script throws several twists at the viewer which never really resonates, but the actors shine in their roles and give the segment its charm.
***
QUARTIER DE LA MADELEINE (Vincenzo Natali) – Probably the most recognizable of all the films, as it studies Paris’s apparent problem with vampires. Heavily gothic to an almost annoying level, the film maintains a sense of dark comedy that keeps it from becoming a complete failure. Completely removed from reality, like Chomet’s film, but this segment has nothing below its glossy cover.
**1/2
PERE-LACHAISE (Wes Craven) – An unusual effort, given the director. Another offering that is merely sweet, with Emily Mortimer as its saving grace. A bit of a disappointment, as one would expect something more noticeable from a director like Craven.
**1/2
FAUBOURG SAINT-DENIS (Tom Tykwer) – Tykwer’s film, as can be expected, is the fastest-paced of all the films, managing to include all his trademark visual cues and sound styles. An offbeat romance between Natalie Portman and Melchior Beslon, the segment ultimately arises as one of the film’s strongest.
***1/2
QUARTIER LATIN (Gerard Depardieu and Frederic Auburtin) – Witty dialogue and sharp performances by Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara make this piece, which could have easily fallen into the monotony of the weaker segments. One of the most resonant of the segments, especially the ones where marriage is concerned.
***
14E ARRONDISEMENT (Alexander Payne) – Payne’s tribute ends the film on an incredibly high note, delivering both the funniest and most touching segments. On the same playing level as Payne’s ABOUT SCHMIDT, yet he accomplishes a varying degree of emotions in such a short time. The film owes it all to Margo Martindale, who is hilarious, heartbreaking and uplifting all at once.
***1/2
In the end, PARIS, JE T’AIME is an experience more than worth having. Even the weakest segments have something of interest to offer, and never run too long to become unbearable. The segments manage to contain a steady pace and tone through them (with a few exceptions), which makes the film even more of a must see. The film never outstays its welcome, and the repeated moments of brilliance resonate with the viewer long after the film is over.
Average: 2.75
Final Grade: ***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)