Nonureva Really Surprised!

Roy Hart If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

Fulke Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Kimball Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Myriam Nys An author is at a low point in his life : he pines for his ex, his money is running out and he has lost the fire in his belly. He is approached by an older man with a mysterious background who asks him to write a book, to wit a clarion call to revolutionary action. The book is meant as a weapon in a shadowy war between politicians. When the writer agrees, he discovers that he has bitten off more than he can chew. It's an interesting premise, but the movie doesn't do much with it. The main problem is that the movie finds it very, very difficult to build suspense. In the hands of, say, a Polanski or a Hitchcock this could have been a thrilling, exciting, disquieting ride, but now : meh. On the other hand there are a few nice sketches of a particular intellectual environment : that of the various heirs of the Leftist "élan" of the sixties and seventies. (Watch the movie and you can smell environmentally responsible potato and cabbage soup prepared by a commune.) There are also a number of valid observations on politics and democracy - or rather, on politics and the lack of democracy - but again, the movie doesn't do much with these ideas, it all peters out in a sad fashion.

writers_reign It's just as well you can't copyright a title otherwise Nicholas Pariser might find himself in very deep s**t indeed. Jacques Feyder made the definitive Le Grand Jeu back in the day - the early thirties if anybody asks you - and whilst Pariser is frying a very different kettle of fish vastly inferior to the pate de fois served up by Feyder he does 'borrow' the central idea of a protagonist fleeing his natural habitat in the opening reel and the 'plot' developing in an alien (to the protagonist) locale. Given the world we are now obliged to live in it is inevitable that filmmakers will begin to explore extremist groups in depth or, as here, in shallow. Melville Poupaud, a fortyish writer whose career peaked around fifteen years ago is approached at a casino by Andre Dussollier who suggests Poupaud might like to do a book on a dodgy political figure. Before you can say Jeremy Corbyn he finds himself on the run and lying low in a sort of French kibbutz of left-wing rabble rousers where, against his common sense, he falls for an attractive dissident. There you have it. I watched it for Andre Dussollier and so long as he was on screen I wasn't disappointed. Alas, there are stretches of time when he is not on screen.

GUENOT PHILIPPE I did not expect too much from this French movie. It begins like a political intrigue when a middle aged novelist is contacted by a mysterious man, played by André Dussolier, who proposes him to write a book against a main politician, then the film continues with a sort of philosophical and intellectual message when the novelist fears for his own life and escapes in the country side, among an outcasts community - left winged community, of course. This film is a kind of existentialist tale about the meaning of the human fight to save his rights against oppression. Those who have known May 1968 revolution in France will appreciate. But this scheme is full of bitterness. The first minutes of the film are not explained. Who is the man abducted by the others? This is not a bad film, but certainly not for wide audiences. Whilst I watched it, I thought of another french feature: L'EXERCICE DE L'ETAT. But at a lasser scale.