Sicario (4/5, Good)

An electrifying film about the drug cartels in Mexico and the power struggles inherent in these wars. Very harsh.

French director Denis Villeneuve decided to approach the cartel drugs war in Mexico with crudity and realism. He decides to be graphic in many scenes, involving gore scenes and physical violence. However the great struggle appears in the main characters: they all loose humanity in a world of aggression and violence. Emily Blunt is great in her role as a woman who struggles to fit in a war dominated by men. Benicio Del Toro is the example of the man who has nothing to lose but somehow seems to hide more than what we know. Josh Brolin is impeccable as a man leading a war: harsh, numb and calculator. 

This film blends the best of Traffic putting forward dramatic elements over the policial plot (the social context of Mexico, the anti-drugs politics of the US) and the worst of The Last Stand with a confusing character development and action scenes. This is a genre in ebullition and Villeneuve knows it. The crudity of the photography is a reflection of the harshness and bitterness of this war. All motivated by greed and the lack of humanity due to a global economy that does not help to spread other values. Sicario is a good film because it is a photography of a reality. That is why it is also scary. 

Macbeth (4/5, Good)

A Shakespeare's classic re-adapted into the big screen with a poetry that hasn't been seen since Baz Luhrman's Romeo + Juliet. A film worth watching.

It has been very difficult for directors to make a Shakespeare's film with a fresher view. Two films in the 2000s decade are a proof of it: Hamlet (2000) and 'O' (2001). Both films were superficial and soulless, setting up Shakespeare in modern times. Director Justin Kurzel understood that he needed to go back to the roots. Shakespeare's prose is there but also the medieval context. Nevertheless Kurzel had something else in mind: the cinematography coupled with Shakespeare's prose to enhance an incredibly intense film.

Fassbender and Cotillard are brilliant in this film, no doubt about it. We do think though that the performances from these actors are being given more intensity thanks to the cinematography. It is literally visual poetry and perhaps among the best photography we have seen in years. It is brilliant and the disturbing story of this greedy couple in search of more power embraces this dark and very well-cared photography. 

Saturated colors take the lead and they all have a role to play. The illustration of the different themes that surround Macbeth are seen with red, white, grey, dark and scarlet. They become characters themselves as the characters interact continuously with them. The score is brilliant and accompanies perfectly this very disturbing story. We feel uneasy and Fassbender knows it when he talks. He is a man with one great fear: to loose power. 

This is a good film, perhaps the link between Cotillard and Fassbender's characters could have been developed more. The play puts these two characters at the center but does not achieve to illustrate the complexity of their relationship. They become poisonous to each other which slowly dehumanizes them. A shame they didn't go further more in that direction. Besides that, thank you Justin Kurzel.

Trailer: 

Southpaw (4/5, Good)

A dark story about an anti-hero who had it all but slowly started to fall into a spinal of anger and sorrow. An outstanding acting by Gyllenhaal. 

We started to get use to Antoine Fuqua's cheap and cliché stories (Shooter, Olympus has fallen). However since he collaborated again with Denzel Washington in The Equalizer, a fresh air of inspiration caressed him. It was a long-time he wasn't doing a good film. If The Equalizer was still a decent film, Southpaw is definitely an upgrade in...everything! The script is interesting but focuses mostly on this boxer's personal struggles. It explores how much hate and anger can cause self-destruction and decadence. Gyllenhaal is simply impeccable in portraying this man trying to get back on his feet after losing her wide and the custody of her child. 

This film isn't only the comeback of Fuqua but also Forest Whitaker's. He has been known for choosing carefully his film but has failed in that task for a while. Taking the role as the mentor of Gyllenhaal, he embodies a man who has been through dark times and has learned how to cope with the anger. A society who puts so much pressure on individuals to be someone famous, to be meaningful, to be ''utilitarian'' to the world. Those who are left aside, they are condemned to a life of loneliness and sorrow. Whitaker's character represents all that with perfection. Bravo.

Gyllenhaal already deserved an Oscar with Nightcrawler. It is due with this one now. The pace is good and the cinematography is raw and dirty. It illustrates how raw and primitive anger can be. Keeping you far away from hope, into the darkness.


Trailer: 

Ten Thousand Saints (4/5, Good)

A coming-of-age drama led by the great Ethan Hawke and the now grown-up Asa Butterfield about a group of people living the chaos of the 1980s New York City.

Four people going through different phases in their lives. Four people that meet and try to live in the fast-pace rhythm of New York city. The city was changing: the end of the Cold War , the rise of the massive globalization, the beginning of grunge and alternative rock music. As the world go through those changes, these four characters have to cope and follow the wind of change. However change comes with hard challenges and that is what growing up is all about. 

This film from Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini is representative of their style: realistic, raw cinematography, crude music. Their documentary style clearly shines in this film wanting to tell not only a story but also to expose the reality of a changing urban landscape. New York has always been the symbol of urbanism and it is evolving constantly. The originality of the script of aligning New York's pace with the character's changes is a reminder for people to remember that they also are the consequence of their environment. We are vulnerable to it and we depend on it to build ourselves and show our true colours.

Ethan Hawke is simply genius. Playing a father's role like in Boyhood, he still achieves to feel curious about this progressive and hippie dad who named his son Jude after the Beatles' song. However this also highlights one of the weaknesses of the film: the characters are built upon the momentum and not on their life history. We know only the facette of the people at the specific moment of an ever-changing New York city. This gives less depth and complexity to the characters. Shame because the story context was perfect for that. Nevertheless it is still an enjoyable and good dramatic film to watch. It isn't a masterpiece but it isn't a bad movie either. It is simply a good film.

Slow West (4/5, Good)

An atypical western with bits of comedy, drama and action. A solid film led by Michael Fassbender who never stops to keep impressing us.

This is the first film from director John Maclean and what an achievement it is: it has gained since critical acclaim and won a Price at Sundance Festival 2015. It approached the story through a classic frame: an innocent young boy dreaming with love discovering society's brutality and selfishness. The result is an existentialist western with black humor. The innocence of this boy enhances chaos and further violence in a world of brutality. He has no other choice that , in order to see again the love of his life, to pull many times the trigger. Life is a hard road and sometimes you have to adapt to its violence.

The photography is stunning. It is perhaps the best ingredient in the film considering the story, real short and simple, looses a bit of its charm when we realize that we do not know much about any of them. Nevertheless the beauty of the images and the acting ( fabulous Fassbender) compensates it all. The film pace is slow sometimes but everything we see at the screen is solid.

This is a great film for Western and Non-Western amateurs. It pays an homage to a dead genre and is good at telling a funny but dark story. This is the kind of films that show its love for the cinema. That is why we recommend it. 

Terminator Genisys (4/5, Good)

Be prepared people, Arnie is back as the Terminator! A big bet from the actor to give further shine to its action-star status. TG is a good surprise as it comes up with a creative story and great action sequences. Even James Cameron approved the film. 

It is always the same story: going back through time to avoid Sarah Connor (Emilia Clarke) being killed. This is 1984 (the same set as the first Terminator). However everything changed. The rules of the game are not the same. Everything seems messed up for Kyle Reese (Jai Courtney): why is Sarah Connor a warrior in 1984 when she was described as vulnerable and scared? Why is there an older T-800 in 1984? 

                         

                                       

The script is definitely a good surprise in TG. This is not the T-3 or Terminator Salvation garbage story. This one is fresh and is respectful of the the first two Terminator. How challenging is that?! That's already a good starting point. The second thing: Arnold Schwarzenegger. Arnie is Arnie and he is great. He is funny and performs an interesting portrait of this perfect machine attached to its mission of protecting Sarah Connor. The third thing: the supporting actors. Emilia Clark and Jai Courtney are very good and raise the bar real high: Claire Danes and Nick Stahl (T3) should hide! They are credible and make these characters have something more to say besides shooting and blowing everything up. The fourth thing: the action sequences. Of course, very spectacular and creative. 

TG will never achieve the quality of T2 (of course, it is one of the greatest action films ever made!). However it does respect the spirit of the franchise and puts forward a critical thinking of technology controlling furthermore human lives. Every step forward is dangerous and the Terminators are the symbol of it. James Cameron said it in Terminator 1 and T2. Director Alan Taylor knows it and he adapted this discourse to our post-modern times. We can also add that Taylor made a good job: a lot of pressure for a director used to film TV shows rather than big-dollar-machine-productions. 

This Terminator is worth seeing because it brings back a degree of nostalgia and excitement. However it is not only because of that: the film finds a creative way to re-tell a new story and find dramatic paths to make it worthwhile watching it. This is an achievement, especially considering Hollywood is pretty terrible at recycling old recipes. 

Trailer:

                                    

Maggie (4/5, Good)

An innovative approach for a classic topic: a beloved one ,slowly agonizing and entering into the dark shadow of Death, seen through the eyes of the father. Bold move from Schwarzenegger. 

In a near future, the world has been affected by a plague which turned people into zombies. Slowly recovering from the aftermath, people still infected by the disease are taken into quarantine. Farmer Wade (Schwarzenegger) refuses to take her infected daughter Maggie (Breslin) to the health authorities. Her daughter will slowly fall into the darkness of the disease and loose her humanity. Wade will be behind her into that path, but to what cost? 

This is not only an original approach to a classic dramatic framework (beloved one affected by a lethal disease) but also brings a new perspective into the zombie film genre. This time, people does not convert into zombies rapidly (the opposite of 28 days later, Dawn of the Dead) but slowly instead. The story is therefore more dramatic and less scary. The apocalyptic story inner in the zombie genre is delegated to be a mere background. 

We enjoyed very much the mise en scène: it adopts a documentary style to bring authenticity. The cinematography based on a shaky camera (mainstream today) is used for a dramatic purpose and we weren't bothered by it. The story is good even if the script fails at the end ( we already know what's going to happen but...should it have been that way?). The plat of resistance? The acting by Schwarzenegger and Breslin. We see this physical and psychological transformation from Maggie mainly through the deepening despair of the father. It is a chronicle of a death foretold. Bold move from Schwarzenegger, it is a hard role. Breslin is outstanding, she is the heart of the film. 

It is with a great surprise that we saw this film. This is one of the best roles from Schwarzenegger and he can add this one to his filmography with some proud. It is a small-budget film (most of it came from Schwarzenegger's big wallet) and a good film was made from it. Too bad the ending and some clichés but it does not undermine the audacious and original approach to a classic story. 

The Avengers: Age of Ultron (4/5, Good)

Marvel unleashes their biggest money-making title with "The Avengers". There is action, humor and some drama. Is it better than the first one? Worth to think about.

We won't spend time telling you the story. The Avengers is the kind of film you either see or not. However let us say that it is recommended that you have seen previous Marvel films (especially the first Thor, the first Avengers, Iron Man 3 and Captain America: Winter's soldier). With those films seen, you could fully appreciate the film and feel the excitement Director Joss Whedon wants you to experience. 

           

                                                    A bit of music to accompany the reading...

                                                        

The script has been developed with great care and thoroughly. This film has to connect with the new Marvel's "Phase 3" therefore new characters emerge and others are left behind. Joss Whedon had a great challenge ahead: not to undermine the characters dramatic development by including new ones. This is usually a recipe for failure: the examples of Batman and Robin , Spiderman 3 and to a lesser extent The Dark Knight Rises are known. Did Whedon achieve it? Not really. 

The previous film have already set the characters and Whedon has the advantage to play with it. Nevertheless when these new characters (we won't reveal them) appear, we fall once more into the spectacular appearances and no real dramatic development from these. We recognize though the attempt to make a darker story and discover the deepest fears of the main characters. They are beloved by everyone as heroes but at the same time, they are incredibly lonely people.

Of course, special effects are outstanding and breathtaking action sequences are not dismissed. Ultron is a bad-ass character which is a great challenge for the Avengers. Marvel Studios put the bar very high for this blockbuster and an enormous team of people (you could see it with the credits..)  worked up for it. As any pop-corn movie, it is hugely entertaining. Even if we don't have the same excitement as in the first one where the cross-over of the Marvel Characters was outstanding. Besides this, it is a good film to watch. You won't regret your money! 

 Trailer:
                                     

The Gambler (4/5, Good)

Mark Wahlberg's greatest role since The Fighter whose character falls into a downward spiral where nothing is forgiven. All because of his favorite sin: gambling.

Jim Bennett (Mark Wahlberg) is a literature professor during the day. At night he is possessed by the love of gambling. He is eccentric and believes that people are here in this world for a reason. Some are here to be great writers such as one of his attractive students (Jessica Lange) with who he is loving. Some others are here to enjoy life like if it was a game. Luck is not always a respectful friend. Getting more debts, Jim tries to find a way out of his life's darkest labyrinths.

In his 3rd film director Rupert Wyatt meets again with Wahlberg since Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) and we are glad for that. Both men understand each other and know how to lead the story. It is thrilling, it is entertaining. We are being taken to dark places where money and luck only counts. Everyone is alienated by the adrenaline of their own fate: will their win or lose money? Wahlberg's character looks at that world with stranger's eye but however he is coopted by it. He has to gamble: it is his addiction. A shame that the film doesn't explore much the two-sided character that the script gives: a sensitive and romantic man to the world of literature and a cold and distant alienated gambler. 

Despite a few drawbacks in the script (cliché dialogues and an foreseeable ending) the movie aims to entertain and achieves it gratefully. This is definitely one of the best roles Wahlberg had ever had to take.We are disgusted and we feel empathy at the same time. That is something that good actors can only do and we never put Wahlberg in that category before.We are delighted with that surprise and look forward to see the duo Wyatt-Wahlberg again soon! 

Trailer: