Movies

The first movie of the Trois couleurs trilogy. It failed to catch my full attention. I don't know why exactly. Maybe because I didn't care at all for the main character.

I'm not sure why, but I remember being quite impressed when I first saw this movie in 2001. 20 years later, I find it a bit cringey and simplistic. I still like the general form and concept, though.

I read some user reviews on IMDb saying that this movie was boring, that not much was happening, etc. This is exactly why I liked it. Not much is happening, indeed, but it's still a beautiful movie. What does "home" mean? Does it have something to do with a house (i.e. the object)? Its location? The people you live with? Something else?

This is objectively a good movie. Like many other Scorsese movies, it's just not for me.

My sixth Kurosawa movie. Simple, fun, at times comical.

Not a bad movie. Everything that happens is quite logical. Love cannot stay as intense as in the beginning. Children will always cause problems in the couple at one point or another. It's realistic, but, at the same time, it's also a bit less enjoyable than the two other movies in the trilogy. Also, I hope it won't sound too sexist, but Celine has become really unlikeable.

I would have to re-watch all three movies in the trilogy, but I feel Before Sunset is as strong as Before Sunrise. I really like this format: two persons talking about life, love, the meaning of things, etc. It also really captures something from my youth (my interest in philosophy, European cities, etc.).

It's difficult to sympathize with the main characters. They're both unlikeable, in different ways. It's difficult to say why exactly, but this movie left me with a feeling of emptiness.

Watching this movie was hard and disturbing, but Anthony Hopkins' performance is brilliant.

I was ready to be bored (a 3-hour movie with costumes and all), but I was not. This movie is brilliant.

What if westerns were real?

How do you fix a corrupt system from the inside? Can you do it by not being corrupt yourself?

A movie with Al Pacino and Robert de Niro. Isn't that enough? I usually don't like gangster/crime movies, but that one was good.

Howard is the most stoical character I've seen in a movie in a long time. After having lost all their gold: "It's a great joke played on us by the Lord, or fate, or nature, whatever you prefer. But whoever or whatever played it certainly had a sense of humor!" (laughing uncontrollably).

Technically impressive, but I didn't care at all about the main characters, which made that movie a bit frustrating.

A fun movie, with many moments/scenes that couldn't exist in a recent movie (see Pre-Code Hollywood).

Yet another film to see with my son someday. Not bad.

I was a bit tired when watching this film, but, still, I was really impressed by the cinematography. It's really a visually beautiful movie. A lot of scenes are like paintings. I should watch it again someday.

An entertaining, but quite violent movie. Definitely of its time, with car phones and cassettes.

"Le court du mois d'avril est l'excellent documentaire All Inclusive de Corina Schwingruber Ilić, à voir peut-être comme un film d'anticipation. Sélectionné pour sa première mondiale à la Mostra de Venise 2018 puis dans plus de 100 festivals, All Inclusive a notamment gagné le Prix du cinéma suisse 2019 du meilleur court métrage."

I can see why people find this movie too long or boring. At this point in my life, I probably have enough patience to watch a tree grow for several hours, so the slow pace didn't bother me. Anyway, this was my first Tarkovsky movie and it really intrigued me, from start to finish. The colors, the weird imagery, the constant mystery, the actors looking directly at the camera, etc. It kind of reminded me of Ingmar Bergman and David Lynch at the same time, but I have the feeling that Tarkovsky's movies are a little more resistant to rational analysis (than e.g. Lynch's).

Not bad, but definitely less sophisticated than animated films such as Soul, for example. This is, again, something we should watch with our son in a few years.

Not a bad movie, but a children move nevertheless. I guess I should watch it again in a few years with my son.

Another movie I would put in the "Not bad but..." category. You don't have to be familiar with Don Shirley's life to know that this movie is overromanticized. Too many "feel good" / cliché moments.

It's difficult not to think of Alien when watching The Thing. I know a lot of people prefer the latter over the former, but I'm not one of them. I found The Thing to be a bit boring / cheap-looking. It could be a good 20-minute short film, I guess

The first movie in the Apu trilogy. I was kind of expecting a happy ending, but it didn't happen. Still, this is a very touching movie. The story is simple. The pace is slow, but it didn't bother me (I'm a fan of 2001: A Space Odyssey, after all). The music by Ravi Shankar was also really nice.

"Parmi de nombreux prix et sélections en Suisse et dans le monde, ce court métrage a été couronné Prix du cinéma suisse du meilleur film d'animation en 2020. Il a également fait partie de la dernière Tournée romande de la Nuit du Court métrage." Not bad. It's a bit trippy.

I'm pretty sure I saw this on television a long time ago. Maybe with my dad. It's based on a very simple idea, but it's very well done. It's a really fun movie.

I can't say I've understood everything, but this is such a beautiful movie. Even (especially?) the battle scenes.

Setting aside the religious aspect of the movie (which is not serious at all), it's an a amazing movie. It's visually stunning and deeper than expected.

The surreal/dreamlike middle section (The Ballet of the Red Shoes) is a masterpiece in itself.

Is a cartoon character aware that she/he is in a cartoon? Sometimes, yes.

A comedy / gangster movie. It works. I liked the cinematography. I'm not sure Sting added anything to the movie, though.

Not the greatest thing David Lynch has ever done, but that was somewhat fun.

I'm usually not a fan of the police/detective genre, but this was particularly good. The last scene is unsettling.

"Noah Baumbach's incisive and compassionate look at a marriage breaking up and a family staying together." (IMDb) It's a bit cliché at times, but it's also funny and moving.

A classic. Very entertaining. Definitely not a bad movie. But it's a bit naive in some ways. Let's face it, it's mainly based on two ideas: 1) sharks are frightening 2) some (bad) people value money more than people's lives.

For some reasons, I wasn't particularly moved by this movie. The ending was unexpected. Incidentally, it's one of those movies that you cannot really watch twice because of the plot twist.

Definitely not an action-packed movie. It's full of mystery, very well done, and about an original theme/topic.

This movie is currently rated 3.1/10 with 684 reviews on IMDb. It's definitely not that bad, but I'm still not sure what to really think of it, mainly because I didn't know much about Greta Thunberg before that movie. What happened to her was really weird. It shows that there's no "recipe for virality". She was at the right place, at the right moment, with the right personality traits. And, no, after watching this documentary, I don't think she was manipulated by her parents. Politicians tried to use her, that's for sure. It didn't really work. They all look like buffoons here.

I think I kind of watched this two years ago. I gave it my full attention, this time. It's excellent, but a bit depressing. Remind me not to watch too many Don Hertzfeldt movies in a row.

That was quite intense. I didn't expect something as difficult to watch as this.

Way before social media were trying to keep our attention to sell us ads, without any ethical concerns, television was doing the same. This movie was meant as satire, though. Reality is sometimes (often?) surprising.

An entertaining movie. I must have seen it at least once in its entirety, probably a long time ago on television.

I'm not a fan of the scatological elements of the movie. Other than that, it's a good movie about what it means to "live life" or, rather, not living it and succumbing to drugs, violence, etc.

What did I just see?

A Russian experimental movie from 1929. No scenario. No intertitles. To be honest, it didn't sound very exciting to me. It took me a while to get used to the frenetic rhythm of the movie. And then it clicked. This is really a fantastic and important movie. Or experiment, I don't know, but it doesn't matter.

It wasn't a bad movie, but I don't see the point of it either. It was like seing two weaker episodes of the show.

This 96-year-old movie is impressive and funny. I need to watch more Buster Keaton movies.

A very moving, heartbreaking, and, yes, tough movie. I guess this is reality for many people and I feel grateful for all the efforts social workers, teachers, etc. are doing to make the life of children like Benni a little bit better.

Very original. Something I might want to watch again quite soon. Some quotes from the movie: Wikiquote.

I expected a teenage romance movie. We got a movie about bullying, depression, and suicide, among other themes. Pretty good.

I really like movies with dream sequences. This is probably a more relatable movie than The Seventh Seal, but so far I think I can say I'm a fan of Bergman.

"C'est vieux comme le monde, ça, la nouveauté." Un film qui pourrait me réconcilier avec le cinéma français. En tout cas celui d'une certaine époque. Un scénario de Jacques Prévert et des acteurs "d'un autre temps", mais vraiment remarquables : ce film est vraiment très différent de tout ce que j'ai pu voir récemment.

This documentary is filled with absolutely stunning images of fungi/mushrooms. I've always found the idea of "forest-wide communication network" fascinating (i.e. populations of trees communicating via the mycelium). I was already familiar with Michael Pollan (I've read his book). And then there is Paul Stamets. I'm not sure what I think of him. He sounds like a very nice guy, with very interesting ideas, but there's a kind of cult of personality around him that's off-putting.

My fifth Billy Wilder movie. A comedy, with some serious themes (the toxicity of corporate environments, sexism, suicide, etc.).

A 2-hour documentary about the life and music of Miles Davis is almost an impossible task. It's bound to miss a lot of things. But this documentary is still pretty good. It doesn't even mention some of my favorite albums (Jack Johnson, Agharta, etc.), but I really like how it uses photographs (a lof of them I think I have never seen?).

My first Ingmar Bergman movie. A true classic. I sadly learned that Max von Sydow died a few weeks ago at the age of 90. He was a fantastic actor, obviously.

Appreciate your parents while they are still alive, etc. A simple and moving story.

It was (almost) funny. Or maybe I was too tired, I don't know.

This movie was an inspiration for Keith Jarrett ("Over the Rainbow") and Prince ("It's Gonna Be A Beautiful Night"), two of my musical idols. It's certainly a classic, but it's kind of hard to watch as an adult...

A very original movie (still to this day). Most of the scenes on the train are spectacular and/or strangely hypnotic.

A feel good movie. I didn't know who Fred Rogers was before seeing it.

A film about truth, honor, the nature of human psychology, morality, and probably a lot of other things I've missed.

From a technical point of view, this film is absolutely breathtaking (the "fake" single continuous shot, the camera movements, etc.).

I know this is a classic. The actors are excellent. But I somehow feel like I'm missing something. Eve's opportunism is kind of obvious right from the beginning, for example, and none of the characters are particularly likable. Or maybe my slight lack of enthusiasm for this movie has something to do with the fact that I watched most of it on my smartphone (sorry, David Lynch...).

"That'll be the day." I'm probably missing something here. This is not a bad movie, but when I said I was not into westerns in the past, this is the kind of movies I had in mind. Cow-boys and indians. I guess I like Sergio Leone's approach better.

Without knowing anything about this movie or its context (e.g. Marilyn Monroe died 4 years later and already had a lot of problems), I immediately felt that something was a bit off with Monroe's performance, but, all in all, we had a good time. I'm not a fan of the "men dressed up as women" theme, but Curtis and Lemmon's performance is excellent and there's also a feminist message hidden under all the jokes (I guess?).

I knew the quote, but not that it came from this movie: "In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder, bloodshed. They producedd Michaelangelo, da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, five hundred years of democracy and peace, and what did they produce? The cuckoo clock." This is simply a fantastic movie. The music is captivating. Each shot is perfect. And Vienna is mysteriously beautiful.

For some strange reasons, I had never watched that movie in full. I had only seen bits and pieces of it. It's entertaining, but you're often left wondering "How did they do that?".

It's not necessarily my cup of tea (the romance, etc.), but there's definitely something epic about this movie.

I cried while watching this heartbreaking movie. I think I'll need to watch something a little more upbeat next...

Probably my first Iranian movie. It's about family, truth, justice, and, yes, ultimately, separation. An intense and excellent movie.

A moving story, with a simple message: it's never too late to start living your life, to have a positive impact on other people.

Quite fun, but something's missing. I can't quite put my finger on it at the moment.

Not as good as The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, but still very enjoyable. Clint Eastwood and Lee Van Cleef are such charismatic actors, just looking at them, not saying a word, is an experience in itself.

A fun short movie recommended by a colleague of mine.

I had only seen a few scenes from this movie (the globe scene, the final speech, and a few others), but I was not sure whether I had seen it in its entirety or not. Apparently not. It's excellent and funnier than I had anticipated.

I needed a break from all those top 250 IMDb movies I've been watching recently, so I consciously chose a movie with a lower IMDb rating. The beginning of the movie is very dark, but the rest of the movie is really bright, in a weird way. It contrasts with what actually happens on the screen. It's a good idea, because it kind of catches you off guard. I'm not really familiar with the horror genre, but, unfortunately, it becomes obvious quite quickly that Midsommar borrows heavily from other similar movies. More than that, once you've watched the first half of the movie (let's say until the cliff scene), the rest becomes predictable. Also, most of the characters completely lack depth and some (most?) of the dialogues are badly written (that's something that struck me right from the beginning).

Not you usual DC movie. Excellent performance by Joaquin Phoenix. I can't shake this feeling that some of the scenes were a bit over the top. Murray Franklin showing parts of Arthur Fleck's stand-up act during his show, for example, doesn't seem very plausible. Presenting Fleck as a victim worked most of the time, though.

This is a really weird movie. It has comedic elements, obviously. And it is about the holocaust. Does it work? I'm not sure. As usual, I'm not a fan of children actors, so it didn't help either.

A light comedy, suddenly becoming a dark tragicomedy. Kind of weird. It's also a critique of something, but I'm not sure what. The relationship between the rich and the poor, I guess.

To be honest, I was expecting to be bored by this movie (yet another black and white samurai movie...), but I was pleasantly surprised! The story is original (to me, at least) and told in a surprising and touching way.

A gangster movie. And not a bad one. Greed, power, money, cocaine, violence. Apparently, this is a bad recipe for happiness!

Not bad, but it looks like a movie trying too hard to be... something. I don't know what. The next Pulp Fiction? It already left me pretty much unimpressed back in 2000 when I first saw it.

Time travel. Quantum mysticism. Still not my cup of tea.

An Indian feminist movie. Kind of, as you could say the two sisters spend the whole movie trying to make their father proud. This is the third movie featuring Aamir Khan that I see (the other two being 3 Idiots and Like Stars on Earth).

A war movie (kind of, as always with Kubrick). This was my second viewing. I didn't remember that the first part (i.e. the island) was as long as it is (about 45 minutes). A lot of military jargon made it a little hard to follow at times. Having watched The Hunt the day before, I couldn't help but notice that I didn't identify with any character in the movie, which made the movie a bit less enjoyable.

I had not been as outraged/stressed by a movie in a long time. In a way, Vinterberg is using some of the same methods von Trier used in Dancer in the Dark to manipulate the viewer. But it works. I'm not a fan of the hunting/hunters theme, though.

A very moving documentary about three subjects suffering from PTSD and participating in MDMA-assisted therapies in Israel.

I first saw this movie in 1995. I remember being a bit put off by the sex and violence. 24 years later, it doesn't strike me as much. It's an ambitious movie, with a surprising ending.

Not bad. It's a bit cheesy, but it covers quite a few interesting topics: free will, immortality, ethics/consequentialism, honesty, how to live a good life, etc. The suicide scenes are particularly funny.

More violent than Inglourious Basterds. I think I liked it slightly less. But it's still a very good movie.

I don't think I was particularly impressed 19 years ago when I first saw it, but it was less bad than anticipated.

Not as violent as I expected (for a Tarantino movie). There are many stressful moments, including the beginning of the movie. Christoph Waltz is brilliant. The end is surprising (but also satisfying, in an ambiguous way).

I enjoyed this movie a bit more than expected. It's historically completely inaccurate. It's somewhat of an ego trip. But it's not bad, if you can separate the artist from the art.

It's so hard to judge this movie. I saw it only once, in 2001, but I feel like I have seen it many times. It was/is so popular. One could even say it has become a kind of cliché (the music, Audrey Tautou's look, etc.).

I watched this movie because it's currently #85 in IMDb's top 250, but that was really painful. The first half of the movie is long and really boring. We almost decided to stop watching it, but we wanted to wait at least until Aamir Khan made his first appearance. Everything's really formulaic and cheesy. It looks like a television film, in the negative sense of the word.

Without realizing it (really!), I've seen this movie four times now (in March 2000, March 2003, March 2008, and now April 2019). I'm not sure I need to add anything. :)

I didn't expect to like this movie as much as I did. It's visually very original. The story itself is okay, I guess, but I don't think it's the most important element of the movie.

I think I had already seen this movie in 1992-97, but I didn't remember much from it (apart from the whistling). I expected a "classic but boring" movie, but I was pleasantly surprised. The movie contains some very distinctive elements: the (unorthodox) camera angles and movements, the use of sounds and silence, even the aspect ratio (I guess). And Peter Lorre is brilliant in the final scene.

I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey at the cinema in 2001. Before that, I think I saw it at least once, maybe twice, on TV. I know I recorded the movie on a VHS tape. Probably in the late 80s or early 90s. I also read the book, probably in the 90s. For me this is still the best science fiction movie ever made. The special effects are somewhat impressive for a movie made in 1968, in the sense that they don't look ridiculous in 2019. The rest is perfect: the contemplative nature of the movie, the music, the background photos of Spitzkoppe, Namibia at the beginning, etc.

CGI and teenage humor. It didn't work for me.

People smoke. There are cathode-ray tube monitors everywhere. Texts are displayed one character at a time with sounds. Jenette Goldstein is comically bad at times. But it's still a pretty good movie overall.

After all those years, I've finally finished watching Nolan's trilogy! I enjoyed The Dark Knight Rises way more than expected. The ending was not as enjoyable as it could have been, though. Something was missing. I'm not sure what exactly. The bad guys died in a completely banal way, for example. The scene in Italy was a nice touch, however.

This is a feel-good movie, a comedy with some good moments and some not-so-great moments (some of them scatological). It contains great footage of North India (I want to go there one day). I enjoyed it. Probably more than I should have...

Not a bad movie, but a bit too violent for my taste. I could have done without the octopus scene (especially knowking how it was actually done...).

It took me a while to somewhat enjoy this movie, as I was initially put off by the gangster theme. The poker scene is excellent (I don't know much about poker, unfortunately). The music is fun (Scott Joplin!). I was completely hooked during the last third of the movie. You really want to know how everything will end. I don't see myself watching this movie a second time, though, because of all the twists (and the final one in particular). Once you know them, well, it kind of ruins the surprise.

I don't know if this movie is brilliant or if it's just a case of form over substance. I liked the music. I liked the way the rooms in Hatfield House were filmed. I liked the overall quirkiness of the characters. The story was a bit too simple, maybe.

This is a great movie. The desert, the music, Peter O'Toole, Omar Sharif, the fact that it's a movie that "takes its time", the many memorable moments. If I had to guess, I'd say it's a highly romanticized version of T. E. Lawrence's life, but it doesn't really matter.

"Hey, those guys played in Friends. And this one played in Lost. And that one in Curb Your Enthusiasm." This was the first time I saw this movie again since I saw it at the cinema in 1998. I clearly remembered the Normandy landings scenes, but not so much the rest of the movie. It's objectively a good movie, but I'm not sure I want to watch it a third time in my life. As I wrote several times already now, I'm not into war movies.

It was kind of cute and kind of funny, but not totally. Some scenes were quite impressive as well (for the time?). I'm probably missing something.

I first saw this movie almost 15 years ago, in French, but I almost completely forgot about it. The only part I remembered was the dry sponge scene. It's not a bad movie, but I'm not a fan. I didn't expect it to rely so much on supernatural elements.

Definitely not a feel-good movie. As I said before, I'm not a fan of movies with child actors. This was the case here once again. I couldn't really relate with the main character either (not because he's poor/unemployed, but because of something else - I don't know why exactly). I can see why this movie is considered a classic, though.

This is the archetypal David Lynch movie. I first saw it almost 15 years ago at the Cinémathèque suisse. As the father of an 8-month-old baby, this might not be the perfect timing to watch it (especially the final scene), but the movie is so surreal, it doesn't really matter.

A short film by David Lynch. I guess I'm not a fan of cliché-based humor, even when it comes with a Lynchian touch.

This is David Lynch's least Lynchian movie, along with Dune and The Elephant Man. But it's an excellent movie nevertheless. Very moving. I haven't been able to hold back my tears.

I don't like to use that word, but this movie is underrated. I guess it sums up everything that people love and hate about David Lynch. Mulholland Drive was far more successful, but, like one anonymous David Lynch fan once said, "Mulholland Drive is basically Lost Highway for dummies." It's maybe a bit harsh, but it's probably true that Mulholland Drive is easier to sum up in once sentence or two than Lost Highway. Anyway, I like it. It's a movie that stays with you after you've watched it. You will think about it. You will read about it. And then, one day, you will watch it again.

When evil meets innocence (Heineken!). I first saw this movie more than 14 years ago. This is actually a strange experience to watch a David Lynch movie that's not completely weird and incomprehensible. I don't know if I'm a fan of the story itself (it's quite simple), but I like the way the movie is structured and filmed. Dorothy Vallens' living room reminded me of the Black Lodge in Twin Peaks.

I last saw this movie 14 years ago. It's a masterpiece. The choreographed violence is beautiful and disturbing at the same time. I tend to agree with Dave or Tamler from the Very Bad Wizards podcast: this movie is actually a comedy. A black, violent, and weird comedy, but a comedy nevertheless.

I originally saw this in French (La balle volante) on FR3, in 1984, 1986, or 1987 (it was broadcast at least three times). I don't know why, but I remembered it as a TV show and not a short movie (the version on YouTube is 46-minute long and IMDb lists it as a 56-minute movie). I remembered two things from the movie: the scene with the ball rolling in paint and writing "help" on the floor (although I would have sworn it was "HELP" and not "help"...) and the final scene (the spaceship leaving before the adults could see it). Not bad, for something obscure I saw at least 31 years ago! Of course, it's not as good as I remembered, but it's not completely bad either.

I'm usually not a fan of movies with children as the main characters, but the child acting was pretty good. This is a simple, moving, and timeless classic. I really liked Gregory Peck's elegant and restrained acting style.

After Witness for the Prosecution and Sunset Boulevard, I found this movie a bit disappointing. I felt no attachment whatsoever to any of the main characters.

It's almost a compilation of Monty Python sketches, with a common theme. It's absurd. Almost pointless. But it's funny. I love the Monty Python.

"The stars are ageless, aren't they?" A fantastic movie. Watching it, I really felt what it must be like to be trapped in a gilded cage.

A very entertaining movie, that goes from surprise to surprise (it's based on Agatha Christie's short story, after all). It's an easy-to-spoil movie, so much so that the viewer is explicity asked at the end of the movie not to reveal the ending to other persons. I don't know if it was common at the time. Some comedic aspects of the movie were a bit "cheap" at times, but it was a very good movie overall.

I could start my review of this movie like I started my review of Paths of Glory: I didn't expect to like this movie; I'm not into war movies. All wars are absurd, but men fighting those wars can still be brave and humane. This movie is about those men. A very moving and sad film. You really get attached to the characters, which are probably. more developed than in similar movies (?). The fact that most of the movie happens in a submarine makes it emotionally involving and very psychological. I really liked it.

I'm usually not a fan of Martin Scorsese, but this movie is pretty good. I guess this would sound like an understatement to many. Anyway, Robert De Niro is brilliant. The movie is dark. It has a kind of weird happy ending. There's some violence, but not too much. And a 12 year-old Jodie Foster plays a prostitute.

I'm underwhelmed. This movie reminded me of The Terminator, with better special effects. There's the really bad guy, who is hard to kill. There's the (incoherent) dystopian future. There's the very dark city/environment. And since this is an old science fiction movie, you have flying cars, that you have to drive yourself. And CRT monitors everywhere.

Cary Grant is absolutely brilliant in this movie. Funny and charming. The whole movie is entertaining. Everything is not believable, but it's a thriller and a comedy at the same time, so it didn't bother me too much. One of the scenes is filmed at the Ambassador Chicago Hotel, where we stayed in October 2017. The inside of the hotel is now very different, but I think I recognized the entrance (the doors, the stairs and the welcome desk).

I didn't expect to like this movie so much, as I'm not into war movies (usually). I'm not against all armies and all wars, but I'm somewhat of an anti-militarist. This movie denounces the absurdity and futility of war, as well as the power hunger and arrogance of some military officers. It's short and to the point. I wouldn't have guessed that Kubrick directed this movie, but, as it is brilliant, I'm not surprised.

Not a bad movie, but a bit too syrupy. The child playing Totò was cute, but he was not flawless as an actor - I know it's hard for young children, but it bothered me, as he was central to the movie.

I had never seen any movie like that before. There's a sophistication and a kind of weirdness to the story, the characters and the way each scene is filmed. This is one of the most well-known movies of all time, so I won't waste my time trying to write something original about it. Let's just say that I would probably enjoy watching it a second time.

Not bad. I saw this movie about 20 years ago and only remembered the ending (i.e. the box).

One of Hitchcock's best movies. Beautiful views of San Francisco. Some unexpected twists. The only thing I didn't like was the end. It almost looked like a bad joke. It's so weird that many people have written about it.

I was convinced that I had seen this movie multiple times before, but, apparently, I only saw it in 2004. Anyway, I really loved it at the time and I still think it's an excellent movie. I've been wanting to see it again for years and it's finally one of the latest episodes of the Very Bad Wizard podcast which convinced me that I had to do it (like, now). It's Michel Gondry's best feature film and it's probably the best movie starring either Jim Carrey, Kate Winslet, or Kirsten Dunst. It asks an important question (what is memory?), but it's the cinematography that I really love about it.

Anthony Hopkins is absolutely fantastic as Dr. Hannibal Lecter. Jodie Foster is excellent as well. It's a shame she didn't played in more good movies... I probably watched The Silence of the Lambs once on television, a long time ago, but I didn't remember much from the movie (apart from the well, actually).

The story is original (and/or far-fetched), but, as you can expect from Wes Anderson, it doesn't look like anything else. Is it a movie with more style than substance, as some reviews suggest? Maybe, but it doesn't matter: it kind of already was the case with most of Anderson's previous movies.

This is definitely not a feel-good movie. I was not particularly touched or moved by the themes (addiction, drugs, mental illness, etc.), but the cinematography is absolutely stunning. Is there a David Lynch influence there? The music was also an important part of the movie for me (Kronos Quartet).

We watched this mainly because Isao Takahata died two days before. I didn't enjoy it as much as Grave of the Fireflies and The Tale of the Princess Kaguya. It was definitely not bad, but a bit uneven. Probably a bit too romantic (fleur bleue), as well.

A good coming-of-age movie. It's somewhat realistic and funny at the same time (so a bit cliché, every now and then). It touches on friendship, family, unemployment, homosexuality, religion, identity, adulthood, and many other aspects of life, without too much judgement.

The third Toy Story manages to be as original and inventive as the first two movies, in my opinion. It's a bit sadder, but in a good way, I guess.

Watching this movie was like watching two movies: one is a contemplative movie about Italy, summer vacations, music, books, swimming in rivers, drinking wine, living in a big old house with someone cooking for you, etc.; the other one is about a 17-year old Jewish boy discovering his sexuality and finding out that he's also attracted to men. It's raw. It's sad. It's tragic. It was also refreshing to go back to the 80s, a world without smartphones, constant interruptions, computers everywhere.

A short film about a couple not really living their lives, but living them via virtual reality. It's well done, kind of funny, but I'm not sure it goes anywhere.

Ironically, I thought it was still a bit corny, even though cheesiness is criticized/ridiculed in the movie. At the end, it's still a romance movie about teenagers looking for what they want to do in their life. Overall a decent, feel-good animation movie. I mistakenly downloaded the English-dubbed version instead of the original version, but the dubbed version is pretty good.

Version: English

Based on the 10th-century Japanese Tale of the Bamboo Cutter, this hand-drawn animation movie is really something else. Very elegant, mysterious, touching, almost Zen-like. Yes, maybe a bit too slow at times. It's a tale about the innocence and simplicity of childhood, what society and sometimes our families expect from us, and nostalgia for things we might have already forgotten. The ending is surprisingly almost science-fiction-esque, but more in a 2001: A Space Odyssey way than a Star Wars way.

Another classic. Times have changed and, at the same time, many people are still doing meaningless and repetitive jobs. Many suffer from burnout. Many struggle to even get a job. Micromanagement is still a thing (the factory's boss appearing on those big screens is frightening). Also, work automation is something that has never been as discussed as nowadays. In that sense, the scenes in the factory, in particular, are timeless as much as they're hilarious.

It's hard to judge a 87-year old silent movie. What's also hard is to realize that what you see in that movie happened 87 years ago, because most things look pretty familiar. Yes, people don't have smartphones, but they have passionate discussions, drive cars, walk on the street, sell flowers, go to restaurants, drink alcool, dance, etc. The characters are attaching. The comic elements still work. Each scene looks like a mini-movie in itself. It really deserves its classic status.

According to IMDb and Metacritic, Toy Story 2 is supposed to be good, but not as good as Toy Story. I actually found that Toy Story 2 is just as good, if not better than Toy Story. At this point, the Toy Story universe is not new anymore, but the themes (the toy collector, Buzz Lightyear actually meeting other "copies" of himself, Woody discovering his backstory, the moral dilemma, etc.) were quite original and interesting.

One of the best movies I've seen recently! It's sad, funny, revolting, and somewhat disturbing. I can totally relate to Mildred, her fight against injustice/status quo, and her desire for revenge. I would classify this movie in the "manipulative movie" category, like Dancer in the Dark or Grave of the Fireflies. It's designed to make you cry and to make you angry, but it was done in a clever way (i.e. I don't feel cheated).

A story about jealousy and friendship. From a technical point of view, this movie has aged well. Some characters (e.g. the dog) are a bit rough from a 2018 standpoint, but it's actually pretty impressive for a computer-animated film done in 1995. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but is it also a movie about the roles we play in our lives without realizing it? In other words, are we toys who don't realize we're toys? Is the scene with Buzz Lightyear realizing that he's a mass-produced toy and not an actual astronaut a metaphor for the human condition (i.e. we feel unique/original when we're actually just one individual among billions of very similar persons)? I apparently saw this movie in 2006, but I didn't remember much from it.

A slow, beautiful, and intriguing movie. The only thing that kind of bothered me was Aurore Clément's French accent. After four years, she can't even pronounce Hunter's name correctly? Not very believable... Other than that, it was a very good and unique movie.

Not bad. It kind of reminds me of a Miyazaki movie. It has the same kind of nostalgic and poetic touch, but with more realistic aesthetics. I'm not a fan of the time travel, spiritual, and mystical aspects, precisely because all the rest was so realistic.

I discovered Richard Linklater a few years ago with Boyhood, which blew my mind. I've always wanted to see more of his movies. Having finally seen Before Sunrise, I definitely want to see Before Sunset and Before Midnight as well. There are several subjective reasons why I enjoyed this movie. I didn't know anything about the plot, the caracters, etc. It's almost a perfect coincidence, but we watched Before Sunrise on February 10, 2018 and the only time I've ever been to Vienna was on February 11-15, 2008. And, yes, the movie takes place in Vienna. Another thing was that the movie, although it was filmed in 1994, was released in 1995 and this was the year I discovered another European capital as a teenager, with my classmates: Paris. The result is that I can relate to several aspects of the movie: the period (mid-90s), the young caracters discovering a European city, wondering about what it means to live, to love, etc. Can things be meaningful if they don't last? Are they meaningful because they don't last? At the end, it's still a romance movie, but it's definitely not overromantic and the form of the movie (two caracters talking for more than 90 minutes, walking in a city) makes it quite original. It's simple. It captures a moment in time in an authentic way. It's captivating.

I have seen a lot of Disney movies. I even saw the Lion King musical in London in 2007, but it's the first time I see the movie, surprisingly. Let's just say that I would have probably enjoyed it more as a child. I'm not saying you can't enjoy an animation movie as an adult, but The Lion King is definitely less complex, more shallow than some Miyazaki/Ghibli movies, for example.

A dark and disturbing movie. I understand why it's a classic. Some parts of the movie are just intense/spectacular. But I wouldn't say I enjoyed it all the way through. And, yeah, I'm not a fan of the scene with the water buffalo slaughter, the buffalo having been actually killed (not specifically for the movie, but still). Also, the music didn't age very well, unfortunately.

I was naively expecting a fun comedy and I got a dark movie about mental disorders, friendship, how hard it is to find friends in our societies, what it means to be different, etc. It's still an animation movie. It's still funny at times. But it's mainly serious stuff. It's... different. And it's good.

I'm maybe a bit harsh with my rating. Technically, it's a fantastic movie. Very colorful. The city in the Land of the Dead is spectacular. Some of the themes are nice, I guess. You have to respect your family and, at the same time, you have to follow your passions. So your family might be wrong. But what about the afterlife, though? This is mainly a movie for children, after all. I know this is not a movie you're supposed to take seriously (obviously), but this is the central theme in the movie: after they die, people go to the Land of the Dead, they get to meet the people that have already died, and everybody is happy (more or less). There's still so much religious bullshit in the world today that I can't simply be entertained by this theme/idea (whereas I have no problem watching a Star Wars movie - people usually don't believe that Star Wars is true in the real world...). Like religion in real life, religious ideas in Coco don't make much sense, of course. People in the Land of the Dead who are forgotten by their family completely disappear. But if they "die for real" (which will happen eventually after 4-5 generations, apparently, because families can't have photos of older family members...), why didn't they die for real in the first place? It's like the idea of God: if you really think about it, it doesn't explain anything. It just moves the problem a bit farther. Anyway, a nice movie, but I didn't like the main theme. As of December 29, 2017, it's #30 in IMDb's top 250. It shouldn't be so high in the list, in my opinion.

Version: French

Clearly a better movie than The Terminator, but it still has a linear story and shallow characters. The special effects are better, this time, but, once again, it's a movie about a robot from the future trying to kill a boy. With car/truck chases. And people getting killed, but less of them, I guess. Oh, and there's a second robot. It's nice, this time. But pretty stupid, with no sense of humor or morality. It learns something at the end of the movie, though. I'm not sure what. That life can have... value? There's an interesting question being raised at some point: can you be guilty of something that you haven't done yet? There's also a romantic side to this movie: humans can get attached to robots, robots can almost feel emotions, and it's not necessarily the best robot (from a technological point of view) that wins at the end (i.e. you can still succeed with flaws).

I've been familiar with Miles Davis' music for this movie for 25-30 years, but it was the first time I saw it. I've seen excerpts from it, but only a couple of minutes. I was also familiar with the titles on the soundtrack album ("L'Assassinat de Carala", "Sur L'Autoroute", etc.). It was a weird experience finally seing all those scenes. My verdict? It was not the movie I expected. The music is fantastic, hence my high rating, but I can't see it as a timeless classic. I can forgive the technical limitations (sound effects, sound quality, etc.). We're in 1957, after all. But the plot and dialogues are somewhat limited and naive, to the point of being (involuntarily) funny at times, which is not a good thing. A lot of the scenes are beautifully shot, though.

This is a classic. I must admit I had probably never seen this movie before, at least in its entirety. I've heard about it. I knew the story. I knew the quotes. The problem with the classics is that they're hard to judge, especially when it comes to special effects. The ones in The Terminator looks like they're not even good for 1984 (sloppy stop motion, etc.). The story is really linear: a robot comes from the future to kill a woman who will give birth to a man who will fight the robots in the future; he's really hard to kill. Then you have a lot of car/truck chases and a lot of people getting killed. And there's one sex scene, of course. It's not a bad movie, though. It's probably even original for its time.

I've probably watched this concert film only once in its entirety, on VHS, in the 90s. The version we saw was the 2017 remastered version, shown in 190 movie theatres simultaneously. The picture was gorgeous. The sound was not too bad (but could have been better). The performance is still excellent, after all those years, even though I know that 80% of what we saw was reshoot at Paisley Park. My favorite parts are "Sign O' The Times" (the first song), "Housequake", and "Forever In My Life / It".

A serious topic. Some violence. Some sad scenes. I cried at the end. It sometimes feels like a dissertation, but it has the merit of trying to explain how white supremacists think. It's probably a bit naive to think that people can change their mind so "easily" (i.e. after a few years of prison and after reading a couple of books). The message might be a bit over-simplistic, but it is still strong.

Before seeing The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and Once Upon a Time in the West, I really thought I didn't like westerns. I've definitely changed my mind. This movie is really something! The music is haunting. The closeups are beautiful. I really liked the striking contrast between the slow, almost meditative scenes and the surprising leaps in the story. I also liked the almost constant presence of an element of mystery, coupled with a weird feeling that something was slightly off (the way the characters are talking or behaving, etc.).

I think I'm slowly beginning to realize that I simply don't like Martin Scorsese. There's nothing wrong with The Departed. It's technically a good movie. It's just that I don't care at all for the characters and the story. It's yet another gangster movie and I don't like that genre. I'm usually a huge fan of Jack Nicholson, though, but, here, it just doesn't work for me.

A classic, straightforward "horror" movie. I must have seen it once about 20-25 years ago. I remembered most of the story, but seeing it again after all this time was still an enjoyable experience. Everything in this movie is very well made. The music, in particular, has an important role. The only thing that I found a bit over the top was the scene at the end, with the psychiatrist explaining what happened. I guess this part could have been a bit more subtle.

Almost 90 minutes of David Lynch filmed while painting and telling stories about his life up to Eraserhead. Kind of meditative. I wasn't aware that Lynch painted so much.

"This means something. It's important." It has always been hard for me to judge science fiction movies. The special effects are not too bad, even 40 years later. Seeing all this old technology (fixed phones, CB radios, paper maps, etc.) can be funny at times, but it's not distracting. The story takes place in the 70s, after all. The presence of François Truffaut is a bit weird. What does a French movie director do in a Steven Spielberg movie? But it also gives the movie a certain charm. Overall, I liked the poetic tone of the movie (the repeated music pattern, the symbolism of the mountain, etc.). The theme of language and interspecies communication has been treated in a more scientific and satisfying way in Arrival, for example, but Spielberg's take on this theme is still good, I think.

I'm a huge fan of the third season of Twin Peaks, which I finished watching last week. I also watched Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me (13 years ago) and the first two seasons of the show (6 years ago), which I also enjoyed. I'm not sure Twin Peaks: The Missing Pieces is completely consistent. It's a whole movie made out of deleted scenes, after all. So it's good to go back to the Twin Peaks universe, but, at the same time, it makes the fact that the third season of the show is the best of all the movies/seasons even more obvious.

As I said for Seven Samurai, it's very hard to judge older movies and this is the case again for Casablanca. I can see the historical importance of that movie. I'm not shocked by the racism, sexism, and patriotism. I understand that it's a movie made in the early 1940s. I can understand why it had the success it had. It's a movie that doesn't have the level of sophistication that recent movies can have, but, at the same time, I was hooked from start to finish. The fact that it was filmed in a studio gives it a certain charm, too.

This is an excellent movie about magic, obsession, rivalry, death, identity, and, I guess, science (David Bowie as Tesla is very good). I always say that I like movies that I can watch multiple times better, so this would be my only complaint with this movie: once you've seen the multiple twists at the end, I think it loses some of its interest. And I don't want to brag, but I anticipated the final twist way before Nolan probably intended the audience to understand it, but that's because I'm obsessed with the philosophy of personal identity and related topics (mind uploading, teleportation, etc.).

Can violence be funny? I guess it can, but I'm less and less convinced. All in all a very good movie, with fresh/original ideas, fantastic cinematography, "video games" / car chase sequences, a lot of music, likeable/cool characters. A very unique movie. My only complaint is that it's too violent.

It's always hard to judge older movies... I had kind of expected a very serious, 3-and-a-half-hour movie about samurais, with lots of fight scenes. I don't know why. I was pleasantly surprised to discover a movie with less violence than I had anticipated, likable characters, many humorous moments, as well as very serious themes (inequalities, social classes, injustice, duty, etc.).

This was a theme I was a priori not very interested in, but the life and struggle of those Palestinian women in a somehwat segregated Tel Aviv, in a modern but still conservative society, was captivating. The movie was not as moving as it could have been. Some clichés could also have been avoided. But, overall, it was pretty good.

My wife didn't remember much about this movie, so we watched it again. For me, it was the third time. It's not Tim Burton's best movie, but it's pretty good. Johnny Depp is excellent, as is often the case. I'm a bit unsettled by the science/reason vs faith/magic theme. But we're talking about a movie about a headless horseman, so science/reason doesn't really stand a chance, does it?

Am I crazy or is this a movie against speciesism? The vikings represent humain beings in general. They have always been violent against other animals (killing them, etc.). Hiccup is considered as a weak viking by the entire village. He is "different", "not like us", etc. And he's the only one who decided not to kill dragons. So, in a sense, he's like a vegetarian/vegan/animal rights activist. Anyway, this is a nicely done movie. At least technically. And, as I said, the story is pretty good.

Far from one of Almodóvar's best movies, but a pretty good movie nevertheless. I liked the surprising "actress switch" in the middle of the movie.

I expected a science-fiction movie, but this is a romance movie, with a philosophical twist. Can life be meaningful if you can eat, sleep, exercise, etc., but if you are also completely alone? Can life be meaningful if you're a couple living alone in the same situation? Intriguing thought experiment about the meaning of life (although a bit inconsistent, of course). Don't watch this movie if you thought "Gravity" was not scientifically accurate...

A German science-fiction movie. I liked some of the ideas, but at times, it felt more like a TV movie. Some bits (the end?) were also a bit too new agey for my taste.

A simple story, moving, very well filmed.

A short movie shown only at the Ghibli Museum in Tokyo. Not the greatest thing I've seen from Miyazaki, but not bad either.

Techniquement bien réalisé, mais l'histoire est un peu "enfantine". Moins intéressant pour un adulte que bien des films d'animation (de Miyazaki, pour ne citer que lui). Il serait peut-être intéressant de regarder la version anglaise.

This is the third time I see "Spirited Away" and the first time in 15 years. Time flies... I was convinced I had already seen it a third time about 5-10 years ago, but this is apparently not the case. Many scenes are still fresh in my mind, though. It's probably my favorite Miyazaki movie (but I really need to rewatch "Princess Mononoke", "Howl's Moving Castle", and "My Neighbor Totoro"). It's beautiful, sad, funny, and enchanting. There's not a single wasted moment. This is a brilliant movie.

At the moment I'm writing this, "City of God" is #21 in IMDb's Top 250. Clearly, I think this movie is overrated. I liked the rhythm. I liked the structure. I liked the cinematography. This is not a bad movie. But I didn't like the violence. I'm tired of violent movies. Yes, I get it: human beings can be violent and stupid. This is something I already knew. Ironically/paradoxically, I enjoy "Game of Thrones". Go figure.

This is a movie about crowdfunding. And God. And angels. Just kidding. This is a movie about why friends/family are more important than money. I guess. It's so difficult to judge those old movies... I will just say that it's not a bad movie, but it doesn't "feel" like a real classic to me (like "Metropolis", for example, which is even older).

"I hate jazz" (Mia). I can imagine many people saying exactly that. Or at least: "I don't understand jazz". Actually, that's what I regularly hear. Like Sebastian, I love jazz, so I could totally understand his reaction to Mia's ignorant comment. But "La La Land" is not only about jazz. It's also about Los Angeles and Hollywood in particular. It's about what we want in our lives, about our dreams. So it's a bit cliché and the movie is probably not as good as many people say it is. "Whiplash" was better. But it's a good movie nevertheless. Very well done. Oh, and any movie that indirectly bashes Kenny G cannot be bad.

"The things you own end up owning you". I really like the anti-consumerism theme in the movie, as I tend (or would like) to be a minimalist. This is the first time I watched "Fight Club" since 1999. This is obviously a good movie, but watching it more than once is a bit like watching "The Sixth Sense" more than once, right?

A very moving movie, without, of course, much action, as it's all about the caracters. Very hard not to cry at least twice or three times during the movie...

A classic. I saw this movie twice, in 1999 and 2000. 18 years later, it's a bit weird to see huge computer monitors and old mobile phones. But it's still an excellent movie.

A bit too cheesy to my taste (werewolves, really?), but also very well done and beautiful/poetic at times.

This is not a bad movie. The beginning is really captivating and troubling at the same time. Maybe too many ideas for a single movie?

IMAX 3D version. I didn't expect it, but this movie was very well done and a lot of fun. Especially in such a good movie theater as this one. The scene with Carrie Fisher was obviously moving, given the timing.

Live music by the Orchestre d'harmonie de l'Etat de Genève.

Live music by the Orchestre des Jardins Musicaux.

Live music by the Orchestre des Jardins Musicaux.

3D version.

1997 version.

3D version.

Live music by the Orchestre d'harmonie de l'Etat de Genève.

Already seen on TV a long time ago (in the 80s).

Live music by the Orchestre des Jardins Musicaux.

3D version.

3D version.

1997 version.

1997 version.

Version: French

Version: French

Live music by the Orchestre des Jardins Musicaux.

Version: French

3D version.

Version: French

Music by Bit-Tuner.

Version: French

3D version.

3D version.

Version: French

Version: French