Monday 4 May 2020
permalinkNous vivons dans une ère de l'éditorialisation où il devient de plus en plus difficile de trouver de l'information à l'état brut, c'est-à-dire des textes, des photos, des vidéos. Lorsqu'une information ou un fait historique fait le buzz, combien de personnes voient réellement l'artefact qui est à la base ? Très peu, car les seules choses qui sont trouvables sont des vidéos YouTube de 30 secondes éditorialisée, avec une voix off qui nous explique l'événement, avec seulement un des morceaux percellaire de l'information brute, ou alors des retweets de retweets de retweets, ou alors un reportage au JT un peu plus avec toute sortes d'explications et parfois d'interprétations.
Dans ce modèle, l'information brute n'a pas seulement perdue sa valeur, elle est un boulet à l'éditorisation, puisque toute la richesse qu'elle contient dans ses détails sont autant d'éléments qui risquent d'être incohérents avec l'interprétation qui en est faite par celui qui présente l'information, ou tout du moins qui mettraient en exergue sa grossière incomplétude. Ainsi, nous ne sommes plus dans un monde où les plus curieux cherchent des explications pour une observation, mais dans un monde où les plus curieux cherchent des observations pour une explication.
Dans ce monde, Apollo 11 apparaît, tel un mirage, un espoir, un albatros royal rayonnant de toute sa majesté. Une masse de vidéos d'époque, soigneusement retouchées, mises adroitement les unes à la suite des autres, sans aucune narration, sans aucune interview, mais seulement avec des annotations les plus minimalistes possibles, et une musique grandiose pour rendre l'aventure palpitante. Je vous parle des plusieurs minutes de vidéos, ininterrompues, prise depuis le module Eagle lorsqu'il effectue sa descente sur la surface lunaire, seulement annotées de l'altitude courante et du niveau de carburant restant, accompagnées des communication radio entre Apollo 11 et Houston. De plusieurs minutes de vidéo ininterrompues où la fameuse phrase "This is a small step for man..." n'est pas ce qu'a dit Neil Armstrong lorsqu'il a marché sur la Lune, mais ce qu'a dit Neil Armstrong pour le show entre 2 commentaires techniques sur la surface lunaire.
Alors oui, ce format ne favorise pas la quantité d'informations transmises, et il lève plus de questions qu'il n'en clos. Que font tous ces ingénieurs de la NASA devant leurs innombrables consoles ? Quel est le sens de tous ces termes techniques utilisés dans les communications ? Pourquoi y a-t-il un blackout de communication pendant la ré-entrée atmosphérique ? Et des tas d'autres pour lesquelles je vais devoir faire appel à Wikipedia ou à d'autres documentaires sur le sujet. Mais l'ambition d'Apollo 11 n'est pas de répondre à ces questions, elle est de bouleverser suffisamment l'esprit avec des images incroyables pour qu'on ai envie de se poser ces questions dans un premier temps.
Il s'agit là d'une exploitation élémentairement grandiose du cinéma, au sens le plus noble du terme. Des images, du son, une histoire. La source d'une découverte et d'une réflexion. J'ai regardé Apollo 11 avec des frissons et une excitation enfantine, comme si on m'avait ammené devant un spectacle exceptionnel. Praise be. PRAISE BE!
Sunday 22 March 2020
permalinkThe story is interesting, but the many action scenes are really outdated. Long shot of one character shooting pew pew pew. Long shot of the other character shooting pew pew pew. Damage and havoc created by vehicles boom boom.
Sunday 22 March 2020
permalinkMax Minghella's directional debut looks like any good directional debut. Sensitive, great acting, some good ideas here and there, some awkward moments here and there, not very significant overall.
Tuesday 11 February 2020
permalinkStop saying the movie is one long shot for fuck sake! (Not because it was actually filmed in multiple shots, I don't care how the movie was made, but because:) There are 2 shots in the movie, with a clear, black-screen-for-multiple-seconds pause between the 2 scenes, and this transition is narratively significant, and the second scene starts with a visual and auditive moment of cinema that is out of this world. So this is the reaction of a director who just made a movie in 2 shots, who was the grand favorite for the Oscar for Best Director in all betting sites, and who just lost (to Parasite's director).
Tuesday 11 February 2020
permalinkChristopher Nolan: "Hey my Batman movies are realistic takes on the Gotham universe". Todd Phillips: "Hold my beer". This is a phenomenal telling of Arthur Fleck's (the Joker real name) fall into madness and violence. The movie starts so realistic and dark, it doesn't even feel like it is in any way connected to the DC universe. The connection to the universe is made as Arthur embraces his Joker persona, which is sort of an elegant progression. Pussies won't like the movie because they confuse ideological validation with the plausible depiction of an unfortunate mechanism (or they're condescending enough to think they're smart enough to make the difference, but others might not, and somehow this is the movie's responsibility). Instead of enjoying the irony of an “applause” sign blinking when the Joker is invited on a TV show, they would like a “this is bad” sign blinking at the screening of the movie.
Thursday 26 December 2019
permalinkIt is astounding that this is an animated movie from 1940 and that it is the second movie Disney made. The animation has nothing to shy about in comparison to modern classics. Talk about setting the bar high. Damn.
Thursday 26 December 2019
permalinkStill struck by Kuzco's poor visuals, I rewatched one of my favorite Disney, that I hold dear ever since I saw it in theater when I was a child: Tarzan. It perfectly stood the test of time. It is visually brilliant, the music is great, the story is so well-paced, well-crafted.
Thursday 26 December 2019
permalinkIt had been sold to me as “The best Disney” or “not like the other Disneys”. Here's a notice: if you usually like Disneys, and some people tell you about a Disney that is not like the others, well, you probably won't like this specific one. Kuzco looks like it was written by some interns at Disney, with an entertaining voice-over sounding like some YouTuber, an endless flow of easy jokes, and an absolutely ridiculous plot where a dictator becomes (spoiler) a good guy because he took a stroll with a good daddy. Long gone the time where the morale of tales was pragmatic advice on how to make the best of real life in spite of its ruthlessness. The truth is that it wasn't made by interns, but by artists in a hurry, which also explains why it's visually so poor.
Sunday 15 December 2019
permalinkAll pumped up for epic classics after Lawrence of Arabia, I jumped in head-first into the three hours and a half of Seven Samourais and… well… I'm writing those lines a few weeks after having watching it, and, to be honest, not much have sticked with me.
Sunday 15 December 2019
permalinkSteven Spielberg says that he watches Lawrence of Arabia again before starting shooting any new movie. “It pulverized me”, he recollects when thinking of when he saw the movie at the theater. Even though the effect on a young spectator like me was not as intense as what Spielberg must have experienced back then, I can definitely understand what he's talking about. A lot of it has to do with the sheer visual power of the movie. It is a cinematographic masterpiece on a massive level.
First, there is the desert, which is vast, which has beautiful sand dunes and giant sandstone buttes. The cinematography embraces this display of nature on a very impressive way. You can feel the weight of the frame. Then, there are battle scenes with hundreds (if not thousands?) of extras, charges with lots of horses, etc. All of this is of course done for real without digital effects, and is edited in long, well-composed shots. Finally, there are all the little details, either in cinematography or editing, which ices the cake. The mirage on the horizon in the incredible well scene, the cut from the matchstick to the sunrise. All those fundamentally visual elements is what I found really striking in the movie.
As for the story itself, I found it rather interesting and easy to follow, but not extraordinary. I was afraid of the runtime, 4 hours, but it turned out to be okay. There is an interesting take in the story, though, which is the delusion in which Lawrence falls as he progressively thinks of himself as a prophet. From a movie from the early 60s, I expected a proper display of the white-savior trope, but the story is smarter than that. In fact, I could have guessed right from the personality of the lead character, Lawrence, which is a sophisticated, a bit exuberant, academic lieutenant, and not your traditional big guy from the army. Now, in spite of the screenplay's best effort at being smart, I wouldn't be surprised if the depiction of Arabian tribes happened to be rather cliché and awkward. I'm not knowledgeable enough to say.
Lawrence of Arabia belongs to a kind of cinema that is now dead. No production company would actually shot in the desert in the green screen age, nor would they hire hundreds of extras now that we can use GCI. They wouldn't allow a charge scene to be edited in one long shot, because that would mean wasting the 5 other camera angles. A movie cannot last 4 hours anymore, because then it means you cannot screen it enough times in the day to win all the dollars. It is said that director David Lean only filmed master shots, so that he had indirect power over the editing (what else than the master shot are you going to use if there is no coverage), so in fact I think David Lean wouldn't be allowed to walk on a film set today. We have contemporary directors like Christopher Nolan who try to apply some recipe for epic films (no CGI, shooting in film instead of digital, etc), but seeing Lawrence of Arabia, it really doesn't come close. So even if the movie doesn't get to me as much as my favorite modern movies can, there is still this weird feeling that I'm watching some incredible, grand movie, that is basically untouchable.
Sunday 10 November 2019
permalinkScorcese makes movies so big and so rich it's hard to get a handle on them and summarizes what was good. So here is a bit at random: the long take where Irish immigrants get enrolled in the army and go from one ship to another is brilliant.
Monday 7 October 2019
permalinkBrad Pitt plays an astronaut which is trained to be absolutely stoic in any situation. He does not panic. He does not fear. He analyses, reacts, overcomes™. As the movie progresses, cracks start appearing in this fortress of pragmatism, so we can peek at the emotions that lie beneath. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen to the movie itself, which is consistently cold and terribly distant to its main character, paradoxally to the fact that he occupies the screen most of the time.
I experienced exactly zero emotion while watching this movie. Pitt plays a silent and secretive character, a type of role that Ryan Gosling thrived in with Drive, Blade Runner 2049 or First Man, except that we don't feel anything for Pitt. One reason for such disconnect is that many scenes are too pictorial and not immersive. Cinematography director Hoyte Van Hoytema (Dunkirk) produces many gorgeous shots, but they are edited in such a clip-esque way, along with the grandiose music of Max Richter, that many scenes felt like attempts at cinematic poetry rather than actual scenes you can follow the main character in and therefore identify with him. This kind of symbolic narration is clearly not my thing.
Overall I felt like the whole movie took itself way too seriously, as if its story, which is some illustration for Psychology 101, was particularly subtle or grand. The ridiculous physics at the end only confirmed my dislike for this mediocre sci-fi drama.
Monday 7 October 2019
permalinkI was skeptic at first, but Will Smith comes out as such an awesome genius! So much in fact that I started liking the movie when he appeared, adding such a fanciful presence to compensate for the soppy romance between Aladdin and Jasmine.
Monday 7 October 2019
permalinkWhat an incredible consistency on delicacy and gentleness, supported by brilliant directing and acting. In a narration without judgment, which seeks feelings and sensitivity in flawed characters, the line between good and bad becomes blurred, such that we feel torn between ethical concerns and sheer compassion. Very well deserved Palme d'Or from 2018.
Saturday 14 September 2019
permalinkOh man… this is so fucked up. The movie makes you identify with the killer and at moments use suspense to make you fear for him getting arrested by the police. I can't even say it's bad because it is actually well-made. So weird.
Saturday 14 September 2019
permalinkWhat a delight to watch! ❤ The cinematography is wonderful. I keep reminding myself of this scene where Sharon Tate is waking up in her bed in a sunny morning. It feels retro yet so contemporary because of such warming light. ❤ Brad Pitt plays the coolest character in the world. ❤ The various locations in Los Angeles : Beverly Hills, downtown Los Angeles, the hippies' scrapyard. When Cliff is fixing the antenna on top of the house, we're overlooking Los Angeles, with an highway in the background. It feels eclectic and vibrant, makes you wanna play GTA V. ❤ The scene in the hippies scrapyard is masterful. It is creepy as fuck, you fear for Cliff's life, it is straight from a horror movie. Yet no horror code is present : there is no suspenseful music, the main character is chill, it happens in broad daylight. This is brilliant. ❤ Leonardo DiCaprio skillfully plays a character who plays characters with varying talent. This is impressive. It's like he has a setting on how good he must play. ❤ Awesome alchemy between the two main characters. ❤ The final pay-off.
Saturday 14 September 2019
permalinkThis is the directorial debut of Olivia Wilde. I like watching directional debuts. This is a teen movie, which, apart from a few particularly well-made scenes (the pool scene then the argument at the party), is a conventionally teen movie, although top of its league. Now here is a twist : Beanie Feldstein, on the right in the poster, is Jonah Hill's little sister. You can't unsee this.
Saturday 14 September 2019
permalinkAfter Get Out, Jordan Peele continues proving he is one of the best contemporary director for horror and suspense. There really are lots of good, original, ideas, and it is actually scary. Excellent.
Saturday 14 September 2019
permalinkThe documentary draws a line between “pro” porn actresses who, historically, played “girls next door” types of role, and new young actresses who are are actually girls next door who just decide to go into porn. Because maybe the latter category should be more “protected” than the former? Or remain pure? Interesting anyways.
Saturday 14 September 2019
permalinkThe fact that characters are always singing feels so awkward. Especially since some of them appear not be great singers. Since I never read the book nor studied it at school, this movie provides an easy access to know the story of the novel. However, it is rather over-the-top and flamboyant, which I'm sure is consistent with Hugo's style. The “I Dreamed a Dream” scene if by far the peak of the movie, providing solid ground for all the awards Anne Hathaway won for her role.
Friday 16 August 2019
permalinkI liked the character of Rick Blain at the beginning: unfriendly and cynic, but with a lot of sensibility hiding behind. As the flashback told the tale of his love story, it all crumbled down to another middle-aged man going with a pretty girl in her mid-twenties and not being disturbed by her lack of maturity in comparison to him. The finale of the movie, where he makes a life-decision for her in her place, assuring her that this is the right thing to do, only shows again this difference in maturity and how infantilized she is. Why would a mind as strong as him have a love interest for such a young spirit, I don't know
Thursday 18 July 2019
permalinkAs with other Gaspar Noé's movies (I've only seen Irréversible but my predictions are set for the rest of the filmography), the characters already display a behavior I've trouble identifying with, to the point where the exercise of watching them evolve under extreme psychological pressure is of limited relevance (if you're the kind of person who brings your child in such a setting, your decision-making process is already fucked up, of course I guess that under influence it's gonna get worse).
The nightmare-ish aspect of it all reminded me of Darren Aronofsky's Mother!, which, contrary to this one, I find wonderful, because I could identify with Jennifer Lawrence's character.
In spite of my lack of identification and overall revulsion towards the experience, I must recognize the incredible cinematic performance, including the awesome opening, long shot, featuring a beautiful choreography. This movie is really unratable.
Thursday 18 July 2019
permalinkI think Woody suffers from the sitcom syndrome where the main character is less interesting than the side characters. I didn't like that the movie was so focused on Woody. I think Woody is boring. There is not as much team work and adventures as in the previous movies. The mood is too sentimentalistic and existential, and not as upbeat and funny as in the previous movies. It is rather enjoyable, but clearly not up to the franchise's history.
Thursday 18 July 2019
permalinkI was expecting a twist where we learn that the kid was stealing the poems from his nana, who the teacher considers to be a "nuisance". I don't want to brag, but this version would have been better by all accounts. Fucking psycho teacher kidnapping kids and patronizing lower social classes.
Thursday 18 July 2019
permalinkI was on the edge of my seat during the whole of it. I was so pleased with the absence of narration and interviews, which gives such a “raw” touch to it. Although this is clearly not optimized for conveying as much information as possible, it is the closest you can be from actually living the thing as it was happening. Image restoration is beautiful, sound editing and mixing are awesome, editing is magnificent, the music from Matt Morton is so exciting. The documentary sets his own style and rules, inside which it is basically perfect. I think it is rewatchable ad vitam eternam.
Thursday 18 July 2019
permalinkSo when Disneyland gets bloated it becomes Dreamland, and it is getting destroyed by failing to integrate icons from the former. Bravo Burton. This is actually a nice flick to watch, notably because Dumbo is sooooo cute with his big eyes (hmmm “Big Eyes”, another Burton) and all his giggling and reactions. It is, however, visually ugly, as any scene can be spotted from being filmed with a green screen, and at times very awkward, for example with the terrible daughter character, who behaves more like a cyborg than like a child.
Thursday 18 July 2019
permalinkYou can somehow feels the lack of budget through the rather uneventful story and cheap costume design, but this little western-on-another-planet won my heart with thoughtful character development. I actually rooted for the main character to safely get through her adventure all along.
The lack of budget actually serves the movie. At the beginning, when the ship separates from the main vessel, everything is seen as from inside the ship, and it is very well made. Contrary to fat science-fiction movies which tend to show things from a vantage point in space, in this scene you get to see the action on a human scale.
There are also discussions where characters discuss their situation in the movie's science-fiction society, and I thought it was impressive how, with a few lines of dialogs, the movie opens a tiny window to a universe that appears to be very rich. Again, there is no great exposition of such universe, but rather hints of it on a human scale, which I found very likable.
Thursday 18 July 2019
permalinkBecause I liked Everybody Knows very much, I decided to dig further into Asghar Farhadi's filmography. Unfortunately, I was way less convinced by this one, where every character is more or less depressive or hurtful. I miss the Spanish upbeat mood at the beginning of Everybody Knows and the ensuing heart-wrenching events. I resent this French gloomy setting and the ensuing depressive revelations. My reading of the morale of the movie is that the character played by Bérénice Bejo is such an horrid person, it's the reason any man she goes with eventually leaves her.
Sunday 23 June 2019
permalinkThe movie goes in all sorts of directions, which kind of unhinged me, but it is overall interesting to watch, going from funny to thrilling in a very oddly way that has a fascinating touch to it.
Sunday 23 June 2019
permalinkI don't trust Michael Moore. His documentaries are usually based on a pile of archive videos and interview pieces taken out of their context, which would require hours of homework to check whether I'm being bullshitted or not, which I don't have the energy or time to do. Without even checking I can spot the moments where things that must be up to interpretation are presented as facts, which is bullshit already. I learned that there is a water crisis in Flint, so there is that.
Sunday 23 June 2019
permalinkThe epic musical moments made me shiver with delight, but that wasn't enough to compensate for the overall forgettable screenplay. The story's structure is this of a very conventional biopic, and the character development is entirely based on the overused trope of substance abuse and lack of affection from a father figure. I'm pretty sure that Elton John holds a richer personality than just being the product of those circumstances.
Sunday 9 June 2019
permalinkLike the person who recommended it to me said: it's a movie you don't understand yet you still like it for some reason. This is like Alice in Wonderland, except that the wonderland is Hollywood's high society.
Sunday 9 June 2019
permalinkThis is the second movie I see from Asghar Farhadi (A Separation) and, well, I have a filmography to watch. He captures with so much intensity the characters' emotions and psychological complexities. I like that he doesn't use music. In front of the camera, Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem are brilliant. The reason so much talent makes for a just a “fairly good” movie is because the ending is narratively disappointing. I use “narratively” because it is actually very plausible and not badly written at all; it's just that as a spectator you want something more exciting. I guess it's the price to pay for such raw naturalism.
Sunday 9 June 2019
permalinkThe most-loved episode of “In fact the true monsters are men” by Guillermo Del Toro. I rather didn't like it because I have trouble identifying with the sort of tale-like parallel world the action takes place in (the mill in the middle of the woods). As it happens, it is the exact same reason I didn't like The Shape of Water (the secret military basement). I just don't feel it is real and it makes me lose my bearings, such that I don't feel much emotions. It's like there is just too much distance between the story and me. Also I thought it was visually ugly; everything is orange-ish like in a Jean-Pierre Jeunet movie. What remains is the soundtrack of Javier Navarrete which is truly wonderful.
Sunday 26 May 2019
permalinkThe directing is very clean, camera-work-wise, but the movie contains a lot of clichés which makes it not up what David Fincher was able to deliver in the previous installment. Claire Foy, who has my full esteem after The Crown and Unsane happens to be less suited for the role than Rooney Mara was. It's no more than nice flick that is easily forgotten.
Sunday 26 May 2019
permalinkThere is quite a gap between the terms in which the contract is discussed and the practices that are then shown on-screen. The writers were like "oh boy this scene is only words so we can go WILD" but then for the scenes of actual sex, they realized they already had exhausted most of their allowed transgressiveness because the actress was naked anyway, and so they couldn't push it further than blindfolds and whatnots.
Christian Grey is cold, impersonal, unfunny, creepy, manipulative, and no matter how pretty his face is, he constantly looks like an overall douchebag. So I can definitely believe the part where he finds women (most likely hires them) and make them sign a contract to do weird shit with him in his basement; but I definitely DON'T believe the part where a young normal woman finds he has any appeal.
Absolutely crappy shit anyway.
Sunday 5 May 2019
permalinkThe humor tells me this a movie for children; the language tells me this a movie for adults. Somehow in this void it is vaguely enjoyable and is apparently the best Marvel can deliver nowadays – that is a low upper bound.
Sunday 5 May 2019
permalinkYou know what is a distinguishing feature of good character development? Characters should be predictable. Like an acquaintance, you should be able to tell what their reaction would be to some situation. How they would think about it, what they would say, and what they would do. Each moment when you don't really know how they will react is an opportunity to learn more about them. If you never know, if you can't predict anything, then it means there is no character development; the character is just a tool.
Mr Nobody, like the equally crappy Butterfly Effect from 2004, uses lack of character development to try to convince us that life is chaotic and can be totally altered by ridiculous details generating grandiose consequences. Characters end up in totally different lives, and totally different mindsets, in the tree of possible storylines. Characters are just set pieces enduring the circumstances of their storylines. I won't take a philosophical stance on the butterfly effect philosophically speaking, but I can say for sure that I find this approach of chaos awful to watch, narratively speaking. What can you hold on to if characters are just tools? This is useless.
Sunday 5 May 2019
permalinkSome guys go to South America to steal some money from a drug lord so that they can be rich. It's a nice movie to watch. Simple, to the point. It is nicely directed, but not quite up to the existing filmography of director J.C. Chandor (Margin Call, All is Lost, A Most Violent Year)
Tuesday 26 May 2020
permalinkJe me rappelle de mon visionnage de Once Upon a Time in Hollywood au cinéma, dans une salle comble, comme d'une de mes meilleures expériences au cinéma, seulement égalée par Le Loup de Wall Street en 2013. Non pas seulement parce que le film est génial, mais parce qu'il surprend, choque, et suscite le rire avec suffisamment de brio pour que ce soit particulièrement agréable de rire en compagnie du reste de la salle, et de vivre cette expérience où le public entier se comporte une sorte de super-spectateur qui réagit de manière harmonieuse à ce qu'il découvre. Tarantino a d'ailleurs bien compris ce plaisir, et y rend directement hommage dans le film lorsque Sharon Tate se rend à une projection de The Wrecking Crew et se délecte des réactions enjouées des spectateurs dans les scènes dans lesquelles elle apparaît. Ce passage du film, considéré par certains comme inutile, cristallise pourtant toute l'essence du cinéma de Tarantino : le plaisir de l'artiste à faire plaisir au spectateur.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood se déroule à Los Angeles en 1969 et suit les aventures de Rick Dalton (DiCaprio), un acteur à Hollywood qui craint que sa carrière soit sur le déclin, et Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt), son cascadeur attitré. Les deux amis vivent une vraie bromance; Rick est plutôt du type émotif, tandis que Cliff est clairement décontracté. À Berverly Hills, le voisin de Rick est le célèbre Roman Polanski, qui habite avec sa femme, l'actrice montante Sharon Tate (actrice réelle dont le sombre destin fut d'être assasinée chez elle par une bande de hippies embarqués dans la secte de Charles Manson).
Avec Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Tarantino accomplit une chose géniale : le développement d'un univers si riche et attrayant qu'il reste en tête les jours suivants la vision du film. Le Los Angeles d'époque est reproduit non seulement avec un soucis du détail extraordinaire, mais avec une chaleur toute séduisante. Naviguant de Beverly Hills à un ranch dans le désert en passant par le centre-ville de Los Angeles, le film ne manque pas de rendre la fresque d'autant plus immersive avec une bande-son omniprésente à base de bon vieux rock. La photographie est splendide, que ce soit pour mettre en valeur une cuisante visite dans un ranch du désert, un Los Angeles crépusculaire, ou la douce féérie d'un Beverly Hills nocturne. À la fin de ces 2 heures 40 de film, nous n'avons pas seulement l'impression d'avoir vu le pilote d'une série prometteuse, on ressent carrément le vide typique d'une fin de série dû au fait de ne plus suivre les aventures de nos personnages favoris dans leur univers.
Pour cela, Tarantino fait adopter à son scénario une structure peu orthodoxe. C'est très simple, le film semble être une géante introduction qui a pour seul but d'arriver à la scène finale, et passe son temps à travailler et broder la personalité des personnages pour que l'impact de la fin soit le plus fort possible. Pour certains spectateurs, l'expérience va être désagréable car ils vont trouver cela être une longue attente afin d'atteindre l'essentiel du film, qui se joue dans les dernières 20 minutes. Pour d'autres, comme moi, l'expérience va être fantastique, car cette longue exposition est là où se trouve la richesse du film, le finale étant simplement la cerise sur le gâteau. Le film me rappelle les (meilleurs) cours de lycée, ceux où le professeur ne peut s'empêcher de digresser sur des sujets annexes, perdant peu à peu le cap initial, et les digressions, qui s'enchaînent en cascade, sont en réalité bien plus intéressantes et amusantes que ce à quoi elles sont censé ammener. Ces digressions définissent un contexte, des exemples, et sont racontées avec une telle passion qu'elles décuplent l'intérêt pour le sujet final. C'est ainsi que s'y prend Tarantino pour définir les personnages de Rick, de Cliff, et de Sharon.
Lors de ma première vision, les seules digressions qui m'avaient laissé dubitatif sont celles où le film s'étalle sur le tournage des films avec Rick, et fait durer des morceaux de "film dans le film", de toute évidence un hommage aux films de cette époque. Je fais parti de ces jeunes spectateurs modernes pour qui ces vieux films ne sont pas spécialement accrocheurs, et visionner une relativement longue reconstruction de leur genre n'était donc pas la partie la plus marrante du film. Cependant, la deuxième vision m'a permis de me concentrer certains éléments subtils de cette reconstruction comme par exemple le fait qu'un travelling de camera est accompagnée du bruit du système qui fait bouger la caméra (la caméra "narratrice" est confondue avec la caméra "présente" dans la scène) ou tout simplement les détails du jeu d'acteur de DiCaprio, qui évidemment doit jouer sur deux niveaux: la niveau du personnage de Rick, et celui du personnage joué par Rick.
La deuxième vision est aussi bénéfique en ce qui concerne certains éléments historiques de la famille Manson. La scène où Charles Manson va chez Sharon Tate m'était absolument obscure lors de mon premier visionnage (je ne savais pas qui était ce personnage, ni l'intérêt de cette scène), mais lors du second visionnage (plus précisément le second visionnage après un article Wikipédia) cette scène apparaît comme terriblement creepy.
Ces deux exemples sont probablement juste un échantillon parmi les innombrables références et subtilités que le film doit contenir. On a donc là non seulement un film qui, moyennement quelques passages qui laissent interrogateurs, est génial lors de la première vision, mais qui se bonifie aux visions suivantes, et recèle sûrement un tas de trésors à découvrir si on s'intéresse à ses références. Bref, c'est riche, et la route vers la découverte de cette richesse est amusante et divertissante. C'est du Tarantino en bonne et due forme.