A childrens movie - Micmacs à tire-larigot (2010) Discussion

[–] fmm5 14 years ago

I agree that certain characters were overacted (most notably the contortionist), but I would never call this a children's movie. And it has nothing to do with mimes whatsoever.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] balandra_bcs-1 13 years ago

I may say
A movie for grown-ups with a childspirit, but not childish

reply

[–] Bavarian 9 years ago

A movie for grown-ups with a childspirit, but not childish

This. And I hope I can keep my spirit until I die.

Those "grown-ups" without humour, fantasy, willing suspension of disbelief and a little bit childhood in their hearts are so sad.

reply

[–] ftremblay379 8 years ago

Not mines but old silent movies. Some scenes were shot exactly like an old Charlie Chaplin's movie, but with colors. I thought it was cool, but it grew old pretty fast.

reply

[–] mmd83 14 years ago

You gotta pay the troll toll

reply

[–] ibbi 14 years ago

Or if you like silent movies...

___________
http://tinyurl.com/ydyaqzw

reply

[–] maritze 14 years ago

I agree with the OP. In Amelie Jeunet got the mix just right, this one has just too much of everything.

reply

[–] imightbedesperate 14 years ago

Also in Amelie all the story elements were very tightly interwoven and relevant to the story where in this movie there are a lot of excessive pointless "Jean-Pierre Jeunet" moments. Two examples I can think of off the top of my head are the junk robots and dancing dress at the end of the movie. Because they were so tacked in there and devoid of character and plot they lost the keen sentimentality and wonder that has been so strong in his other movies.

From the start of the movie I got the feeling Jeunet wanted to push his style further into territory that a lot of film makers go of making movies about movies. The silent start of the movie followed by the opening credits was very strong. However shortly after it feels like Jeunet second guesses himself and doesn't have the confidence to shift the movie dynamic anywhere different or past that of his previous films. Maybe it reflects more on my tastes but I think the movie would have played out better as the straighter melodrama that the opening of the movie suggests.

reply

[–] d_killa_b 14 years ago

yeah i don't really think he was looking to break new ground with this as he has with other films.i don't think he came up short,nor do i get a sense that he was hesitant,i think he was just having fun with this film.he's already established his style and pushed the envelope many times over.to me it just felt like he wanted to enjoy making a film and not worry so much about living up to his past work as this film is certainly more simple.and it wouldn't be jeunet without some of the signature stuff.

reply

[–] eve-33 14 years ago

<i> If you like Circus and mimes you love it. I hate it. Couldnt stand the overplaying characters. </i>

100% agree with the OP.
I can't stand the circus, mimes, the accordion...I hated the movie.

Perhaps very young moviegoers (up to 5 years old) or very old people (+90) might like it, but even, I'm not sure. The YouTube moment at the end was beyond silly. They had to show us twice the "share" button. The Internet, wouhah, that's magical.

It's a major fail. I liked his previous movies, but now I feel like JP Jeunet is completely clueless and outdated.

reply

[–] d_killa_b 14 years ago

actually jeunet is renowned as one of the most innovative,visionary film makers of our time.some people just don't get it.and i generally don't get those people...but we live in an age where imagination has all but been beaten out of people so it doesn't surprise me that many don't have a grasp for the fantastique.

reply

[–] TonyRizzla 12 years ago

could not agree more

reply

[–] Gyogurt 9 years ago

I can't stand the circus, mimes, the accordion...I hated the movie.

You said just the right words. I won't go near this, I so hate the circus music and all. Yikes!

In Japan we don't speak of misogyny, but we admit to having female phobia.

reply

[–] Likes_Ninjas90 14 years ago

As if you would take children to see this.

They wouldn't get the subtext and there is stuff in this that is inappropriate for them

reply

[–] RShapiro33 14 years ago

You obviously didn't understand the context. It's about merriment, wonderment and the innocence viewing the world like a child would. Doesn't mean it was a "children's movie".

reply

[–] GutGeboren 14 years ago

I think the movie haters are from the weapon industry. *g*

reply

[–] imightbedesperate 14 years ago

See I disagree because the actual sentiment and wonder that was there in his other movies comes up empty in this movie. It is tacked on, motivation free, patented "Jean Pierre Jeunet" moments. His other movies weren't just about characters who stood around winking at the camera saying LOOK AT ME I AM WACKY. I also think that he was trying to advance what he does with this movie and either second guessed himself, was pressured to make the movie more like his others or was ruined by the quality of the actors.

This is the kind of movie I would expect from someone who is influenced by a Jeunet film and wants to copy it. They take the set dressings and patented wackiness and throw them together then they ignore the actual sentimentality, warmth and story that these elements were there to accentuate and which made the heart of the film.

reply

[–] TonyRizzla 12 years ago

yes it does

reply

[–] xbs2034 14 years ago

I wasn't that crazy about the movie either and there is a child-like world view at times, but this is clearly not a children's movie, it deals with adult themes and deserves its R rating (granted only certain parts of the film had sex or violence but I still felt they were strong enough to justify the rating).

reply

[–] RShapiro33 14 years ago

I thought it was fantastic, one of his best.

reply

[–] blueweb 14 years ago

They failed to read the fine print.

" Warning, you are required to have a soul to comprehend this. "

reply

[–] plkldf 14 years ago

Wow -- required to have a soul.

I'm reading these posts, trying to decide what I think of the movie -- usually doesn't happen -- usually I know whether I liked it before I get to the boards.

I liked certain parts of it. But I'm sorry to say it didn't come together as a movie for me, and I'm not sure why. I thought the robots were charming and cool, but I agree that the whirling dress felt tacked on and I didn't see the point. The love affair between Dany Boon and the contortionist was weird -- I kept thinking (hoping?) they'd do a threesome with Calculette, because she was clearly into one or both of that couple. Instead did she end up going with Dominique Pinon? Yuk. Sorry, but . . . yuk. I'd rather have seen the threesome.

Honestly, I didn't get the three stooges snapping and clapping with the kids who got his hat, and I didn't get it at the end when he did it with the contortionist. It had the feeling of being improv that didn't really work. She should have pinched his nose and then knocked her hand away with her other hand! :-)

I thought the way they kidnapped the arms makers was overly complicated, with the big magnet, and their wrists stuck to the roof (they must have had some pretty magnetic watches on!) -- but I enjoyed their humiliation, and then the little look back at how they had manufactured the airplane ride. But even the humiliation felt tacked on -- not well written, actually, which I think I could say about the whole movie -- not well written

So I tried hard to work with this film, and I don't think I'm soulless -- this was just too much of a good thing, for me.

--
GEORGE
And all's fair in love and war?
MRS. BAILEY
[primly] I don't know about war.

reply

[–] TonyRizzla 12 years ago

yes an undeveloped soul

reply

[–] rod775-1 10 years ago

Two or so years ago, Micmacs opened & closed in less than a week here in San Fran. I finally saw it on Stars, some parts are really great, well done. A few parts are just wrong. I do not regret seeing this on cable. Not a disaster like I expected.

reply