Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Aubrey Hackett While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Allissa .Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

hatchet39 Most reviewers describe this movie as a "thriller" or "rise and fall" story, but how can a movie be described as such if there is no tangible plot or no rise and fall. I do not personally consider it a "rise" if the character's name is featured in some newspapers or a "fall" if the character is shot down down in a hail of bullets. This film is merely a look at the physical life of a criminal who got lucky. In reviewing this film I must go through both films as if they are one. So technically I will be reviewing a five-hour film. I will go into detail of the film. The film starts out with showing the main character, Mesrine, seemingly stalking a nervouse female. They then get into a car together and hit the road. Jacques lets a large blue truck get in front of him. They stop at a red light. The light turns green and then the back of the truck flies open with men aiming their guns at Mesrine. Title sequence. This scene is one of the best in the film. It is shot in the style of De Palma film with the meaningless splitscreen and suspense. After this, we get look at him as a young man in the Algierian army who is ordered to shoot a suspects wife, instead he shoots the suspect himself. Now this scene sets up the style of the movie: shaky-cam and in your face bloodshed. The rest of the movie (Part 1&2) can only be described in individual scenes. One great scene is where he meets his new partner, a bespectacled woman whose name escapes me, and immediately afterward they rob a mob-owned restaurant. The way this scene was almost unintentionally funny with the following exchange taking place: Woman: Leave him alone, he's mine. Jacques: Well it depends... Woman: On what? Jacques: Are you ready for anything? (well it went something like that.) After that exchange, they go rob a restaurant. Then we have the prison scene. This shows Mesrine at his absolute worse, where he cries, drools and begs for mercy. Of course he escapes and then comes back to save some friends. Then we get a shootout. End of part 1 The next part is basically a continuation of the last one and so this one only has few major scenes including his father dying and him escaping prison once more. Finally he dies. End of movie. The movie itself is merely competent. But it rides along in a steady pace and has great editing and directing from the director. And of course I have to mention Vincent Cassel's performance, which is great. Though, I must warn, the second half is kind of boring. End of review.

chase_g Both Killer Instinct (Part I) and Public Enemy No. 1 (Part II) seem to be intended as action films; you see them to be entertained rather than to find meaning. Despite this, Killer Instinct still managed to maintain a somewhat believable tone that this part quickly lost.The music throughout is painfully generic and overblown. In the final scene, action music races while Mesrine and his girlfriend are walking on the sidewalk and then stuck in traffic for a solid five minutes. Elsewhere generic action scores grow tiresome as the violence also grows repetitive.A number of characters overact in Public Enemy No. 1, particularly the policemen in the last scene. It seems the director tried to force an extra ten minutes in of showing Mesrine inconsequentially strolling around, which the viewer knows won't lead to anything as we've already been shown the conclusion to this scene, while the police watching him panic and pant. I found Vincent Cassel's acting to be much better in part one than part two as well, not to say it was particularly exceptional in Killer Instinct in the first place. He fell into some of the overacting utilized by some of the more minor actors. He was better in La Haine. Mathieu Almaric and Ludivine Sagnier were better.The writing in this film becomes overindulgent of Mesrine's self justifications. One would think that his rantings aren't meant to be taken seriously but for the fact that they are played up as dramatic monologues in scenes such as the interview. If this was intended to come off as misguided self-righteousness rather than a serious social critique, the director failed to convey that.On a basic level Public Enemy No. 1 was also much less exciting than the first. As far as part II's plot goes, Mesrine is pretty much riding out the hype that he built up in part I. The action sequences are fewer in number and on a smaller scale.Overall, it did the job in that it was mildly entertaining. Despite this, the action of this half of the story line wasn't as much so as in Killer Instinct, and as a result the director seems to have used cheap techniques such as an overblown music score and overacting to compensate.

jotix100 Not having seen the first installment about the life of French criminal Jacques Mesrine, perhaps we are at a disadvantage. But recently, we caught the second part of the story in DVD format. The life and times of the man that was so resourceful in escaping captivity, gets a fabulous treatment at the hands of director Jean-Francois Trichet. The whole project owes a lot to the amazing performance by Vincent Cassel, not one of our favorite actors, but one has to recognize he made the whole picture enjoyable.Of course, we never even heard about the real Mesrine, but his life, the way it comes out in Abdel Raoul Dafri and the director's screen treatment is the stuff that made folk legends, much like the American gangsters in the period of the Great Depression. Unfortunately, not seeing the first part, there are things that are hard to comprehend by just watching the conclusion of the story, which is told documentary style.Vincent Cassel's take on Jacques Mesrine is what makes the viewer stay riveted to what is happening on the screen. Mr. Cassel has had his share of playing creeps before, but as Mesrines, he gives the performance of a lifetime. Mathieu Amalric appears as Francois Besse, the partner of Jacques' most daring escape from prison. Ludivigne Saigneur is seen as Silvia. Georges Wilson has a small pivotal role as the rich man Henri Lelievre, kidnapped by the two partners. Others in the large cast are the wonderful, but totally unrecognizable Oliver Gourmet, Gerard Lanvin, and Samuel Le Bihan in secondary roles.A lot of credit must be given to the amazing Robert Ganz cinematography and the careful editing by Bill Pankow and Herve Schneid. The music by Marco Beltrami and Marcus Trumpp adds a layer to the texture of the movie. One can understand the difficulty in making the film look real if one considers this is a story that happened more than thirty years ago. A lot of credit must go to the creator Jean-Francois Trichet for his achievement in recreating the story of a criminal that shook France during the time when he terrorized the country.

milchenko88 I cant go for long describing this tittle, simply because I do not feel strong about it. I read a few comments and I see that only proud and patriotic Frenchmen seem to like it, that's all I can say...Boring Long Sometimes even stupid...p.s. 7.4 out of 10, the viewers must be going crazyI cant go for long describing this tittle, simply because I do not feel strong about it. I read a few comments and I see that only proud and patriotic Frenchmen seem to like it, that's all I can say...Boring Long Sometimes even stupid...p.s. 7.4 out of 10, the viewers must be going crazy