Change Your Image
D8Player
Reviews
La Mante (2017)
Missed opportunity
This series should be marked under the "not bad but could have been so much better" category.
In terms of the positives. The editing is quite good and the pace is kept up quite well. The score does a very good job of raising the tension at the appropriate moments. The cinematography is high quality and the series overall was very well shot.
Now to the less than positive points. First off the premise is not very original and in the end very contrived. Its as if someone took the plotlines of Silence of the Lambs (using an imprisoned serial killer to catch their admirer), Seven (a serial killer who ritually tortures their victims as punishment) and Copycat (a serial killer imitating the crimes of a convicted murderer).
Secondly, the characters are all pretty one dimensional and the acting is actually quite flat. Carole Bouquet is as cold and distant as ever, meaning it is difficult to feel anything for her, positively or negatively. Fred Testot, who plays her son, mopes around and seems pointedly uninteresting as a character. Its hard to see from this what his wife saw in him. The other characters are pretty much stereotypes (the grizzled police chief, the disgruntled/resentful partner who was passed over for promotion, the deranged serial killer, etc).
Lastly some of the plot lines stretch credibility a bit too far. For example, France's most notorious serial killer is left with only one guard. The police decide race to rescue the serial killer' victims by racing across Paris only to arrive too late instead of calling for local backup.
All in all, with a bit more originality in the scenario and a tighter script, this could have been excellent.
The Godfather Part III (1990)
Bolted on sequels rarely work
This is another in a long line of after the event sequels that seemed to be made purely to capitalize on the success of the original versions rather than from any desire to further the story. Godfather 2 was made because Puzo and Coppola felt they had much more to do with the character of Michael. When it was done so were they and it should have been left so. Like the "Color of Money" did to "The Hustler", Godfather 3 harms rather than helps the legacy of the original.
I am, like many, a huge fan of the first two films. The true masterpiece of them was the brilliant character of Michael Corleone, brilliantly written and brilliantly portrayed. This was the first place where #3 goes wrong. In this part Michael is a shadow of his former self. He is weak and indecisive, a character who lets events overtake him. Little is given in the way of explanation as to what happened to change him. Pacino himself seems to be only half interested in the role.
Furthermore the cast of surrounding characters are much weaker this time out. Talia Shire's performance is pure embarrassment. She shrieks and hollers her way thru the film like a day time soap actress. Andy Garcia who showed such promise early in his career is good but nothing extraordinary. Sophia Coppola should never have been added to the film, she is not an actress and was really dropped in it by her Dad. Bridget Fonda too is weak as is Joe Matenga. Eli Wallach's character is woefully under developed. Compare this with the character of "Hyman Roth" in part 2.
If this film really wanted to be judged on its own merits and not look pale in comparison to parts one and two it should not have used the word Godfather in its title. In reality it should never have been made.