tellurikwaves Blog : CINEMA :Les blessures narcissiques d'une vie par procuration

Š-DR -LA FOLLE JOURNEE DE FERRIS BUELLER de John Hughes (1986) p6

03/12/2013 04:06 par tellurikwaves

Š-DR -LA FOLLE JOURNEE DE FERRIS BUELLER de John Hughes (1986) p6

03/12/2013 04:06 par tellurikwaves

Edie McClurg : Grace, la secrétaire de Rooney

*

Take the "Day Off"...

Author: Mister-6 from United States
6 September 2000

Before all the slapstick, before re-writing "Home Alone" umpteen times and before selling his soul to "Disney Pictures Inc.", John Hughes was believed to be THE scribe for teen angst.

He wrote eloquently of it in "Sixteen Candles", "The Breakfast Club" and "Pretty in Pink". And with "Ferris Bueller's Day Off", he creates a person and a time in life that just about anyone who's ever been a teenager can relate to.Who hasn't known someone like Ferris Bueller (Broderick)? Someone who always has a plan, someone who made loafing off an art form, someone who could fall in a barrel of you-know-what and come out smelling like a rose?

All he wants to do is take a day off from school and enjoy the day in Chicago - simple enough, but he must also try and convince his best friend Cameron (Ruck) and his best girl (Sara) to join him and, in the process, learn to enjoy what life has to offer.Naturally, there is a tyrannical school dean (Jones) who is determined to catch Ferris in the act of hookey and Ferris' own sister (Grey, pre-nose job) who has it in for her brother, the "trouser-snake".

There are funny situations throughout the movie, and the characters are ones that grow on you, especially Ruck's worry-wart portrayal of Cameron Frye, constantly fretting about his dystalic, cursing his father and nearly drowning in a pool, all in the name of friendship.Sara has less to do, but she plays the object of desire well, and Ferris' passion for her is understandable. At least he thinks about the right things, like what their lives would be like after high school.

All the way from beginning to end, this movie is a great trip in search of fun, relaxation, not taking life too seriously and how to sing Wayne Newton songs in the middle of a parade.You want to catch vintage John Hughes and classic '80s teendom at its best? Seize this "Day"!Ten stars for "Ferris Bueller's Day Off".

Š-DR -LA FOLLE JOURNEE DE FERRIS BUELLER de John Hughes (1986) p5

02/12/2013 17:59 par tellurikwaves

Š-DR -LA FOLLE JOURNEE DE FERRIS BUELLER de John Hughes (1986) p5

02/12/2013 17:59 par tellurikwaves

Commentaires
Après Une créature de rêve, (1985) The Breakfast Club (1985) et Rose bonbon (1986), c'est le quatrième film que John Hughes consacre à un nouveau regard sur l'adolescence,ouvrant la porte à un nouveau genre cinématographique.

Outre son scénario, le film séduisit par l'impertinence de son ton et par son traitement, Matthew Broderick s'adressant souvent directement à la caméra.Par la suite, John Hughes allait exploiter le genre en tant que scénariste ou producteur, mais avec beaucoup moins d'originalité, notamment avec la série des Home alone : (Maman, j'ai raté l'avion, Maman, j'ai encore raté l'avion, Maman, je m'occupe des méchants !) et autres Flubber ou le remake des 101 Dalmatiens.

Le film inspira également fortement la série des années 90, Parker Lewis ne perd jamais.En 2008, Ferris Bueller a été classé 15e par le magazine Empire parmi les 100 Meilleurs personnages de films de l'histoire («The 100 Greatest Movie Characters of All Time »).

Š-DR-LA FOLLE JOURNEE DE FERRIS BUELLER de John Hughes (1986) p4

02/12/2013 17:43 par tellurikwaves

Š-DR-LA FOLLE JOURNEE DE FERRIS BUELLER de John Hughes (1986) p4

02/12/2013 17:43 par tellurikwaves

Jeffrey Jones : Ed Rooney, le principal du collège

*

Fiche technique
Titre français : La Folle journée de Ferris Bueller
Titre original : Ferris Bueller's Day Off
Réalisation : John Hughes
Scénario : John Hughes
Photographie : Tak Fujimoto
Musique : Ira Newborn, Arthur Baker et John Robie
Production : John Hughes et Tom Jacobson
Société de production : Paramount Pictures
Société de distribution : Paramount Pictures
Budget : 6 000 000 de dollars
Langue : anglais
Genre : Comédie
Durée : 102 minutes
Dates de sortie :
États-Unis : 11 juin 1986
France : 17 décembre 1986

Š-DR- LA FOLLE JOURNEE DE FERRIS BUELLER de John Hughes (1986)p3

02/12/2013 17:38 par tellurikwaves

Š-DR- LA FOLLE JOURNEE DE FERRIS BUELLER de John Hughes (1986)p3

02/12/2013 17:38 par tellurikwaves

Š-DR -LA FOLLE JOURNEE DE FERRIS BUELLER de John Hughes (1986) p2

02/12/2013 17:23 par tellurikwaves

Š-DR -LA FOLLE JOURNEE DE FERRIS BUELLER de John Hughes (1986) p2

02/12/2013 17:23 par tellurikwaves

Cast(partiel)
Matthew Broderick : Ferris Bueller
Alan Ruck : Cameron Frye
Mia Sara : Sloane Peterson
Jeffrey Jones : Ed Rooney, le principal du collège
Jennifer Grey : Jeanie Bueller, la sœur de Ferris
Cindy Pickett : Katie Bueller, la mère de Ferris
Lyman Ward : Tom Bueller, le père de Ferris
Edie McClurg : Grace, la secrétaire de Rooney
Charlie Sheen : le garçon du commissariat
Ben Stein : le professeur d'économie
Kristy Swanson : Simone Adamley, une élève
Virginia Capers : Florence Sparrow
John Hughes : l'homme courant entre les taxis (caméo)

Š-DR -LA FOLLE JOURNEE DE FERRIS BUELLER de John Hughes (1986)

02/12/2013 13:27 par tellurikwaves

Š-DR -LA FOLLE JOURNEE DE FERRIS BUELLER de John Hughes (1986)

02/12/2013 13:27 par tellurikwaves

La Folle Journée de Ferris Bueller (Ferris Bueller's Day Off) est un film comique américain écrit et réalisé par John Hughes, sorti en 1986.

Résumé
Ferris Bueller est un adolescent de la banlieue aisée de Chicago qui décide un beau matin de se prendre une journée de congé. Peu d'obstacles lui résistent lorsqu'il a une idée en tête. Se faisant passer pour malade, il sèche les cours et débauche son meilleur ami Cameron ainsi que sa petite amie Sloane pour la journée.

Š-DR LITTLE BUDDHA de Bernardo Bertollucci (1993) fin

01/12/2013 18:45 par tellurikwaves

Š-DR LITTLE BUDDHA de Bernardo Bertollucci (1993) fin

01/12/2013 18:45 par tellurikwaves

Le réalisateur : Bernardo Bertollucci

*

Trivia
Showing all 5 items-
For the scene in the forest with the ascetics where Siddartha becomes emaciated from lack of food, Keanu Reeves went on a crash diet of oranges and water.
Is this interesting? Interesting?YesNo | Share this
-The film is dedicated to Francis Bouygues, a French industrialist who was to produce this film before he died in 1993.
Is this interesting? Interesting?YesNo | Share this
-Final film in director Bernardo Bertolucci's "oriental trilogy", following Le dernier empereur (1987) and Un thé au Sahara (1990).
Is this interesting? Interesting?YesNo | Share this
-Marlon Brando was approached about playing Siddartha.(!!!??)
Is this interesting? Interesting?YesNo | Share this
-Eric Stoltz was considered for the role of Dean Conrad.

Š-DR LITTLE BUDDHA de Bernardo Bertollucci (1993) p16

01/12/2013 18:35 par tellurikwaves

Š-DR LITTLE BUDDHA de Bernardo Bertollucci (1993) p16

01/12/2013 18:35 par tellurikwaves

Buddha like you never saw him before

Author: Geert Lemmens (gjl@bookwerk.de) from Cologne, Germany
16 August 2002

There can be no doubt that Bertolucci made a beautiful and very stylistic portrayal of Siddartha (yes, Keanu does and looks very well in this part). There can be doubt though ifthese mystical and captivating scenes that play in the ancient (not necessarily historical!) India and the Far Orient are succesfully intermingled with the present day search for areincarnated soul. I have seen the film several times and I am still not sure. Would this film have been better if it had only focused on the life and times of Siddartha / Buddha?

Or would this just have made the film look "easier"? Present and past, reality and legend, magical scenery and modern city life continuously interchange. Each time the film shifted from Siddartha's "world" to Seattle I felt a little sorry. I wanted more and more of these silent, magic world. Bertolucci keeps us awake by going the other way. The things Siddartha learned can be applied, by us, the viewers, in what happens next. Let's just say Bertolucci's choice for dialectic film making was the right one. Final remark: the video / DVD cover is absolutely ridiculous. Surely the film company also wanted to attract young female Keanu fans by portraying him in a slightly romantic, counter opposing posture to Bridget Fonda.The two never meet in the film at all!

12 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

Simplistic, but not bad and educationally useful.

Author: Les Falk (lesfalk@silk.net) from Kelowna, BC, Canada
8 January 2000

Simplistic, and of more value to young people than serious adults, but a more "realistic" dramatization of the subject might be too subtle for many viewers. This is perhaps theonly movie I know of that deals directly with Buddhism from a western point of view, as opposed to Asian movies like those of Kurosawa, or such recent films as "Seven Years in Tibet" which deal more with the political and social aspects of Tibetan culture rather than Buddhism itself. Because Buddhism is drawing increasing interest in the West, a dramatization of the classic story of the Buddha is useful and entertaining. As a high school teacher, I have seriously recommended this film to students a number of times. The movie is well filmed, and, besides the traditional story of the Buddha,in its ancient Indian setting and with all of the mythical elements, it does gives insight into Tibetan culture, and can be linked to "Kundun" and "Seven Years in Tibet" which are excellent, sympathetic films about this Asian country that has received so much undeserved harassment.

Š-DR LITTLE BUDDHA de Bernardo Bertollucci (1993) p15

01/12/2013 18:20 par tellurikwaves

Š-DR LITTLE BUDDHA de Bernardo Bertollucci (1993) p15

01/12/2013 18:20 par tellurikwaves

Š-DR LITTLE BUDDHA de Bernardo Bertollucci (1993) p14

01/12/2013 18:17 par tellurikwaves

Š-DR LITTLE BUDDHA de Bernardo Bertollucci (1993) p14

01/12/2013 18:17 par tellurikwaves

Easy On The Eyes But A Little Too Easy On the Mind

Author: alexkolokotronis from Queens, New York
2 July 2008

This movie was actually not that bad in fact it had some good parts to it. One major problem though was Keanu Reeves. They are also other glaring and not so glaring problems with this movie.

The acting was adequate throughout except for of course Keanu Reeves. He was not the only one I was not happy with though. Bridget Fonda did not exactly show off anything special either. She was just there nothing great, nothing to horrible just there. Why does she continue to get roles? Is it her name? Her looks? Her acting ability? That is pretty easy its her name. The only thing does she does share with Henry Fonda, Peter Fonda and Jane Fonda is their name definitely not her acting ability.(Mmmm sévère le môssieur...mais je dois dire que j'ai préféré Bridget Fonda en "Marie couche toi là" dans JACKIE BROWN)

Then of course there is Keanu Reeves. It is really hard to think of a worse casting move than the casting of Keanu Reeves as Buddha. For action roles or even comedy I do not mind him but for serious roles he is about as bad as you could get. His performance at the beginning I do not have a problem with because Buddha is not yet Buddha he is even less than a narrow minded person. At or towards the end though he is supposed to portray Buddha with depth and meaning, not with superficiality and narrow mindedness. That though is exactly what he does though, he stays an idiot from start to finish. As the movie progresses so does the character of Buddha but not the performance of Keanu. In here he appeared about as selfish and superficial as Buddha was selfless and deep.

The directing should be great, after all Bernardo Bertolucci is directing this. Well at times it was spectacular but it was not consistent. Some of the scenes, especially toward the end were great, the sceneries of the Buddhist temples and ceremonies and one particular conversation involving a monk were amazing. It was like watching the Last Emperor again. Then the scenes with Buddha were just horrible and annoying. That part of the story did not seem to get anywhere, they just seemed to go on and on. That is what should have succeeded not failed especially Bertolucci being the director. That is where Bertolucci failed and failed miserably.

The cinematography was amazing at times as mentioned before. Certain scenes were done very stylistically and well. It did provide some sort of educational importance which is the one thing I was really with this movie. The editing was also pretty bad, it was one of the reasons why some of those scenes felt like forever to get by and why whenever the story was just becoming engaging it had to jump right back to the story of Buddha. The writing was pretty bad but not completely horrible.. The one scene with the monk was great in terms of writing but other than that nothing really memorable. The way the Buddha story was written really made me determine this was a bad script and brought down most of the movie.

This movie should have and could have done better but it did not. Cinematographically wise and directing wise some scenes were down right spectacular and other with Keanu Reeves were just down right horrible. Yet the cinematography was just too amazing even in the story of Buddha that I have to say that this an above average movie. It is a good family movie and a little educational but if you want to watch this alone I would not really recommend it. Very easy on the eyes but just a little to easy on the mind.

*

Bien content de ne pas avoir vu le film avec vos yeux !