Search
Darren (1599 KP) rated Untouchable (2011) in Movies
Jun 21, 2019
Story: Untouchable starts as Philippe (Cluzet) is forced to look for a new caregiver after his own accident, he sees a string of qualified applicants, but when he meets Driss (Sy) a man from the projects, he sees someone different and hires him.
The two men are from different backgrounds and have lived different lives, together they teach other about life, with Philippe becoming a father figure to Driss and Driss showing Philippe that his condition doesn’t need to stop having the adventures he loved just because of his condition.
Thoughts on Untouchable
Characters – Philippe is the quadriplegic that needs to hire a caregiver to help him in everyday life, he picks Driss because he is the only one that treats him like normal person. He has always been involved in extreme sports which is where his accident happened, his money will keep him away from any problems he might face, now he must learn to carry on with his own life. Driss is from the projects in Paris, he gets hired giving him a chance at a different life, his ways are different to a normal carer, but this helps him learn how to get more out of his life and get out of the troubles he has been facing in his own life. Yvonne is the personal assistant to Philippe who fills in he blanks for Driss when he is learning the job. Magalie is handles business affairs for Philippe and catches the eye of Driss, she doesn’t fall for his charm like he believes most women would.
Performances – Francois Cluzet is wonderful in one of the leading role, he must show so much through his facial expression which he makes us love each scene and moment he gives us. Omar Sy is fantastic too, he has such great chemistry with Francois and brings the energy required for this role. The supporting cast are all good though they don’t get as much screen time as the lead pair.
Story – The story shows the bond between Philippe and Driss, two men that are from different backgrounds who spend time together when Driss gets hired as a carer for Philippe, we get to see how they both learn life lesson which make them grow as men. The fact we see the man with the lest experience being the best person for the disabled man shows us that life skills are just as if not more important than any training. We do go through the teaching about new cultures between the two and we get to see how both deal with their own serious problems from life. The tone of the storytelling shows us how you can have serious mixed with comedy and still get the point across which is what makes this film such an essential viewing.
Biopic/Comedy – This film uses the biopic side of the film to show the friendship created between the two men, which does change a couple of things to suit the actors. The comedy comes from just how Driss treats life with his carefree attitude which brings all the light-hearted positive vibes to the film.
Settings – The film is set in Paris and uses the settings to show us the two different lifestyles the men have come from, we do get other trips which show us just how far they could go together.
Scene of the Movie – Paragliding scene.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not understand the time lapse.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the most beautiful movies you will see, we get to see a connection unlike anything you could imagine between two completely different people and it will leave you with a smile due to all the positivity through the film.
Overall: Essential watching.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/21/abc-film-challenge-world-cinema-u-untouchable-2011/
The two men are from different backgrounds and have lived different lives, together they teach other about life, with Philippe becoming a father figure to Driss and Driss showing Philippe that his condition doesn’t need to stop having the adventures he loved just because of his condition.
Thoughts on Untouchable
Characters – Philippe is the quadriplegic that needs to hire a caregiver to help him in everyday life, he picks Driss because he is the only one that treats him like normal person. He has always been involved in extreme sports which is where his accident happened, his money will keep him away from any problems he might face, now he must learn to carry on with his own life. Driss is from the projects in Paris, he gets hired giving him a chance at a different life, his ways are different to a normal carer, but this helps him learn how to get more out of his life and get out of the troubles he has been facing in his own life. Yvonne is the personal assistant to Philippe who fills in he blanks for Driss when he is learning the job. Magalie is handles business affairs for Philippe and catches the eye of Driss, she doesn’t fall for his charm like he believes most women would.
Performances – Francois Cluzet is wonderful in one of the leading role, he must show so much through his facial expression which he makes us love each scene and moment he gives us. Omar Sy is fantastic too, he has such great chemistry with Francois and brings the energy required for this role. The supporting cast are all good though they don’t get as much screen time as the lead pair.
Story – The story shows the bond between Philippe and Driss, two men that are from different backgrounds who spend time together when Driss gets hired as a carer for Philippe, we get to see how they both learn life lesson which make them grow as men. The fact we see the man with the lest experience being the best person for the disabled man shows us that life skills are just as if not more important than any training. We do go through the teaching about new cultures between the two and we get to see how both deal with their own serious problems from life. The tone of the storytelling shows us how you can have serious mixed with comedy and still get the point across which is what makes this film such an essential viewing.
Biopic/Comedy – This film uses the biopic side of the film to show the friendship created between the two men, which does change a couple of things to suit the actors. The comedy comes from just how Driss treats life with his carefree attitude which brings all the light-hearted positive vibes to the film.
Settings – The film is set in Paris and uses the settings to show us the two different lifestyles the men have come from, we do get other trips which show us just how far they could go together.
Scene of the Movie – Paragliding scene.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not understand the time lapse.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the most beautiful movies you will see, we get to see a connection unlike anything you could imagine between two completely different people and it will leave you with a smile due to all the positivity through the film.
Overall: Essential watching.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/21/abc-film-challenge-world-cinema-u-untouchable-2011/
4WD Maps | Hema Australia Offline Topo Maps
Navigation and Travel
App
Offline 4WD maps for exploring Australia using your iPhone or iPad without an Internet connection. ...
The first half of The Serpent and the Moon mainly deals with Francois I's reign as king and has little to do with the love triangle. Frankly, the whole book itself hasn't much to do with the love triangle or "one of the great love stories of all time," but more to do with the political intrigue of Henri I and his father's reigns. Oh, and lest I forget, Henri, Diane, and both of their symbols, monograms, etc. I honestly don't know what the whole fascination of that was all about, but it showed up everywhere.
On page 187 the princess tells us that it is a man's way of thinking that Diane wouldn't have become Henri's mistress if he hadn't become dauphin. I disagree, it is a realist's view, and frankly, I think it's fully possible that was how it started. Yes, maybe she was flattered by his attention too, but to consider having him as a lover in light of how much she was in his life growing up, it's a bit creepy. Oedipus comes to mind. I believe he was infatuated with her from a young age and it most likely progressed into love, for both of them. I envision her grabbing the chance at being the mistress of a king and being older, she knew how to mould and persuade him. Whether or not it was a true love story, I really don't know; I'm not sure anyone does and I don't care all that much.
As many other reviewers have stated, there is an obvious bias. The readers are warned in the introduction, but even if you know that, there's still the possibility that the work as a whole might be neutral. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Maybe if it had only been a slight bias, I wouldn't have cared so much, but when an author heaps praise on one person and how they accomplish everything, and then turn around and bash someone else for the exact same thing. Well, that's just hypocrisy.
From the book, the author would have you believe that Diane de Poitiers got to where she was merely by being a good, honest, gracious, and pious woman and Catherine de' Medici did it by being a cold, heartless, evil, spiteful person. I'm sorry but you cannot have climbed to the heights Diane did, especially in those times, without being conniving in one way or the other. I'm sure she did the same things Catherine did, so quit holding Diane up on a pedestal; she's really not a goddess, just a woman. Diane is a white light, Catherine is black as death and there isn't any grey between them for most of the book. By the end of the book I really took the "history" lightly, mainly that of these two women, more than anything else; it was just an unfair assessment. And with the author's snarky and catty remarks directed towards Catherine, saying she has a "fat little heart," well, that was just uncalled for. Then at the end, her words were so disgusting about Catherine's behavior towards Diane, saying how petty she was and she did things purely due to "feminine spite". Catherine could have done much worse to her but she didn't! Of course, Ms. Perfect D. was always so respectful and exemplary of Catherine. Give me a break. Maybe some of the things said in the book were true about both women, but then again, maybe not. Most is lost to history.
If Princess Michael of Kent's plan was for me to sympathize and idolize Diane de Poitiers, as she does, it backfired. Now I don't ever care to ever hear about her again, and I love history of all kinds. On the other hand, I have already ordered two books about Catherine de' Medici from the library. Most likely the opposite of what she wanted. I honestly don't blame Catherine if she was bitter, who wouldn't be in that situation? Even if it was a different time, circumstance, and an arranged marriage? I refuse to believe Diane was this perfect being, a goddess, virtuous as can be, a victim - nobody is all these things and I don't know why the author cannot see any imperfections and insists on romanticizing her.
Even though I hated how biased this book was, I still appreciate the amount of research this must have taken, it was fairly well-written in form, and there was loads of information. I'd only recommend this to Catherine haters, loathers, or serious dislikers. With the princess's flair for the dramatic and speculation on feelings and actions, she might want to focus on writing works of fiction instead. I have no desire to read anything by this author again.
On page 187 the princess tells us that it is a man's way of thinking that Diane wouldn't have become Henri's mistress if he hadn't become dauphin. I disagree, it is a realist's view, and frankly, I think it's fully possible that was how it started. Yes, maybe she was flattered by his attention too, but to consider having him as a lover in light of how much she was in his life growing up, it's a bit creepy. Oedipus comes to mind. I believe he was infatuated with her from a young age and it most likely progressed into love, for both of them. I envision her grabbing the chance at being the mistress of a king and being older, she knew how to mould and persuade him. Whether or not it was a true love story, I really don't know; I'm not sure anyone does and I don't care all that much.
As many other reviewers have stated, there is an obvious bias. The readers are warned in the introduction, but even if you know that, there's still the possibility that the work as a whole might be neutral. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Maybe if it had only been a slight bias, I wouldn't have cared so much, but when an author heaps praise on one person and how they accomplish everything, and then turn around and bash someone else for the exact same thing. Well, that's just hypocrisy.
From the book, the author would have you believe that Diane de Poitiers got to where she was merely by being a good, honest, gracious, and pious woman and Catherine de' Medici did it by being a cold, heartless, evil, spiteful person. I'm sorry but you cannot have climbed to the heights Diane did, especially in those times, without being conniving in one way or the other. I'm sure she did the same things Catherine did, so quit holding Diane up on a pedestal; she's really not a goddess, just a woman. Diane is a white light, Catherine is black as death and there isn't any grey between them for most of the book. By the end of the book I really took the "history" lightly, mainly that of these two women, more than anything else; it was just an unfair assessment. And with the author's snarky and catty remarks directed towards Catherine, saying she has a "fat little heart," well, that was just uncalled for. Then at the end, her words were so disgusting about Catherine's behavior towards Diane, saying how petty she was and she did things purely due to "feminine spite". Catherine could have done much worse to her but she didn't! Of course, Ms. Perfect D. was always so respectful and exemplary of Catherine. Give me a break. Maybe some of the things said in the book were true about both women, but then again, maybe not. Most is lost to history.
If Princess Michael of Kent's plan was for me to sympathize and idolize Diane de Poitiers, as she does, it backfired. Now I don't ever care to ever hear about her again, and I love history of all kinds. On the other hand, I have already ordered two books about Catherine de' Medici from the library. Most likely the opposite of what she wanted. I honestly don't blame Catherine if she was bitter, who wouldn't be in that situation? Even if it was a different time, circumstance, and an arranged marriage? I refuse to believe Diane was this perfect being, a goddess, virtuous as can be, a victim - nobody is all these things and I don't know why the author cannot see any imperfections and insists on romanticizing her.
Even though I hated how biased this book was, I still appreciate the amount of research this must have taken, it was fairly well-written in form, and there was loads of information. I'd only recommend this to Catherine haters, loathers, or serious dislikers. With the princess's flair for the dramatic and speculation on feelings and actions, she might want to focus on writing works of fiction instead. I have no desire to read anything by this author again.