Reviews

I have the same problem with this movie as with Scorsese's 'Raging Bull'. Technically both movies are outstanding: great acting, camera work, direction and dialogue. Artistically speaking, both are also second to none: important themes, original narration (in case of Tarkovsky you can say experimental narration). And both left me with feeling of disappointment, or I should rather say indifference. Of four Tarkovsky's movies that I've seen (Rublev, Solaris, Stalker and this)this one is the only that I didn't find appealing (hell, even Solaris with many of it's flaws seemed great).

I had no doubt that in both cases I'd just had seen amazing achievements in the field of cinematography, but what can I do: they did not speak to me. At least in case of 'The Mirror' I know what the problem is. The story (well it's not really a story) is too hermetic: Tarkovsky provides us with the episodes of his life, and lives of his parents, some light and warm, some tragic and bitter. You cannot relate to them unless you are Tarkovsky, one of his relatives, an artist, or at least Russian or you are nostalgic guy. I loved many parts of this movie, but some of them didn't add anything to the general picture.

Watch it for: a) great music b) young Ignat (or maybe it was Alosha) watching his reflection in the mirror sitting by the fire in silence c) the narrator's mother look into the camera while contemplating the future of her yet unborn child d) the dreams section

strong 7/10

This movie is often referred to as an 'Ulysses' of cinema. Yet again I didn't like Joyce's novel as well. Maybe I am allergic to the stream of consciousness.

Can't find words to describe this movie...'absolute rubbish' would be close but still too mild. The director of 'Kroll' and 'Psy', two best Polish action dramas, has recently been in continuous decline, but I've never expected him to reach the level of Ed Wood.

First of all we have Miroslaw Baka as a tough and cruel gangster....come on, why not going further, why not giving the role to Leslie Nielsen.

Then throughout the movie we have 'very deep' and 'thought-provoking' meditations on relationship and love....soap operas must have been Pasikowski's main inspiration at that time ("Do you really love me?", "How can you demand somebody's love" "Will you leave me", "Oh sorry, I love you").

Next to it we've got chaos. Chaotic dialogue, chaotic scenes, chaotic style of direction, chaotic sound...

And finally my favourite bit. Bad, unfaithfull and really skinny women are almost unavoidable feature of Pasikowski's films. But the lady in 'Reich' beats them all. Every time she was standing I felt she was going to fall. Where did he find her...in a documentary about women suffering from anorexia...now I know why I almost didn't hear a single word she was speaking...the poor thing was too weak to say anything more or less clearly not to mention just trying decent acting...

2/10 the music was really good

And by the way...how is it that in Polish movies every model is a fiancee of a gangster, drug dealer or smuggler.

Looking at the world through the eyes of a boy of 17 explains a lot. Volpina, Gradisca, uncle Teo screaming 'I need a woman' etc.

Once you are kidnapped by Fellini to the world of his youth memories, you cannot get out of there. Sex, death, extremely snowy winter, fascism, Gary Cooper, the motorcycle guy and the dolphin saying 'Mama'. But that's not all. Warmth and joy, stupidity, weird politics and Mussolini marrying the fat boy with his sweetheart. And most of all a gallery of wonderful, interesting and likeable characters.

A friend of mine once described Italian films as 'bunch of Italians pointlessly screaming all the time, especially during dinner.' Well, you've got it. Brilliant.

9/10

The same with Mark Hamill.

The good things: Good concept, nice plot, very good SFX (though not as good as in 2001, at least in my opinion), good score (though Willams is generally overrated) and acting of Harrison Ford and especially Alec Guiness.

Now, the minuses.

1) The dialogue. Childish.

2) Logic. When you look at the Empire soldiers you wonder :How is it possible that with a bunch of such unskilled, stupid and poorly trained idiots it managed to defeat the Republic. It's a mystery. Lucas could hire Stevie Wonder or Ray Charles, and at least then I would understand why none of them managed to wound any of our heroes. Come on it's not that difficult; Rosie O'Donnel would be worse target. They were supposed to be the best soldiers in the galaxy (I believe OWK said sth like that).

3) And now for the acting. Mark Hamill is just an annoying piece of wood, but Carrie Fisher...... arrrgh. The best part is when Alderaan is blown up. The reaction of Leia is not "I will kill you", "You b******s", "Nooooooooooo" , no cry, no despair. It's just "ahh" (or sth like that). Come on lady! It's not as if Darth Vader said "You can't go for a date, go to your room" or "No, I'm sorry, I can't give you my car tonight, daddy needs it". Your home planet has just been destroyed, billions of innocent people died, your family was probably there!!! Show something!!! Curse! Shout! Cry! Spit at his face! Kill Lucas (that would be the best idea)! Burn the Empire flag as a sign of protest! But for God's sake don't act as if somebody has just bought the dress you wanted.

Now I hope that the plans for the remake of 'Casablanca' will change, as Ben and J.Lo should rather try in this one. They'd definitely win hands down.

And finally, I can't believe it's #9 in Top250, especially when you see so many incredible movies below (Empire Strikes Back #15, Matrix #33, 2001 #58(!!!!), Alien #64, Blade Runner #80, to mention sci-fi only). But those didn't sell so many posters, toys, stickers etc.

Better watch Empire Strikes Back instead.

5/10

Such an amazing actor and pretty good director made such a silly thing; the amount of nonsense in this film takes it to the bottom 100.

But, lets not talk about what is wrong with this movie, lets talk what can be done to improve it.

1) Highway should talk about Vietnamese prostitutes with his wife, not with some strangers in a prison. I'm pretty sure she'd forgive him easily and he wouldn't have to read some crappy magazine articles about relationships.

2) The young officer (the one with glasses) should be a bigger nerd. He should be a hunchback, drink only tea, wear Winny-the-Pooh T-shirt, always go to bed before 9PM and ask mum for permission if he wants to go out to play chess with his friends.

3) The discipline of Highway's soldiers (before he started training them) could be even lower. They should rape women, cows, drink gasoline, plan killing Nepalese prime minister and watch "The Days of Our Lives".

4) Highway's ex-wife should date with mjr. Power. She wanted stability, didn't she. And the film would be more spicy, Highway would have another reason to hate Power and vice versa.

It's just a tiny bit of some ways to make it better.

3/10 (still a few good jokes, pretty good acting and war scenes)

A masterpiece. No doubt about it.

It was my first Bergman film, and I was a bit anxious, as his works are considered difficult, and deeply psychological. And it's true, but this one has such an amazing mood that you're in it within few minutes.

Some of the images will stay in your mind forever: the frightening parade of the ascetics, the eyes of the dying witch, empty village. But what is amazing is that Bergman within this dark and pessimistic movie managed to put lighter elements (conversation between Antonius and the actors at the sunset) or even humorous (seduction of blacksmith's wife, Death cutting down the tree), which make "The Seventh Seal" more absorbing. He put two opposites: cynical and pessimistic Jons and Antonius versus Jof and his family, common people who live a simple life, and therefore are close to God (Jof has visions of the Virgin Mary); and somehow gives answers to Antonius' questions.

If you don't know any of Bergman's films start with this one. It's not his best, but the best for newcomers.

9/10

I mean, really crazy. There are things that are amazing, horribly stupid but still amazing.

The highlights are obviously all "Samuel L. Bronkovitz presents" features. "Catholic High School Girls in Trouble" segment; it's the first time I wasn't interested in women's breasts at all (Michael Douglas should try to watch it and solve his sexual over-activity problem). Then "A Fistful of Yen" and famous "even worse than Detroit" line (although I agree that this part was a bit too long). "That's Armageddon" was average, but "Cleopatra Schwartz" was awesome.

However, the problems are with the rest. The other segments do not seem so funny, and sometimes even boring eg. "The Courtroom", they look like a typical filler jokes.

Anyway, they don't make films like this today, in the age of political correctness.

6/10

There is a similar, though not as good as KFM, movie called "UHF". It's quite average, but has two amazing Samuel-L-Bronkovitz-like films: "Gandhi" and "Conan the Librarian". Give it a try.

After reading circa 100 comments on 2001 I just couldn't stand it and had to speak my mind.

To all of you b*****ds who say this movie has no plot. What were you doing while watching it? Eating, talking on the phone, listening to Britney Spears' latest masterpiece? There is a plot!!!! You just have to pay a little bit of attention and have intelligence of a flower pot at least (thus excluding Britney's and J.Lo fans). It won't be written on the screen with flaming letters, you have to kind of think (it's what your parents apparently didn't do while they "created" you).

Another group are those who claim that it was boring, the scenes were too long, no dialogues. If you are accustomed to MTV like films, with scenes changing faster than Beckham's haircut then I can't help you. There are probably some mental health institutions in your country. The scenes are long and left without dialogues to make you think, analyse, help you grasp the questions it asks, or just for sheer pleasure of watching a beautiful image. You do take pleasure in watching something beautiful, don't you. Believe me it's worth paying attention to what you watch not only when you see Seagal breaking somebody's arm, silicon breast or when the characters use the F word as a comma.

And finally the guys who say that the "monkey part" was stupid and totaly useless. It's the downfall of mankind. Stick to Star Wars and don't comment on real art. It's like saying that the guitar riff in "Satisfaction" is useless (F***ing Britney again).

10/10

I don't know how many of you have actually read a novel "Quo Vadis?" upon which this film is based. Well, I have. For your information, it is written by a Polish novelist, Henryk Sienkiewicz (in 1905 he got a Nobel Prize, mostly because of "Quo Vadis?"). It is amazing piece of writing about christianity, devotion, faith and standing up for your beliefs. And what about the film?

IT IS CRAP! The romance is in the foreground, the religion and values are hidden somewhere in the background, but the nature of this romantic plot is awful. It's the sum of the worst Hollywood cliches and dialogues ever made. Americans have this annoying tendency to destroy great stories by turning them into absolute rubbish for brainless audience (this is not an insult to American viewers, only to those who liked this movie). But don't worry. In 2002 Jerzy Kawalerowicz made a Polish "Quo Vadis?" (it is the most expensive Polish film ever, by now), and it is ever worse than 1951 version.

The only thing that is good in this one is Peter Ustinov (as always brilliant)

I was 17 when I first saw the movie. Now you know why every guy in Poland with IQ higher than 70 has got full pants when he gets an "army ticket". This movie is the best way to persuade men to study hard, go to some university or at least impregnate some lady.

But it's got some bad sides. Imagine a hunky (thanks to steroids) guy, who usually wears awesome trunk, drinks a lot of cheap wine, read one book in his life, loves baseball and his favourite words are f**k, c**t and c**k. Even being send to a Playboy mansion isn't as exciting as Polish Army to this kind of brainy athletes.

7/10

I remember one episode of "Friends" in which Joey Triviani (Matt Le Blanc) is talking about his first day on set for some TV series. One of the actors taught him how to act a state of deep thinking (musing in other words). In general you have to play as if somebody broke wind and you are trying to smell it (more or less sth like that), the result is very serious and concentrated face. OK Matt, let me put it this way: "Fiends" is a sitcom, so what you said there was just for fun, this advice wasn't serious, and really you don't have to try to smell something stinking in every movie you play in (unless it's a comedy, you know).

I hope Matt is going to read it, because in "LiS" he did this ugly thing every time somebody was talking to him (eg. when he learnt that he would be a pilot of the ship).

And now, the film.

BAAAAAAAAD, EVEN WOOOOOOOORSE. Silly plot, poor SFX, stupid dialogue, terrible acting (even Gary Oldman was disapointing, I can't believe he'd agreed to play in it). SEARCH & DESTROY!!

1/10

Those of you who didn't live behind the Iron Curtain (I mean east of it) won't understand what it was like to be a Beatles (Stones, Who, Bowie) fan there (or maybe you will). I wasn't there (i'm only 24 now), but I know few facts. First of all you couldn't buy records as there weren't any, then you couldn't have longer hair as you would be expelled from the school, and off course you weren't allowed to behave like your idols (in any aspect). This picture illustrates it perfectly. It's about passion, friendship but not only. It's also about growing up, losing your teenage dreams, rebellion against opressive enviroment.

I liked the lighter, more humorous side of this flick more. Some more sentimental stuff didn't help this film. But if you're looking for a portrait of Polish youth in 1960's, you're fond of small-town-set pictures (like I am) then you'd definitely love this one.

7/10

I wonder why so many people claim this movie is rubbish. I know it isn't Stanley Kubrick or Orson Welles but as for its genre "The Fifth Element" is one of the best. It isn't artistic cinema ; rather a comic containing all the elements that make a smashing picture.

Besson is one of my favourites, and again he didn't dissapoint me. "The Fifth Element" is not as marvellous as "Leon" but is an example of a well done job, dynamic and entertaining, quite intelligent in its lack of seriousness and director's distance to it. Its just a Besson's childhood dream made into a feature.

What I like most about this film are the actors; Willis didn't show anything new, but was in good shape , Ian Holm was brilliant as an overexcited priest of 25th century , my favourite actor Gary Oldman once again proved that any role is suitable for him (his performance was brilliant , a villain with a British sense of humour, and a Nicholson-like character) and obviously Milla Jovovich (I was really surprised, I didn't expect her being so talented).

The rest was almost as good. The story had some holes, but as I said (wrote) before it's not an artistic cinema. I loved the director's vision of the 25th century world, and all the costumes by Gaultier (although generally I hate the guy and the stuff he designs), both very bright and colourful as well as a bit tasteless (in positive meaning of the word).

All in all I'd give it 8.5 if I could but in that case....... strong 8/10.

I've read only 20 comments so far, and it was surprising to learn that some viewers (namely 'gregory.messine' and 'RBarse', both of US of A ) think it's set in Vietnam. Come on lads, I've heard that education in America is not great but I didn't expect it to be so bad. Have you ever opened an atlas. Maybe the sound in your theater didn't work or sth. THIS FILM IS ABOUT A WAR IN CAMBODIA. Cambodia is a neighbour of Vietnam. It's set in 1973-79, just after the Vietnam War!!!!!

Anyway, back to movie. It's brilliant, not too sentimental, not too cold. The acting is simply marvellous (to be honest I didn't know any of the actors except for Malkovich), cinematography is a touch of genius. Some people complained about the score. Well I can agree, that the lyrics of "Imagine" in the context sound like a Khmer Rouge anthem, but the rest is beautiful (Oldfield did a good job).The scene when Schanberg watches some TV programme about the Cambodian War while listening to Puccini's opera is so moving, just like the sight of thousands of Cambodians being "evacuated" by the Khmer out of Phnom Pehn.

9/10

I've seen this film recently and without a doubt I can say that these four hours (it was shown in Polish Tv so interrupted by ads) were the biggest waste of time in my life . I can't understand why it was given 12 Oscar Awards ? Was the Academy bribed ? Were they all on dope while watching it? Obviously the ship itself is great , the sinking looks authentic , even the whole idea of the film and romantic plot is not bad . But this is just 20 per cent of every movie , the rest is just awful . First of all bad acting. Di Caprio and Winslett are the most annoying pair in history , this toxic mixture of 'free artist' and spoiled brat made me seasick . Another thing is the dialogue . I haven't heard such a nonsense in my entire life . It was just hilarious . Another problem is that every character is black or white ,either good or bad . Nobody seems to be developing , changing , showing various shades of their personality . And last but not least Cameron lack the judgement of the mood . I mean that in some scenes I was drowning in pathos , and in others when something serious is needed he spoils everything with some pseudo-funny dialogue or situation .The worst in it is the final scene when the old Rose dies and her soul goes back on the ship ,where she's welcomed by the rest of the dead passengers , and after kissing Jack everyone is applauding . I wondered where was Caledon Hockley .If he committed suicide in 1929 he must have been with the others , and if so was he applauding with them ? All in all give me half of Cameron's budget and without a doubt you will be given a masterpiece not a crap like this one .

This is one of the most disappointing movies I've ever seen .The first thirty minutes are even promising , but then everything becomes f***ed up. Nothing rescues this film . The beginning promises at least a decent cousin of 'Alien' but then it changes into pseudo-si-fi packed with poor acting , boring dialogues , silly intrigue and most of all Goodman's psychological garbage ,which makes anyone who decided to go to a museum of aviation instead of watching this crap count his blessings. The final scenes ,with three survivals talking about the mankind not being ready to handle the responsibility etc, were an agonizing pain to my ears.