Reviews

I expected much more from this film, as usually they claim it to be a classic movie, one of the best in history of cinema etc. But in my opinion it isn't. It has too many shortcomings. First of all -- the music is totally inappropriate for such a thriller, it is mocking and amusing, which does not fit with the whole story at all. It makes it all look like a light-hearted comedy, not to be taken seriously. The dialogues are presented in a mechanical, artificial way: normal people do not respond so quickly to surprising and unknown information. The plot fixes too much attention to the girl, rather than to the complex and confused story. The good things are the cinematography and the atmosphere of postwar Vienna, where the action takes place, but even they should have been given more attention.

I really don't know what to think of this movie. There are things that I like about it and at the same time things that I dislike. It is a moving, psychological story about a family that is crushed by a string of bad luck, failures and mistakes. The emotional moments are well-presented, without sentimentality, and maybe because of this, they are more impressing. The flashbacks are very- well merged into the overall story ( a rarity in movies) and I could easily follow the chronology of events. Also, the setting is wonderful-New England coastline in winter-evoking sadness and melancholy. The music also corresponds to the mood. So far, so good. The bad things: the movie is too long (over 2 hours) for such a story and it could have been cut as there are numerous unnecessary scenes which only distract the viewer. And what I was disappointed about: there was no climax to the whole thing--it just ends unexpectedly. There was no ending whatsoever.It just stops and I have the impression of it being unfinished.

This film was rather a disappointment to me. It starts promisingly but fails to develop and becomes boring and unconvincing. I think that this plot should have been developed above all as a psychological drama. But it is exactly psychology that is missing here. Instead, it relies on visual teasing. But a film is more than mere photography. Rourke is totally inappropriate for this role. His sweet smile, being on his face time and again, starts looking idiotic as the plot develops. Elizabeth, who is the central character, is also unrealistic. What is it that drives her into this dangerous and humiliating relationship? Taste for danger and adventure? Loneliness? Greed to catch a Wall street man? Masochism? We are not told to the very end. This film is a very pretentious attempt to reveal female eroticism but I think it fails in this. I find this film very un-erotic, perhaps because of the hints of sadism and masochism presented.

Sex addiction is a serious subject that can be made into a very powerful drama. But the people who created this film evidently did not have the talent, the intelligence and the sensitivity to be able to fulfill the task. What a pity! I almost lost the patience to watch it to the end . To summarize: it was not worth watching and I really have the feeling that I had wasted my time. The tempo is too slow, the characters are shallow and undeveloped, their acts and deeds are not motivated at all, there are almost no dialogs, so you are left guessing why something happens. The words that the characters pronounce ( when they bother to speak at all) are almost unintelligible and I wonder why. Only the word ' f**king" was present more than enough, being repeated dozens of times. Instead, you have a profusion of nudity and sex, most of which is simply unnecessary. I was very disappointed by this film and I do not recommend it .

This long film ( almost two hours) should not have been made at all. Knowing very well the style and characteristics of Virginia Woolf as a writer, I think that her novels are not suitable to be put onto screen. They hardly have a plot, they put much emphasis on language ( which cannot be shown on screen—it is not by chance that in the film characters speak their thoughts—this is a literary device and I would say—a sign of weakness) and on perceptions, thoughts, associations, philosophical analysis etc. All this is impossible to show through images. Literature and cinema are two different kinds of art. Literature works with words and language, cinema –with images. No wonder this film is a failure. It is trivial and boring although the actors do their best. I have mixed feelings about Virginia Woolf as a writer. I like some features of her works and I do not like others. Still, I must say that her books are good literature. But they do not make good films—it is as simple as that. Movie directors should understand this and leave them alone.

I have read the book and have found it interesting. But this film is horribly boring with one and the same things and situations being repeated again and again. There is no development of plot or of characters. Just the stupid, empty lives of some uninteresting and superficial people. Even the jokes are primitive and predictable. I rarely walk away at even bad films but I did it this time--I left about 30-40 minutes before the end. I really had the feeling that I was wasting my time. If I have to describe the film in one word only I would use SUPERFICIAL.It may be liked by young people but I very much doubt that an adult will be pleased with it. Maybe authors have tried to make it scandalous but I think all the themes ( sex, drugs, speedy driving) are outdated and will not cause anything but a yawn.

I must say that I both like and dislike this film. First the good things about it: the cinematography is excellent and obviously, the cameramen have done their work very well. Most people tend to consider the nude wrestling scene as the most important one but my own preference is for the scene when Gudrun dances in front of the cattle and her talk with Gerald afterwards for its mysticism and symbolic significance. I think this scene is perhaps the key for understanding the whole film. The plot develops quickly and there is always something happening, so I was not bored as with other films. The actors are very good especially Glenda Jackson in her very demanding role.

Unfortunately, there are too many drawbacks as well. First of all: almost everything in the film is horribly exaggerated. The emotions, the conflicts, the dialogues, the love of the two couples etc etc. Everything is brought to some extremity which makes everything improbable and overdone. I simply fail to identify with such people and with their behavior—it borders on madness. I know very well that one of the main topics of Lawrence is the need for spontaneity but he has brought it to extremes. Especially Birkin ( he is a self-portrait of Lawrence) is pathetic with his endless and empty philosophizing. He was supposed to be a tragic figure perhaps but I am not persuaded in this. There is nothing tragic in this film because even when there are tragedies, the characters do not respond to them in the way that most people would. The irony is that D H Lawrence, who was so much against the mechanical civilization, himself treats his characters as if they were inanimate objects. Maybe this was considered bold and innovative in 1920 ( when the book was published and Freudism started to be fashionable) but this attitude of his inevitably led him to artistic failure. The desire to shock, to create scandal for its own sake kills the artistic sophistication of a work of art. This is the illness of our culture nowadays: artists do not try to explain and understand, they try to shock. And Lawrence was one of the artists who established this ( deeply wrong in my opinion) attitude to art. And how can you shock the public? The easiest way is to portray as much sadism, nudity and sex as possible. And Lawrence and Russell have done exactly this. There is an intoxication with violence in Lawrence that goes into sadism. And an author should never be sadistic. I think Lawrence fails to understand the true nature and meaning of love, which for a writer who had chosen the title of his book to be "Women in love" is a serious artistic failure. There is sex, there is battle for dominance, there is artistic attraction ( Loercke) but love there is not. Ursula believes in love and longs for it ( even desperately begging for it) but Rupert is unable to give love to her precisely because he himself is incapable of feeling it ( except perhaps to Gerald). But then why ( I ask myself) are these two, Ursula and Rupert, a couple? What is it that attracts them to each other? They are so different people after all. But Lawrence fails to answer this and to go deeper into their relationship. And this makes their "love" unconvincing and artificial. Gudrun and Gerald are the more realistic couple. But with them things are clear: this is not love but a life-and-death struggle for dominance, a titanic clash of two strong egos. I also think that their story is the best and the most valuable part of the book. What I miss in this book and this film is the depth. Lawrence is not a deep author, he is rather superficial. He tries to be deep but he cannot achieve this. Serious problems are just touched without going deeper into them. There is not a coherent set of values and ideas forming a single whole in Lawrence. This chaos is reflected in the book. Good insights and then some stupid and improbable event! Wise words together with flamboyant nonsense! Serious things mixed with trivial and petty details.! All this creates a terrible confusion! He sends contradictory messages to readers and leaves them confused and uncertain which is a serious weakness for an author, trying to be philosophical and psychological. I have the feeling that D H Lawrence was himself confused and tortured by his inner demons. Maybe that is why he had become a writer. But just describing your fears and doubts is not enough! You should try to overcome them, to give answers. His ideas ( expressed via Birkin) cannot be taken seriously. I think that D H Lawrence is an outdated author. His passions and subjects which might have been attractive and original in the 1920s and 30s have lost all their significance now. It is the same with the film ( shown 1969 at the height of the sexual revolution) . Yes, Lawrence was bold to speak about the taboos of his age and we should give him the credit for this. But great art is much more than that! Lawrence's greatest fault was that he subordinated art to depicting such phenomena but failing to go deeper into their contents and meaning. The result was that his works aged very quickly once the scandals passed. What was scandalous then is mainstream now. Sadly, because of their exaggerations and because Lawrence failed to contextualize these problems and dramas, they cannot be accepted as a correct and deep portrait of their age either. So, their historic significance is not very big either. Maybe someone would accuse me of being too harsh to Lawrence. But I do believe that great art does not age! Take Shakespeare! He lived in a much more distant age but his works generally do not age!

This film, made in 1991, deals with one of the greatest crimes of the 20th century, namely the forcible collectivization in the Soviet Union in the early 30s and the following hunger that affected above all Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. It should be remembered that this topic was (and in some way still is) the greatest Communist taboo. The mere mentioning of this topic guaranteed brutal repressions for the one who dared raise it. The official propaganda made some works about it ( the most important one was Virgin Soul Upturned ( Podnyataya Zelina in Russian)by Sholokhov and any other views of the subject were forbidden. It should also be mentioned that some Western leftists supported it and helped spreading Stalin's lies about it all over the world. So, the very fact that a realistic though belated film was made about it, is a significant step in understanding and evaluating history. All this said, I cannot help noticing the numerous weaknesses of the film. First of all, the speed is too slow--something typical for the Soviet cinema. Very long shots that become boring, slow dialogs with long pauses. Real life just does not move so slow! Second: the film lacks context and because of this the audience abroad ( I mean non-communist countries) will probably fail to understand what is happening and why. I know that it is almost impossible to explain to a Westerner what life under Communism is, but this fact makes context all the more necessary. The most important thing is that all these horrors and sadistic acts were MAN-MADEq not natural. They are the inevitable results of the non-human Communist ideology. This, however, was not sufficiently and thoroughly explained and in my opinion this is a serious drawback of the film. Third: too many characters blur the plot and the focus is lost. I could not understand who is related to whom. Also, because of the complexity of the subject, the plot should have been done strictly chronological and more focused. As it is, it is a string of loosely connected scenes with big time gaps between them which only confuse the viewer. I liked very much the fact that the film begins in a church during a sermon. This was great: indeed communism is the direct result of loss of faith. Had people been true Christians, Communism would have never taken root worldwide and these monstrosities would not have happened. This spiritual aspect should have been more emphasized in the film! I admire those who raised the topic but I think new and better films about it should be done now and in the future. Lest we people all over the world forget!

Generally I dislike Latin American cinema and culture in general. They are, I believe, inferior to European and American ones.This film is an absolute exception and just because of this I write this review. Some people accept it as a teen age film, others--as a comedy. But this film is neither. True, it is about teenagers but the point of view,I think, is unmistakably adult and mature. It may start as a comedy, but as the plot develops, it becomes painfully clear that definitely comedy it is not. The greatest merit of the film is putting the problem of freedom to the central stage. Nobody dares do that nowadays and those who have, have done it clumsily and unsuccessfully. These two boys--they want to be fully,absolutely free as most young people want to. And their trip to the sea is in fact their travel to absolute freedom, the fulfilling of their (and many others') dream, the much seductive ( but ultimately very dangerous) idea of breaking EVERY taboo and restriction. I think the most beautiful moment of the film is the final scene: the talk in the café, the moment of balance. Yes, they have had their enjoyment of total freedom but they had to pay the heavy price for it--their friendship. Also, all the time they (and we,the viewers) believed that they were using the woman when it becomes clear that in fact she has used them to a much greater extent. It is very easy to start a film interestingly and convincingly but it is much, much difficult to END it interestingly and convincingly. And this film manages this!!! Many things that happen in the film are deceptive and the viewer is forced to rethink many of his/her reactions and emotions as the film progresses and becomes more and more complex. The pace is perfect--neither too slow, nor too quick.I think few films have achieved such a degree of realism and sincerity. Only very talented people could make such a film! Latin American cinema should take note and learn much from this film! I am sure it will become a milestone in the development of Latin American ( and not only) cinema.

It has been for years that I haven't seen such a beautiful film. And I very rarely give maximum mark for a film. This one deserved it. It has psychology,drama,dialog,you name it. I have always said that British cinema is second to none in the world and this film proved it once again.It is not so much a film, but an artistic piece which is so rare today when cinema has been degraded to mere entertainment.The subjects are too many to write about them but all are sensitively presented and analyzed. Helen Mirren was so good that sometimes I had the feeling that this was a documentary and that Her Majesty herself was filmed.But above all I think this is a serious and responsible soul-searching of the British society in the 90s. Britain going on the coach to be released of its demons. And not only Britain of course but all modern society.The conflict between the generations but also the attempts to resolve this conflict:this is the backbone of the film I think. I live in a small town in Bulgaria and it was extremely difficult to find this film.But it was worth-- every minute of it!

I hardly had the patience to watch this boring and stupid film.I do not watch Russian cinema because I think it is a waste of time.It so happened that I HAD to watch this particular film.And it once again confirmed my attitude.Nikita Mihalkov is probably one of the worst directors today.I watched another film of his-"Victims of the sun "or something like that-it is probably the worst film I have ever watched.I simply can't stand his pretensions .The pace is slow,the characters are one-dimensional,the jokes are boring to death(the film attempts to be a comedy,mind you).Clichés about Russia follow one after another.But the worst thing about the film is that it is a narrow-minded Russian propaganda.The foreigners are either stupid or evil,they want to destroy good-hearted,innocent and naive Russians-this is the main idea of the film.King Alexander IIIrd-one of the most autocratic monarchs of Russia who persecuted all minorities is presented 100% positively ( and played by Mr. Mihalkov himself).This film was made to serve the rising Russian nationalism.In this way it is a political propaganda disguised as a historical comedy.It is not by chance that Mihalkov is one of the greatest supporters of Putin's autocracy today.

Forget the plot of the movie-it is banal and uninteresting,the jokes are shallow.Concentrate about the concerts footage of the film and the brilliant music which has already become a pop classic.I have been an ABBA fan since childhood and surprisingly I still think it to be one of the best musical groups in the second half of the 20th century.This film allows you to listen to one of their less-known songs not included in any of their 8 albums-"Get on the caroussel".It was one of the four songs from the musical"The girl with the golden hair".However it was later dropped and only the three others remained in "The Album"-1977.It is very similar to another song from the same album-"Hole in your soul".This film was planned as a documentary about their supersuccessful Australian tour in March 1977 and should have been made that way.Still ,watching ABBA on stage and (more rarely ) offstage is enough to justify watching the film.Long live Agnetha,Bjorn,Benny and Annifrid!!!

This film is a funny and beautiful comedy about New York fashion society.It is a satirical attack on the snobbery and crazy eccentricities of the fashion world.Streep is brilliant as she has always been.So is cute Hathaway(but I think she smiles too often that would be normal to the situation;true-she has a beautiful smile).I would recommend the film but as I have also read the book I must say the book is much more interesting and funnier.Somehow the comic effects come from language,which unfortunately is lost in the film. At the end Andrea,the main character comes to her senses abandoning the glamorous but artificial and inhuman world of New York fashion.I wonder how the fashion crowd in Paris and New York have reacted to this film.I bet they didn't like it at all.It was high time somebody exposed the shallowness of this stupidity called haute couture.Perhaps the film should have been more merciless in this.

Munich is a good but depressing film.It lasts for two hours and a half and in the first half the pace is rather slow.It is very difficult to analyze the most-complex conflict of the second half of the 20th century-namely the Israeli-Palestinian one.But this film manages to do it and to do it well.At first,the people who had to take the revenge are somewhat hesitant,they still find it difficult to kill(the first Palestinian),As time progresses however ,they are more and more sucked in the spiral of revenge and violence from which there is no way out.Because it is essentially a matter of survival and the stakes are very high.Avner,the main character gradually turns into a killing machine.But all this comes at a price-and it is huge!!!He becomes paranoid,loses his friends,alienates himself from his family.Yes,this is war-a bloody,merciless war on both sides.And what is worse is that war spreads far and wide turning Europe into a Iraeli-Palestinian battlefield. The scenes of murder are really hard to bear.But they are not there for violence's sake,they make a point.In this way it is justifiable to have such graphic violence shown. There are some shortcomings such as Avnir's dreams of the murder of the athletes mixed with his having sex with his wife-I didn't like this-it was superficial.But some scenes are wonderful-when he hears the voice of his baby-daughter on the phone,when he sadly watches the kitchen through the shop-window:a symbol of home and domesticity which he misses so much.Or when one of his victims,not knowing who he is offers to give him sleeping pills seconds before being blown up. Ultimately the film is very depressing because it becomes painfully clear that no solution will come soon.There were(and are)too much hatred,too much bitterness and violence.

This TV-series have managed the almost-impossible namely to make a film that is extremely funny,serious,even philosophical at times,AND realistic.This is nothing short of a feat in nowadays movie-production.The lives of wisteria lane are so intertwined and nothing is what it seems.All four housewives have strong individuality,they have their good and yes,bad,features,they are just normal human beings.I like the film immensely,especially the behind-the-scene comments.Many phrases and conversation exchanges have stuck to my mind because of their originality and wit.Kudos to the producers of the film!!!