Reviews

This film although is not perfect, achieves its goal, which I think it is to open the difficult conversation about the death penalty, the punishment of the state, the people that are about to be executed even if the charges are false or in question.

Even if there is no happy end, we see a transformation happening inside each and every one of the protagonists, everyone for different reason.

The lawyer, although optimistic until the very last minute, is ready to give up, because as it is being stated in a conversation, he can't change the world.

We have a really splendid performance from the prisoner Woods, one that can make us imagine how it is like for the real death row prisoners, not to have the option to live, even if you they are innocent, to be hopeful, to want to escape from the injustice that is being inflicted upon them but without having the right to do so.

Our female protagonist is at the same time an observer and a witness. A witness of this prison system that used to be her own profession and everyday occupation.

We know as a fact that many of the prisoners that have been executed or are in a death row in USA are often convicted falsely. We know also as a fact that this law, this irreversible act of taking a life, is striking on minorities (Latin, Asian and Black people, and also natives).

There is police injustice and there is prison injustice everywhere. In our film it is being depicted when we finally realize that Woods is not the one that killed the officer. Nevertheless, no one seems to care if this is the truth or not, nobody that works in the prison department. Also, there is a dispassion on our protagonist's face until the very last shot, when she finally wonders whether or not this act of violence towards a human being is somehow excused. She is devastated and we know she will be hunted from their figures, the men that died in the death sentence.

Even if the film is not taking sides about the abolition of prison or what's more, the abolition of the death penalty, it somehow...does.

Abolish Death Penalty because it does not succeed to achieve the goal for a better society. It takes away innocent human lives, and haunts the living.

I would rather have rated this film a 7/10. The ending melted my heart. All the answers we need are being given to us at the last five minutes. A difficult relationship between a father and his anorexic daughter, after the death of her mother and its catalyst: a "charismatic" therapist who has lost her child and has the ability to communicate with the dead. It seems to be a journey to contact with a dead person and it ultimately leads to forgive each other and reunite. It is certain, after all, that they'll never walk alone, again. The acting of the daughter in the last scene is staggering, without movements, nor dialogue, she only succeeds it with her facial expressions.

Melina Leon's feature directorial debut Song Without A Name (Canción Sin Nombre) screens in Directors' Fortnight and is the first film by a female Peruvian director to play in Cannes. In general, films that are focused on indigenous people, not in a Hollywood-like fictional presentation, have always been a bit on the back burner of cinema. The film portrays the indigenous culture of the impoverished Peruvian people in a realistic, informative light and is a moving portrayal of a serious situation encountered in indigenous (and other) communities. This film's existence is very important because it presents a story and a thematic that is rarely arguable in cinema, the stealing of indigenous people's children. In our case, the mafia with the complicity of Peruvian judges stole indigenous women's babies and sold them abroad for profit. Our story is being filmed from the point of view of our main character, Georgina. The film can be subjective and at the same time neutral at the political situation, but never without clever hints. We are aware that this kind of human trafficking continues to this day, but we are failing to acknowledge that this was happening on a massive scale in the minority groups of indigenous people, all across the American continent. This international incident continued for years, but people never were vindicated from this heinous and unjust crime. Newcomer and activist Pamela Mendoza plays Georgina, an Andean woman whose baby is stolen at a fake clinic in the late 1980s. The story takes place against the backdrop of the government's fight against the Shining Path guerrilla group. Director Melina Leon says that the spate of baby thefts happened in 1981, but because she was too young to remember she chose that the story should take place in 1988. She says that there were hundreds of them who were stolen and sold in Europe.

Directed by Dagur Kári, this masterfully done 2003 film is a compelling, dark comedy and in my opinion one of the best Icelandic films ever made, taking into account that it is the director's first feature film. It is slow, but it never gets boring and I believe it achieves everything it sets out to, which is an overwhelming feeling of futility and nihilism. The oddball, Nordic humour counterbalances the mundane existance of living in such a remote place. It is certainly a triumph of mood over plot and due to the fact that, the heart of the film lies with Noi and his plight it could be described as an coming of age film.

The major key element of this film is the cinematography, gloomy and ominous shades of blue with sometimes contrasting colors or motives (for example when Noi spills all the red blood on his father and grandmother, or when he sits in his living room, next to a palm tree wallpaper), which make the indoor spaces look imaginary or, even more, cheesy in an amiable way. Secondly, I must say that the music soundtrack stands out throughout the film, completing the whole concept of the subtle desperation and sorrow that absurd adult world causes to Noi.

We could say that this film is character based, not plot driven because the narration is completely attached to our main character, Noi. Our story, Noi's story, takes place in rural Iceland. We, as viewers, follow Noi in his everyday life and one can feel the sense of being trapped: by ice and snow, by no opportunities, by tradition, by his sad family. Nói is an oddity in a land of oddities, he dreams of escaping to the warmth of a Hawaiian life. He's bright, but never in school, and his tiny remote town is boring him to death. It seems that he is harmless but also a pain in the ass for his relatives and town's older inhabitants. All his attempts to escape seem to fail, and then a cruel twist of fate leaves him even more isolated than before. This is being pointed out, especially at the end of the film, where we find our protagonist completely alone. Nói shooting at huge icicles with a shotgun, and later, digging a grave in a snowstorm, were particularly arresting images, containing the feeling of loneliness in such a landscape where nature, sometimes, defines your own life.

Starting rather realistically, the film gets more allegorical as it unravels and the twist at the ending leaves you with many thoughts about what happened or what it might means. After he is told by the town tea leaf reader, "You will be surrounded by death.", all the people Nói had some contact with are suddenly gone. The avalanche turns out to have killed a mere 10 people. Is he to blame? Did any of his previous actions triggered this incident? If we want to make a deepening, this film is all about possibilities. It is a journey that comes to an end, a cold, tragic, but perhaps liberating story. Whatever we do, can we ever escape fate? In the very last image, we face the view of one particular Hawaiian slide Noi used to look at: the scenery of a beach with white sand, palm trees, and the gentle sound of waves is slowly coming to life. Here, the touristic postcard cliché landscape becomes a symbol with many meanings. Has his dream come true? Have his thoughts or expectations acquired existence?

Im Lauf der Zeit is a three hours long film but if you follow the journey of the two main characters, it never gets dull. On the contrary, when we are close to the end of their story, there is a sad feeling that their journey is going to be continued separately now. Wenders in one of his interviews has said that this film along with Summer in the City , Alice in the Cities, Kings of the Road and the State of Things are a group of more personal, subjective films. Each one of these films are about people that travel and they are exposed to unfamiliar situations. Each one of the protagonists are sometime obliged, through observation, to see things with a different way. With the King of the Road, Wenders had the opportunity to explore Germany and he worked completely free when it comes to the script and the construction of the story. He used to write the scene, the night before the shooting and he was exploring the possible ends of the film. The characters, the scenary and the context in which he created the narration, led him to the end of the film. This film is about a route and the relationship between two men that are strangers to each other. What could possible happen between them? One of them is occupied with fixing cinema equipment, travelling nearby the borders of Germany, in small towns or villages. The other, has broke up with his wife, and has left behind a bad relationship with his father, too. According to Wim Wenders this is a film dedicated to male friendship. This story brings together two strangers, lost in the swiftness of the world, that are meant to be travel companions as the time goes by. There is also a difficulty from their side to create relationships or to be with women. That, of course, does not display a homosexual side, rather a difficulty of creating a love bond with someone, to be with someone, to give, to stand in one location, to not escape time. After all, this relationship between Bruno (Rüdiger Vogler) and Lander (Hanns Zischler) might comes to an end but it is based on absolute freedom and true companionship, without labels, names or past being a factor in it. I loved the soundtrack of the film in combination with the wide black and white scenery shots of roads and countryside, because it reflects these feelings of being a travelling soul, without plan, without expectations, able to capture the beauty of unexpected situations.

Everything in this documentary seems to fit except one thing. At the end of the film, friends of Aaron get to answer how was it like when they found out about Aaron's death. The documentary does not comment on his "suicide act". Instead, the film crew and the participants on the interviews reffer to it like a true event, like this is how it happened. I do not believe it makes sense. I do not believe that Aaron had any reason to kill himself, on the contrary a court case like that would be a critical moment for the government. His case must be examined thoroughly and for me his death raises obvious suspicions. He appears a victim of capitalist greed. His open access advocacy had to be silenced and what better way than by making murder look like suicide. There was no private autopsy and forensic examination done and we know how prosecutors notoriously lie, plus medical examiners and the media help them. I am concerned about this film because, out of the blue they just announce to the viewer that some days before his court and after he had refused to agree with the government's conditions so he can avoid years in jail, that means he had to PLEAD GUILTY FOR FRAUD, he took his life. It just does not fit. Something is missing from the story, a piece of hidden truth maybe?

I managed to watch Yallah! Yallah! at its screening premiere in STUDIO ART CINEMA, one of the most famous and oldest cinemas in Athens, Greece. I knew that a previous screening premiere in Austria was cancelled, because of the film's "critisism" on Israel. At the end of the documentary, I was very pleased to see one of the two directors of the film, Cristian Pirovano, discussing about the journey to Palestine and the difficulties he faced during the shooting of the film. Directed by Cristian Pirovano and Fernando Romanazzo, the 2017 feature is an Argentinian-Palestinian co-production that was shot during the years of 2014-2015. This documentary focuses on the story of seven characters, which are connected to the world of football in one way or another. Through their daily lives, we get to know their bond with the sport, their activities and the problems they have to face due to the occupation by Israel. Even though they are constantly affected by Israel's subjugation of Palestine, they manage to survive and endure all sorts of issues in order to enjoy one of their biggest passions: football. Fortunately, the film has been screened in dozens of cities worldwide and, as a result, the viewers who are not capable of even considering possible the conditions of the Palestinian everyday lives, get to know the difficulties, the arrests of the football players without reasoning and the daily humiliation they receive. I hope this film will be a factor in raising awareness about the crimes and injustice that the state of Israel is doing to Palestinians until this day. This documentary is a piece from a much bigger puzzle of exploitation and abuse that most of the time is successfully covered.

Directed by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, in brief this film is about a guy who's addicted to porn. I watched this film and, even if I was prepared for an American-usual cliche love story, I was enthusiastic with how Levitt used all the cliche elements to build a solid, funny, ironic, story about true-life events and situations. This film does not only speaks about relationship matters and male/female expectations in their sex lives, but also about family structure and bonds, that plays crucial role in the understanding of one's sexuality, and that create the role model of the young people (Jon and his sister in this case). Another thing this film critisize is how 21st century people, work out strictly to be perfect, or dress up sexy, searching for perfection they deserve in the other sex. All in all, these relationships are superficial, showy and false. (Near the end, Jon goes on the gym and when he watches some basketball players playing basket, decides to stop being a perfectionist with his body image, and goes freely to enjoy a team game.) Also, what Joseph Gordon-Levitt wanted to show, I think, was that the powerful and obsessive sensation of porn is being destorted AFTER the most important acquaintance, the one with Julian Moore, a not so role model female figure. The scene where Jon and Esther have sex, in her house, is the moment where he truly accept something different and FEELS something different. Esther and Jon are the two opposites, but in some way, one can complete the other, and most of all help him be, not on the one sided place.

Last week I watched this documentary. I have a very negative opinion about the people who made this documentary and the people who promoted it. I was looking for a documentary or a film by David Crowley himself and his crew, instead, I watched a documentary with the same title as his movie was going to have and a plot that lead from the beginning to the result that he did kill his family and himself. It is quite annoying that the director and producer used the title of the movie that he was going to make, "A Gray State". Why would they do this? It is a different film, it is a documentary, to put this exact title is misleading and unacceptable, when in fact they attack his own personality and daily life. Disturbing is the fact that, whoever is behind this documentary had full access in his personal diaries, personal moments with his family, personal discussions with his wife or his kid. Even if this is the most useful part of this film, because we get to know more detail about how he worked and how he LOVED THEM DEEPLY, the content is not objectively put into the plot. They want to design throughout different stages of his life, the portrait of a crazy man. But that is it. They want it but they do not achieve it. This documentary has huge gaps, and from beginning until the middle has a steady pace, giving us sigh of the behind the scenes from his production of the film. We see how he thinks, how he wants to bring his movie to life. We see that he encourages people to know about the government of America, he speaks of how he thought of army and what made him change his mind, irreversably. David Crowley is honest. He admits he killed people, he admits he was in the battle field "defending" his country. He has seen the truth and wants to do something about it. He is BRAVE. Every man or woman that speaks in the film about him, speaks words of kindness, they say how perfectionist he was and how he would help others. We can understand a person, from the way he acts and the way he talks. He seem to be conscious about everything, he has understand how he should stand up against the injustice he has experienced. TRUTH coming out from simple people IS ALWAYS irritating for the ones that want to keep people sleeping and being numb. He speaks about how American government uses its soldiers, he speaks about the marcial law and how they want to pass it without anyone noticing it. He speaks about the huge distance between the elite and the society, the weak and the ones in power. He refers to a New World Order. It is no secret they killed them all. They gave us a photo of ALLAH AKBAR written in the wall, and a diary oddly put infront of the scene of murders and they're done with it. Again, the terror of the muslim, but what muslim is that, when both David and his wife where Christians? He had a huge desire to get this movie done. His wife and his daughter were his biggest supporters. Suddenly, when he announce that he will make this film, many people are getting interested, many people ask for this person to be one voice of hope in this dark present times. He is excited, he has his film crew, his wife helping him with everything, his friends believing in him. He makes public speach and shows a trailer of the film that he made without many money, so he can raise the amount of money he needs to make it happen. THE AMOUNT OF MONEY IS there, he has all the help to make it real feature film. THE TRAILER OF THE FILM IS EVERYWHERE, in every social network. People see it, speak about it, it goes viral. ........ Suddenly, something happens. David and his family isolate themselves from their friends, their families. The production stops slowly to proceed. They are staying together into their house and they seem to be worried about something. Again, they are together, working inside the house.

I am feeling the need to write something about this film. In terms of cinematography, there are three basic elements that make this feauture quite brilliant.

First of all, the movie is at least two hours long, making it almost impossible to shoot with one take. Unbelievably, with numerous changing locations and the camera following the main characters all the time, director achieves it. He certainly creates a chilling and fiery atmosphere while we get to know Victoria, Sonne, Boxer, Blinker and Fuß. We are with them along their journey between everyday life and their dramatic "adventures" and that feeling emanates from camera on hand and long take troughout the whole film.

It also results from the amazingly naturalistic way of their conversations -sometimes German, sometimes English- and their way of getting to know each other, their way of having fun walking in the streets of Berlin at night time. The realistic and improvisational dialogue between Victoria and her new German friends, creates the proper ground for the viewer to be absorbed by this massive story.

Lastly, I strongly believe that these exact series of events -the first meeting, the connection and the unfair ending of this relationship- is something real, something that can happen, under certain circumstances. Victoria is a simple story about one night in Berlin and the day after. However, the way that this story becomes so real, so intense, so significant is because the plot is so well-put together. We let ourselves travel with Victoria, have fun and take the most difficult decisions about our -and her- survival.

This greek film moved me deeply like no other film of this particular cinematic era in post-war Greece, more specifically the years between 1950-1960, the golden years of Finos Films and the greek cinema. Director and actor Alekos Alexandrakis, made this film because he wanted to speak through it, to communicate his thoughts about some truths that had to do with his own country and the people living in it. In contrast with the majority of greek films in the fifties, which were mostly succesful comedies with very good cast and some romance or humorous plots, Alexandrakis rejects all the typical approaches in a story that is true, innovative and very close to the real environments and situations taking place in the film. Also, the camera techniques, frames and the atmosphere is very powerful and promising, reminding us the characteristics of Italian Neorealism cinema. One great achievement is the collaboration between Alekos Alexandrakis (director), Tasos Livaditis (theatrical writer and poet) and two great personalities in the area of music production, the musical composer Mikis Theodorakis and singer Grigoris Mpithikotsis. The song that plays along the movie, is an overwhelming experience that makes us feel the anti-heroes's emotions and desires. The story is that Rikos, an ex-prisoner, returns to his old neighborhood, one of the poorest and underpriviledged areas in Athens. He, then, faces life as it is, when his old lover, Stefi, has become friendly with some rich but hollow men in her try to escape from poverty and isolated home. Also, his two friends, Nekroforas, Stefi's father and Asimakis, face the same difficulties in this abandoned and unprosperous location. Alekos Alexandrakis made only two films in his whole life, Synoikia to Oneiro and another one as co-director. This film has some sad events behind it and that is why it is such an important document in greek film's history. This one, along with some other very special and different from the usual films, like Drakos (director Nikos Koundouros) and movies like Stella or To Koritsi me ta Maura (director Mixalis Kakogiannis) are more raw, critical to society and unacceptable from the politics of the country at the time. Censorship and political parties destroyed the film of Alexandrakis, so much, that he said he did not connect with it, after all. He invested all of his money to this unique film making, because his desire was to unveil the unfair situation that refugees from catastrophe of Middle Asia were living everyday, isolated from the rest of the people as pariah and social outcast. Even though, the film we watch is not the one Alexandrakis edited -and that is a great casualty-, it transfers us a certain emotion. The way that noble people decide to be decent, with an uncertain smile in their hearts.

I give 10/10 to this documentary, although I don't think it was as revealing as it could be. However, I really believe it was an important contribution to the area of documentaries, an honest work and a risky project too. The framework of this documentary is this: We are introduced to some young men that used to be actors in television or films from a very young age, at the same time we experience how did they got into the hollywood industry. Also, we hear their parents speaking, and describing the way that some well-known, rich men in the industry came very close to these children and in their families, present themselves as "trustworthy" friends. The film is based on interviews and some backtrack scenes which help us understand what happened in certain moments, when their managers, producers, became their predators. The film exposes some of these powerful men, who in their case are already accused of sexual abuse in the past. This documentary is a moment of truth, revealing the true identity of Hollywood and those who control it. Of course it is mentioned that this is only the tip of the iceberg. What does this mean? That it happens so often, so regurarly that is part of the job, it is part of the Hollywood price. It means its scale is countless. We can only refer to exploitation, abuse, rough treatment and fear only with one phrase: it's an OPEN SECRET. What has been a true surprise and an ideal ending scene, is the phone dialogue between the child actor's manager and the young man in the other line of the phone. In the end of the day, justice does not sentence the real criminals. They sentence justice to non-existence.

The 1990 motion picture of Dimos Avdeliodis, Niki tis Samothrakis, is a respectable and notable feature film that encloses so many positive elements in the way that the story is revealing itself. This is one of the few greek films that its creative writing and directing gives us a different insight of events, with references to the silent films and peculiar accounts in the lives of workers of Piraeus. Two brothers from the island of Samos open a steel manufacture shop in Athens. Next to them, a resident of the island Samothraki opens a vehicle bodies repair shop. Soon enough, a conflict begins between the two of them that will be passed on their grandchildren. The film has not the typical greek humor, but rather it reminds us movies like Delicatessen- also in means of coloring and lighting-, maybe some black humor scenes from the Coens Brothers or sometimes even scenes from Buster Keaton's films-silent short films with delicate and witty humor. There is also the reference of the movie title and the greek sculpture Niki tis Samothrakis which is now exhibited in the Louvre Museum in Paris. Imagination and reality are interacted when some beautiful girls are observing the men or running or hover in the air, sometimes naked, sometimes with ancient-like clothes, or with the wings of the sculpture Niki tis Samothrakis, at the very end of the movie. These female figures reminds us the greek mythology, more specifically, the Nymphs. It is saying that they were female fairies who were depicted as humble figures with modest clothing, occasionally naked. They were living in nature, and their parents were some of the gods. There are also stories about their erotic attitude towards humans.

What I loved most about this film, except its unique protagonists, Cate Blanchett, who plays a powerful woman living the "perfect life" in New York having a child and a successful husband and Rooney Mara, an Audrey Hepburn figure, elegant, innocent and brave, ready to fall in love even if it 'll cost her a lot, is the unique, magnificent photography. The colors, the textures, clothing, everything is excellent, depicting this golden era of New York Times and urban life in New York. I also liked the ending. Director gives us these intense gazes from both sides of the two women and finally, in a Hollywood production, we are not sure of the exact ending of their last meeting together.

Paul Thomas Anderson directed his second feature film called Boogie Nights, at twenty seven years old. This is really something, because from a technical point of view, everything is well-put together. The photography, scenery and lead actors are all great. Even though, the film's running time is almost three hours, the deep development of the characters and the clever plot gives more and more tension to the viewer. The editing of the movie but the story as well, is a mature look on a world which is unacceptable and offensive for many people. You can decide to not judge the strange family of Dirk Diggler but familiarize with them, even like them and maybe, try to understand them. This film refers to the 70s and 80s when the industry of porn was still evolving fast, when film was replaced from videotapes and when people used to watch soft porn movies in public theaters. Even if the last half of the movie is more violent and dramatic, the movie keeps a balance between the possibility of drama and the option of acceptance and conscience.

After reading the book and watching the 1990 version of Lord of the Flies, I watched at last the original first black and white version of the film Lord of the Flies. The story interested me from the beginning, I thought it was fascinating and scary. This film has good pace, some wonderful black and white frames and it follows strictly the line of the book. The basic principle of civilization is being destroyed when an airplane crashes in a remote island and when the children in it take total control of their existence and survival. This film is a character study, which with clever details it helps us understand the different psychological situations of every child's mind. For example, we see Piggy wears his clothes until the end of the film, until the minute he dies. He is one of the most peaceful and logical characters in the island, and also he never becomes violent or savage. We see also, kids which are naked or painted in the face and body, signs of a more rapid evolution in disorder and disobedience.

I only need to say a few words for this film. Beautiful photography, I love the fact that it is shot in black & white. The main characters are very good for their parts- even if Ian's eyes were a strange blue color and actor that plays him have dark colored eyes-, great depiction of England in that time. If the movie is following the exact true events of Ian Curtis's life I understand that he was in love with the reporter Annik but he felt a great responsibility and need to stay with his wife and daughter. Due to this, he may feel that he has failed as a man, husband and father (Natalie hates me, he thinks of her daughter even if she is only one year old) and that he hurts people and he is not happy anymore. Moreover, he faces epilepsy and takes strong medication for that, important factor for his up and downs in his mood, or his rise of depression. He also is afraid that his illness might kill him someday. He is suddenly getting famous all over the continent and he can not manage it very easy. Fans of the band and avid listeners of his songs are violent and demanding (we can see it in the scene where he is not ready to go out and there is another man singing in his place). So, I am following the story of a sensitive man, low-profile, but there is not a sign of depression before all this things happened. So, the cause of hanging himself, after his wife refused to stay with him even if he loves someone else, is still a mystery to me. There are many factors that contributed to his act. But, I guess, we will never find out or solve his one of a kind soul.

Ghost World, maybe Zwigoff's best-known film, is not another shallow or superficial teen comedy movie but it talks about the end of high school and the freedoms of coming of age that every teen is desperately looking for. However, it partially refers to womanhood, with the two main female characters of the film growing up together and making plans for their future adult lives. They don't want to follow the path of their classmates or their parents,as they find them stupid and losers. The music transmits feelings of a certain cosmic melancholy. There are three music tracks that characterize and depict the phases of this film. In the beginning of the movie, there is this Bollywood song of Jaan Pehechaan Ho playing on one's TV. When Seymour and Enid are getting closer and get to know each other, we listen through a vinyl record Devil Got My Woman from Skip James, which is Seymour's favorite song. Enid starts to listens to it many times. There is some kind of sadness in this song that attracts her. Lastly, David Kitay, wrote the main theme soundtrack for Ghost World, which it plays at the end of the film. This last track, reminded me that last scene of American Beauty. Steve Buscemi, Scarlet Johanson and Thora Birch were great in their roles, depicted as interesting, outlandish outsiders that lived in their own "Ghost World". The film is based in a comic book, and we could say that it is a black comedy There are funny things about the main characters but they are tragic in a way. Important thing is that the story is realistic and well-written, the contrast between Thora Birch and Scarlet Johanson in clothing and looks is also fascinating, due to the fact that both girls have a cynical attitude. They are living still in their dreamy world without realizing that they must face the unknown and ruthless world of adults, even if this is separates them severely.

I usually give 1 out of 10 stars in the bad movies. For me this movie is technically good. It has good pace, certainly nice scenery, interesting catchy actors, a nice color palette of gray, brown and dull green colors, as it represents the 70s. Also, it is based in the true events of the experiment held up in the Stanford university in 1971. The movie follows the true incidents in the "prison" space, the ones that happened in this famous university. I have seen the German version (which I think it was the best from any aspect, although I do not know if it is based in the case of Stanford university prison) called Das Experiment, also the American version of this, The Experiment (2010). What I liked the most in the German version and not in the two other American versions of this story, is the basic factor that urged me to rate this with one star. Money can give us a marvelous depiction of something in the technical part. If they (the producers and director) want us to believe in something, they must be perfect in the technical part for the film, so it is smoothly cooperated with our mind. Although in both documentary of BBC and this movie, the creator of this experiment, Philip Zimbardo, speaks about how it happened (he is also co-writer on this film) with details and in a spirited tone, he never seems to accept any kind of responsibility about what he has caused to these students being prisoners for six days under the submissiveness of their guards (students chosen with the flip of a coin). He only became famous, wrote many books and continue to works as a psychologist until today. In the movie, everyone is good in the end. Prisoners after all, will gradually forget what happened to them, and go on with their lives. This wicked treatment from the guards to prisoners, was a real thing. The crew that created the experiment along with Dr. Zimbardo watched this and did not want to stop it. They did not comply with the contract of this job, because they thought it was their right to abuse in such a way these human beings, that were treated after all like objects and nothing more. Americans used to apply these kind of experiments in their content, but also the American Army used to do it in other countries too. Until today, there are happening frightening and severe experiments to humans, experiments that are under the file "Confidential", in secret from the outer world. The U.S. government "was led" to undertake projects whose goal was to understand mechanisms of mass persuasion and the effects of coercion on an individual's self in order to "crack the code of human consciousness. The Stanford Prison Experiment is not a different case. It examined the possibility of destroying an individual's sense of self by attacking his sense of identity. When I said above that everyone is good in the end, I am referring to the fact that in the end of the film, it makes no difference, if director presents us how the good scientist and psychologist will smile to his wife, or how he later in his interview will admit that this experiment was good after all, that it had a deeper meaning after all the tortures, mistreatment and hail of abuse. To me it makes no difference, because I acknowledge that this was a crime and this movie only tries to rationalize it.

Lets make clear that I am not aware of the book that this film was based on, so I am not gonna review the movie all about the book. I am not even sure if it is important if the movie was based on the book exactly the same in every detail. From my point of view, this movie has no flaw. Everything was sticking together very good. The plot was terrific, always on edge, characters and story very well put together, and if I could characterize this film with one word, this would be SUSPENSE. I stopped the movie some times to calm down, I was blown away from the rising tension and in the climax scenes always on the edge of my seat. This film blends together so many elements about the history of this era in Kansas city and in America in general, when development of satanic rituals among teenagers had shocked the news and society. Also, when criminal rates are high enough to let their footprint and create a bloodstained and "dark place" in the citizen's hearts. The unsolved mystery murders of this movie is a riddle that unfolds throughout the whole movie, with exquisite use of flashbacks, sound effects and irresolute but determining character development. For me this movie is undoubtedly 10/10. It is powerful, enigmatic and stunning in a way that will make you think of it some time. After all, this movie is important for one main reason. Its twist will never let you guess what happens, only when you finish the movie, you can finally find redemption through Libby's eyes when she visits for a last time her family home and gets free forever. This is a happy end, without fake drama. It is life itself and even if it had spoken lies in the end rises the truth.

It seems there is a misleading here. This movie is not based on the classic book of Moby Dick, but on the book that was published in 2001, called "In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex". I really enjoyed the movie, but it has nothing to do with the story of Moby Dick. It is a bit of a fraud to be honest. Someone just published a similar story like Moby Dick with another name and of course not the same context (Moby Dick is superior and one of the best books ever) so that they could present us a movie with happy end, likable characters etc. For me, this dishonor the writer of Moby Dick, Herman Melville. The movie moved me and I really enjoyed this story, I loved how nature is depicted and that for once again humans are greedy creatures that do not respect other beings. But that does not change the fact that director wanted an easy movie, and not one that would be based in the ruthless reality about sea, nature and man.

Let's start with the fact that I am really fascinated while I am watching British cinema. I am not completely aware of the political history of this country but I understand that many times the theme of British movies has exceptionally political content, sometimes with great humor, too. I liked Michael Caine in the Batman movies, directed by Christopher Nolan. I thought and still believe that the role of butler- housekeeper was the most suitable for his figure and looks. In this movie the main character repulses me. While I watched the whole movie, I realized that director wants to present us how it is in modern society today to live in the sink estates of Britain, while the main protagonist Harry Brown is living alone and suddenly he loses his male friend Len, who is killed by the gangs of aggressive and violent teens. When Harry was younger he was in the marines at war plus in the movie his wife and daughter are dead, while he is living all alone in a sink estate apartment. In this area, young teens are trafficking drugs for money, girls and often harass people who are just passing by "their" covered walkway. For me this movie was violent enough, and one thing strikes my mind. There is one scene that Mark (Jack O'Connell) gives blow job in his own uncle inside his car. Mark is one of the boys that killed Harry's best friend, Len. The scene where Harry Brown abducts Marky and hits him, hurt me the most, because we can see crystal clear that the family of this child push him more and more in the darkness and the system itself has abandoned him, has destroyed his childhood irredeemable. The violence, the hate, the hostility starts from withing the family bonds and that is the main structure that has to change. But the solution that is given, Harry Brown takes revenge for his friend and seek justice, pays murder with murder, without having any concern or feeling sorry about his manslaughter. The circle goes on again.

Classic Hollywood movie. I only put one star for my favorite actor Jack O'Connell that was great in his small role. This movie show us three specific things: people of television and media are good, police is good, and everyday life will continue to flow even if the system is entirely corrupted. I felt all the time that the film has not a bright or correct message about society or political issues. Also some Illuminati signs may indicate something about people on power, money and our global future. In the end, the "bad" guy said he was wrong, and the "good" guy took the shot.