Reviews

The premise is clever: in a world where nobody can lie, nor knows what a lie is, the potential for a liar is infinite. Since we are all surrounded daily by political correctness, the first part of the movie is hilarious: a world without lies is crude and uncouth. From the moment the protagonist discovers he can tell lies, the story becomes exciting: it makes us wonder, what would we do if we could lie shamelessly and without consequences? Unfortunately, the film doesn't fully exploit its potential, opting for a mild parody of religions and a somewhat unbelievable love story. Especially the love story slows down the pace of the film and sinks it into a boring and unentertaining swamp from which it never recovers. I think the film could have developed its potential better by directing the narrative differently.

This movie nicely encapsulates the chilling sentiment of Lovecraft's cosmic horror, drawing viewers into a realm where the frailty of the human mind is starkly contrasted against the vast and indifferent cosmos.

"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents" sets the tone for a narrative in which human concerns and emotions are rendered insignificant against the backdrop of an uncaring cosmos. Lovecraft's philosophy dismantles anthropocentric worldviews, rejecting the notion that humans hold any privileged position in the cosmic order. He represents a universe where human minds are just adrift in an infinite expanse of chaos, where the search for meaning is an exercise in futility.

Lovecraft's vision may be disquieting, but it beckons viewers to embrace the unsettling truths that lie beyond the confines of human comprehension, confronting their place in the vast and indifferent cosmos, where their existence is just a fleeting whisper in the cosmic wind.

Very nice documentary, well done, well researched, and well put together. While telling the story of an athlete, it also portrays the birth and evolution of a sport, from its humble beginnings as a movement to its recognition as an Olympic discipline. Through the ups and downs in popularity the passion and dedication of the enthusiasts always remained the same. The archive footage is captivating, particularly for someone like me who grew up skateboarding; the footage from the 80s was especially cool and engaging. I believe Tony Hawk is a positive figure, and this story was definitely worth telling. Just watching this made me want to hit the ramp again!

The real charm of this movie is in its setting (Bruges is very picturesque and it's very well used by the director) and Colin Farrell's expressive face. When I first saw it, I was also amazed, but watching it again, its flaws become pretty obvious. The story's full of gaps and things that don't quite add up, and even if you ignore those, it's missing something deeper. And the idea that the characters might be in purgatory isn't all that mind-blowing or original. Overall, it's got a cool vibe, kind of like a medieval fairytale, and it's well-acted and set up, but it's not a masterpiece. If you're not too picky, it's good for a watch, just don't look in it for a deeper meaning it has not.

This might not be the documentary of the year, but it is a much-needed investigation into deep-sea mining. It doesn't really clear things up or give us solutions, but it does get you thinking about the whole deal. Its main drawback is apparent in the limited contributions, with only a solitary marine scientist participating in the discourse. On the upside, the documentary offers captivating underwater visuals of marine life/geology and a commendable soundtrack.

The biggest issue is the relatively superficial exploration of the uncertainties surrounding mineral extraction from the seabed and its potential ecological impacts. A more comprehensive examination, featuring diverse professional perspectives, could have amplified the documentary's depth. The recent decision by the Norwegian government to authorize seabed mining accentuates the relevance and timeliness of these discussions, particularly in the context of global challenges like the climate crisis.

It is commendable just because of the fact that it encourages viewers to scrutinize the actual ecological implications of ostensibly sustainable energy production chains. A reminder that even the supposedly safe harbors might not be so safe. So, are these alternatives actually green, or are we just kidding ourselves? There's no green revolution without batteris and batteries need heavy metals to be manufactures. Overall, it is a cool watch, but it could have taken advantage of more professional insights.

This movie is a whole lot of nothing. The cool atmosphere and style can't make up for the terribly weak plot. Without a decent plot, all that is left for a film without any message or important purpose is just the form. The storytelling is all over the place. The plot is so twisted that I couldn't even enjoy it as a regular detective flick. Personally, I wasn't touched emotionally throught the movie (the characters were just there for some back-and-forth banter) and there were certainly no bigger points being made. The movie says very little of the world, the human condition, the society in which it was set and filmed, or even of the characters it showcases. Certainly it converys very clearly what was considered cool and witty at the time, and rest assured it has lost its original effect after all these years.

Focusing on the form instead of the content (or lack of), the blocking and lighting look slick, while the soundtrack sets the vibe just right. Humphrey's acting is solid too, so at least there's something good to latch onto. But all of this get continously spoiled by the numerous flirtations between Bogart and the various women, making the movie feel outdated and hampering its ability to resonate with a modern audience.

One of the movie purposes is clearly transforming Humphrey Bogart into a sex symbol, as if the director, faced with the challenge of injecting coherence into the narrative, opted instead to breathe life into it through sheer seduction, tossing in as many ladies as possible. Everyone of these ladies seems to be after Bogart - from the smokin' librarian to the bookstore worker, from the two sisters to even a hot female cab driver who literally gets his number for a potential nighttime adventure.

Reading some of the other reviews I noticed that even the fans of this movie admit its plotholes. Does the cool style alone make The Big Sleep worthy of being called a classic in American cinema? No. Perhaps the true legacy of The Big Sleep lies in its ability to lay bare our fascination with Hollywood celebrity culture and romantic ideals. Bogart and Bacall enjoyed a stint as America's golden couple. It's just a shame we can't extend the same praise to the screenplay. Beyond the witty banter, the storyline is a puzzle that doesn't quite piece together.

A light-hearted melody accompanies a breezy bicycle ride along the coastline of Shichiri-ga-Hama. Noriko and Hattori take a bicycle ride to the beach. It's almost as if the two characters aren't moving, as their position within the frame remains constant. This visual idiosyncrasy gives us both movement and stillness, achieved through a dolly shot at the precise speed at which the actors are moving. The ride concludes with the two bicycles parked on the beach, and in the foreground, the two characters find a place to talk while gazing at the horizon. The entire scene exudes a sense of boundless freedom, yet the director artfully reveals that this is, in fact, an intricate illusion.

Same old story: charities profiting from people's struggles with sickness. Whether it's big names like Ferragni and Balocco or small research institutions studying rare diseases, the scheme is always the same.

Does the cheerful image built around breast cancer really help ill women, or does it hide the harsh truth? We still don't know what causes it, treatments haven't changed in 50 years, and survival rates are the same. Where's the donated money going? How's it used? Before you join the next charity run, think about it. Donations often end up in basic science and flawed research models that don't help people. Big institutions, inclluding the health care industry, benefit, and those in it make a living from the funds. The main focus here seems more on cashing in for personal gain. The prevailing notion that a complex problem can be solved by simply pouring money into it is a quintessentially American capitalist mindset, albeit fundamentally flawed.

I am not a Taylor Swift fan, but I was curious to watch this given the high ratings. I went in without expectations and was greatly impressed by the concert, quality of camera work, costumes, set design, and impressive level of crowd participation. For a concert film, the production value is spectacular and credit is due to the excellent direction by Sam Wrench. The dancers here are really talented and she surely is a great live performer. Highly recommended even if you may not consider yourself a Swift enthusiast.

There were a few standout moments for me in terms of songs. Anti-Hero had the best songwriting on display, objectively. Love Story is definitely a good song even if she was tonally flat for a good portion of it. Cruel Summer is a great track. She tapped into something nice there.

However, I can't help but find that her lyrics come across as somewhat corny, often incredibly basic, and her performance feels sometimes unauthentic, never reachinhg greatness. She's having trouble hitting vocal notes for someone who's supposed to be the most powerful pop star right now. Kudos for not using live Autotune, though, like most artists out there right now, or lip-syncing to her own backing tracks.

Set rankings:

1) Anti-Hero 2) Cruel Summer 3) We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together 4) Love Story.

Despite a remarkable performance from Wilson, this is one of the worst theatrical adaptations of Ibsen I've ever seen. The play's subtext is ripped away, its subtle nuances are lost, replaced with poor stage imagery, at times absurd blocking, and some character decisions that are truly ridiculous. Hedda's wardrobe seems entirely divorced from the character's essence and the play's context. The unnecessary tomato juice spit was the final straw. Wilson's performance, while commendable, is overshadowed by the production's numerous shortcomings. Her portrayal of Hedda's inner turmoil and societal frustrations is compelling, but it is ultimately lost amidst the chaos of the surrounding staging.

Two filmmakers spend a season in Iowa making their own corn, exploring the product chain, and learning how practices have changed over time. The documentary is a good watch, pretty enjoyable overall.

It explains very well that the U. S. agriculture policy, which heavily favors corn production, came about as a result of Americans dying of malnutrition in the 1920s and 30s and resulted in the federally-funded deconstruction of the family farm. It also sheds light on the crucial role of agricultural subsidies in sustaining the corn sector. Without these subsidies, the majority of farmers would face financial losses in their corn production.

Peeling back the layers of corn production, the subsidies emerge as a crucial player, shaping not only the very landscape of American agriculture but also what ends up on our plates (and in our hair).

The emptiness of Piero's materialistic life, Vittoria's melancholy in search of a true love that may not exist, the ansiety of Vittoria's mother who plays in the stock market, and the racism in the salons of the well-to-do bourgeoisie are all symptoms of a society afflicted by a profound existential crisis. A society that is noisy and chaotic, in the midst of a boom but marked by a deep existential crisis. Silenced in the soul by an insatiable unhappiness. Men and women alienated, adrift in landscapes devoid of metaphysics and cold architectures. In this tumultuous panorama, where individuals navigate the void of their own existence, the characters embody the disquieting echoes of a society grappling with its own identity crisis. After losing all his money in the stock market, a man draws flowers on a napkin. A poignant reflection on the haunting pursuit of meaning in a world overshadowed by emptiness.

Keep in mind that this documentary is fully founded and promoted by a company specialized in the construction of nuclear reactors (Newcleo). The primary focus of this recently (2021) created organization is to advocate for the construction of new nuclear reactors and to influence energy policies across Europe, such as in Italy, where nuclear energy is presently prohibited.

Newcleo, in the next 7-8 years, plans to develop two reactors in France and the United Kingdom, with a non-nuclear prototype in the study phase in Italy. Additionally, they intend to establish a nuclear fuel factory producing mixed plutonium-uranium oxides (MOX). The concept for the MOX facility emerged after the conflict in Ukraine, driven by the demand for radioactive fuel independent of uranium sourced from Russia, one of the world's major producers. The company will require capital in the range of 3-4 billion euros to accomplish these endeavors. For these reasons, probably, they have produced a documentary to support their cause, shift public opinion on the subject and seek funding.

Throughout the entire duration of the documentary, not a single mention is made of any drawbacks associated with nuclear energy. Is nuclear energy so flawless that it possesses no disadvantages? Not quite. For instance, uranium mining causes lung cancer in large numbers of miners because uranium mines contain natural radon gas, some of whose decay products are carcinogenic. Clean, renewable energy does not have this risk because (a) it does not require the continuous mining of any material, only one-time mining to produce the energy generators; and (b) the mining does not carry the same lung cancer risk that uranium mining does. Additionally, uranium, the fuel for nuclear reactors, is energy-intensive to mine, and deposits discovered in the future are likely to be harder to access. As a result, much of the net energy created would be offset by the energy input required to build and decommission plants and to mine and process uranium ore. Then there's the significant issue of nuclear waste, which is only superficially addressed. New storage systems are being designed, but a completely safe and efficient 100% solution has not been found yet.

I am not against nuclear energy, but I would like to hear a more impartial and objective perspective on the topic, or at least hear the opposing viewpoint before drawing my conclusions.

This flick offers a better, more realistic twist on the Bonnie and Clyde narrative. Malick's poetic direction and hauntingly beautiful cinematography elevate this crime drama, creating an immersive experience that delves into the complexities of insanity and rebellion. The film's stark portrayal of its protagonists' journey and its evocative landscapes set it apart. The vast and hauntingly beautiful backdrops become integral characters, adding depth to the narrative and making it an unforgettable visual journey. Watch it on a big screen and enjoy the landscapes. Definitely one of the best criminal odysseys ever put on film.

This film's conclusion is unconventional and unexpected. Instead of neatly tying up loose ends and providing a clear resolution, as I would have anticipated and desired, the movie left me with more questions than answers. This deliberate artistic choice reflects the film's exploration of uncertainty and the blurred lines between reality and illusion, no doubt, but I didn't find it enjoyable.

The final scene of a seemingly random and bizarre tennis match on a roofless court is one of the film's most iconic moments. It serves as a visual metaphor for the film's exploration of the absurd and the breakdown of traditional narrative structures, challenging conventional expectations of storytelling and narrative coherence.

The open-ended nature of the finale allows for a wide range of interpretations, and the movie has been hailed as a profound work of art precisely because of its departure from traditional narrative logic. However, it has simultaneously become a polarizing film. While some viewers appreciate its avant-garde and experimental qualities, others, like me, find it perplexing and unsatisfying.

Stumbled upon this never-ending, mind-numbing tale of marital bliss turned marital misery! Could this sorry excuse for a union have been salvaged through the pitter-patter of tiny feet? Alas, we shall never know. Eighty excruciating minutes pass, and what do we get as the grand finale? A feeble change of heart, lacking any semblance of conviction. Not a hint of surprise on his face either. Mr. Nonchalant over there doesn't bat an eye. The story is tucked between fleeting glimpses of the captivating beauty of Naples and its surroundings. Oh, what a treat it must have been to film extensively from the confines of a luxurious car! Truly a masterclass in sleep inducement in retrospect. Let's face it, without those picturesque distractions, this would've been just another yawn-inducing tale of marital monotony. Nothing to write home about, just another entry in the never-ending anthology of real-life relationship disasters.

Making a comedy about the Holocaust is a risky and challenging endeavor, but not impossible. Films like Jojo Rabbit have demonstrated that it is possible to use humor to explore the darkness of this historical event. However, Life Is Beautiful fails miserably in this regard. Yet, the comedy aspect of the film is not the most significant issue at hand.

The film's most disturbing aspect occurs in the final moments, when an American soldier appears in front of the protagonist out of a tank. This twist is significant for anyone familiar with the true story of the Holocaust, as it presents a completely false depiction of the events that occurred. In reality, Auschwitz was liberated by the Red Army, not by American soldiers.

The fact that this film, considered one of the best movies ever made about World War II, presents a completely inaccurate version of history to millions of viewers is a disgrace to the people who fought and died during this tragedy. Furthermore, it undermines the historical authenticity of the film. It is frustrating that this inaccuracy was likely included in the movie to appeal to the Oscar jury and win the award, rather than to maintain historical accuracy. Life Is Beautiful did not deserve to win an Oscar or any other award. The acting is subpar, and the story is overly saccharine and sickeningly sentimental.

The film's portrayal of human suffering is nauseatingly saccharine, and it's infuriating that many people learn about the Holocaust from such an inaccurate depiction. Life Is Beautiful is one of the biggest disgraces in movie history, and it is a disservice to the millions of people who suffered and died during this tragedy. We must strive to remember the Holocaust accurately and honor those who experienced its horrors by promoting truthful and respectful depictions of this dark chapter in human history.

If you don't care about scientific accuracy, don't mind digesting some political propaganda, and aren't looking for deep character development (some of the choices are very cliché), then this is a good-looking sci-fi flick to spend a few hours.

I particularly enjoyed the artificial intelligence sub-plot and found it very relevant. I just wish they would have delved deeper into this subject and spent less time on the moon bombing. The scene after the closing credits raises more questions than answers. Is he living in an alternate reality?

As expected, the special effects are well done. Surprisingly, the acting was really good. Even the extras didn't make me raise my eyebrow once. It lacks rhythm sometimes, and some parts of the movie are disjointed, but all in all, I would recommend giving it a chance, if only to experience a departure from the typical Western-style sci-fi films where Americans save the world.

The British setting fails to bring the same quality and emotional depth to this film as the original. The story does not quite fit into the British world, as the characters and plot were originally designed to be Japanese, with the unique peculiarities of that society. This transplant causes a clash that undermines the authenticity of the story. In contrast to the original black and white film, this color version lacks the same magic and beauty. What was once an existential and reflective exploration of the human condition comes across as pretentious and predictable in this remake. While Bill Nighy's performance is commendable, some of the supporting characters fail to do justice to the story. Despite being almost 40 minutes shorter than the original, this remake feels much longer and lacks the soul and energy that the original film embodied. Ultimately, this remake is forgettable and adds nothing of value to the original work.

An honest look at how cow farming works in the first world. No commentary, no agenda, as little interference as possible. Each viewer can watch with his own eyes and make up his own opinion about the topic. This documentary portrays a civilized farm, so take in consideration that in most of the farms around the world life for cows is much worse. Also consider that the farm owners/workers might have slightly changed their behavior knowing they were filmed. Having said that, it looked to me quite honest and genuine. I liked the absence of sentimentalism and the close portrait of farm cows. I'm a consumer of milk and cheese, but at the same time I love animals and cows. Is there something we can do that reconciles the two?

Leonard Bernstein is among my favourite Mahler interpreters and I was not disappointed by this production. Apart from the 9 completed symphonies this set includes Das Lied von der Erde and the Adagio from no.10, but none of the completed versions of the tenth, which Bernstein never recorded (nor I suspect conducted).

The DVDs are from live performances given in the 1970s and the picture shows its age in places, though the sound is very good for its vintage. This was Bernstein's golden age: the fiery young man had matured, but not to the level of some of the extended tempi that spoiled some of the recordings from his last decade. It is also worth noting that these performances were not conceived as a complete cycle, so were not performed chronologically, nor are they all with the same orchestra, though the Vienna Philharmonic has the lion's share. That they were not a noted Mahler orchestra at the time (despite the composer having been their conductor when he wrote most of these) is remarkable, that they did not initially respond to Bernstein's sometimes heart on sleeve way with Mahler is well documented, but in the end he won them round and the performances are mostly at least very good.

The 2nd is the famous performance from Ely Cathedral with LSO, shown at the time on British television. The setting does compromise the sound recording, but this is more than made up for by the fact that Bernstein is one of the few conductors to observe Mahler's instruction at two points in the finale for the soprano soloist initially to be part of the chorus, only later 'softly standing out', rather than being a soloist from the start. Mahler meant this and wrote it in the score, and it works so much better when it is observed.

It is a shame that the 7th is given with its internal movements in the order scherzo - andante rather than the other way round but this was quite common at that time, albeit now largely discredited.

The bonuses are well worth watching too. Bernstein is a great teacher (see also his Harvard lectures).

Magnificent and superbly transposed at times, it fails to reach masterpiece status in its entirety. Here and there it left me astonished, but in the intervals between these parts it felt a little bit cold, emotionless. It surely helps to know the story beforehand, at least roughly. The first chapter struggles to engage, but the latter ones improve significantly. The finale is a little bit too patrioctic, but if you don't mind digesting some Soviet propaganda, the moral message is good and still relevant. I was impressed by the camera work and some of the cinematographic choices. Overall, a good movie, great in some parts.

As someone from Torino, I was interested in watching this movie, but unfortunately, I found it to be poorly written and directed. The subplots felt rushed and often unresolved, and the heist itself was unrealistic and laughable. The humor was lacking, and the car chases were outdated, undermining the only potential redeeming factor of the film. The only positive aspect for me was seeing how my city looked fifty years ago, but even that was ruined by the unrealistic portrayal of the city's geography. Scenes that were supposed to take place far apart were shown as if they were right next to each other, with cars traveling between them in a single cut. The humor, too, was uninspired and did little to elevate the overall quality of the picture. Overall, I would advise to avoid this movie for all of the aforementioned reasons.

Recently, I watched Good Will Hunting (1997) starring Matt Damon and Robin Williams. Overall, the acting was well-executed, with all actors delivering solid performances. In particular, Matt Damon shone in his role, while Robin Williams convincingly portrayed the empathic psychoanalyst. The cinematography was unremarkable but didn't detract from the story.

However, I found the script problematic. It contained many harmful messages typical of 1990s Hollywood and pretended to be realistic while promoting a false moral. My criticism focuses on the character of Will and his storyline. The main issue was the unrealistic portrayal of Will's genius, from his exaggerated arrogance to his sudden mastery of complex subjects like mathematics and chemistry. The movie implied that his genius was innate rather than the result of dedicated study and practice, which is unrealistic. For instance, in one scene, Will compares himself to Beethoven and Mozart, implying that they were able to play without any practice. This message is incorrect because both Beethoven and Mozart devoted countless hours to perfecting their craft. The fact that Will can excel at subjects so different and far away as Mathematics and Chemistry can't be a gift of nature. The only way to achieve this level of expertise is through practice and study. How can Will, a very young kid that spends his nights at the bar and his days on construction site, know more than a professor that has dedicated his life to the subject? Throughout the movie we are never shown Will studying or exercising or practicing Mathematics.

It's necessary to go through formal learning to understand Mathematics. In this movie, however, an extremely genius teenager easily freestyles the field of Mathematics. In a dialogue, Professor Lambeau examines the work of the genius boy, and says: "I see you used Maclaurin here." And Will replies: "Yeah, I don't know what you call it, but...". This is pure manipulation. The writers of this film deceive the uneducated audience giving a perception of Mathematics so far away from what it really is. I'm not saying people can't excel at something without a college education, but fields like Mathematics and Chemistry require countless hours of practice, complicated instruments and laboratories (especially for Chemistry). In a later scene Will conquers the young girl solving her Chemistry problem, showing apparently better skills at Chemistry than a pre-med student. Finally, I didnt really like either the ludicrous and totally out of touch way the university world was represented.

I know very little about Psychology, but I'm wondering if the way Damon and Affleck have dealt with this topic could be as accurate as the way they approached Mathematics. The movie suggested that all traditional psychologists are incompetent and that a special, unconventional psychologist was needed to treat Will's problems. What really surprised me, however, was the way Will's problem was solved suddenly in a single scene (very well acted by the two leads, I have to admit). However, psychological problems are not solved easily and quickly, as the movie suggests. It takes a lot of time, effort, and often involves relapses. Psychology is not magic.

A better comparison to this movie would be A Beautiful Mind (2001), which portrayed mathematics and psychology more realistically. It conveyed the message of overcoming difficulties with dedication and commitment, while Good Will Hunting portrayed genius as a magical gift.

By contrast, Good Will Hunting approaches these same topics in a way that feels closer to the fantasy world of Harry Potter. How to explain the acclaim this movie receives? The public likes stories about aberration and Will is aberrant, to the point that it seems like magic to a normal person who struggled through calculus in high school. The public likes the idea that humans can diverge from normal development so much that it seems superhuman. I can appreciate this concept in a fantasy or super hero movie, but I found it off-key in this movie. All in all I found the portrayal of genius and psychology in this movie unrealistic and misleading.

The story presented to us here is very simple and seen many times already in countless other movies. The plot follows a rather straight line without excessive complications, everything is quite predictable from the beginning. There are no major flaws, but the unpretentiousness of the plot and the simplicity of the characters makes the viewing tedious for adults. That's exactly why the "coming-of-age" of the village thanks to a young, underestimated protagonist feels a little too fast and sudden. The clash between the two factions is solved a bit too easily with the introduction of a third enemy, bigger and scarier, but unlikely. Without going into the details (the relationship between the dragons and the giant dragon is never explained), the death of the giant dragon is too easy, considering how frightening it was for the other creatures. The relationship between the protagonist and the father and the one between the protagonist and the blonde girl could benefit from a more detailed and credible development. The finish is perfect to make a very young audience happy, but objectively it feels too simple and forced. As for the animation, nothing exceptional, but nice enough to look at. There is no doubt that all this simplicity, which reduces the pleasure for adults, makes this film very suitable and enjoyable for children.