Reviews

This practically blows a lot of the Hollywood historical action flicks of the last 20 years out of the water, Robin Hood and Apocalypto certainly come to mind. If this trend continues, we may turn to Asian productions if we want celluloid action in the future. They managed to get passed the star-hero martial artists action vehicles like Jet Li and Jackie Chan (which were, with few exceptions, unwatchable) and chose to emphasize simplicity and heart, rather than star-power. And it works. Too bad about some cheesiness and clichés which they don't seem to be able to shake off and the fact that the humor element is...well...Asian (I don't identify with it) because it really exceeds most HW action flicks. Not to mention that it probably costs much less to make one of these. Probably Rusell Crowe's and Bruce Willis' fees for one of their blockbusters would cover it....

I missed this one when it came out in 1994 and just saw it recently, and the first thing that came into my mind was: what the hell happened to the movie industry after 2000 ? It reminded me of how raw and exciting movies used to be until like 10 years ago.

To give you an idea of how much spunk this movie has, let's see what it crams beautifully in some 90 minutes: 1.A slice of New Zeeland (Maori) life, both urban and rural. 2.A social study of a certain New Zeeland social strata. 3.Great characters (very well developed in a very short time), they stick with you well after the movie ends. 4.A family drama and tragedy. 5.A twisted love story. 6.Action, violence and live music (yes, the actors sing and they do it well). 7.Fantastic photography, great shots. 8.Raw and uncompromising storytelling. 9.Great dialog (even quotable). 10.Great acting from some pretty unknown actors (I mean, there really are no big stars here).

In 1994 this had to compete with Natural Born Killers and Pulp Fiction, among others, and as far as I'm concerned it holds its ground pretty well, even with that monumental competition. It also reminded me that very good movies like this one were just another slice of a great pie in those years, we were so used to great movies that we were not easily impressed. NOW, if there are 3-5 movies worth getting excited per year, I consider myself lucky.

...and when I say reality,I mean just that. A universal reality. I've only been to London once for a concert and I stayed there for 3 days, so I'm not at all qualified to say that this is a slice of proletarian London life, and yet I felt the unequivocal and bland smell of real life right from the first frame.And that's because Gary Oldman manages to capture the universal drama of human life and emotion.He manages that through some really uninteresting dialog, some ordinary issues (poverty,macho-British style,hopelessness,addiction,abuse) and almost no cinematic thrills or gimmicks. The problem is that we are so used to those cinematic artifices that a movie like this one comes across as a flat line on a hospital machine. Not even when we have a climatic scene of Ray savagely beating his wife, I didn't feel terrified or like turning away in disgust because the by then the movie painstakingly tells the viewer that that's how it is and there is nothing to do about it, in other words, you're already emotionally numb and somehow not involved.

Oldman considers this a semi-autobiographical movie. Add to that the way it is presented to us and it sheds some light as to why he's such a gifted, unconventional and unique actor, he clearly takes his energy, feelings and life experience from some unusual places. Absolutely shattering stuff.

I avoided this one for a long time, especially because it had some otherwise obnoxious actors (Gere and Lane) and the new mystery Latin lover type that seems to get all the roles that usually went to Antonio Banderas (Olivier Martinez), and i said to myself: this may be too much superstar mannerism mayhem for me to handle. I was very wrong.

The movie had me mesmerized, and the first sign of awesomeness is a scene where Diane Lane remembers the first sexual encounter with her lover while sitting in a train and she goes through an incredible array of emotions in under 2 minutes, everything culminating with her going to the train lavatory, throwing her underwear and washing her crotch in the sink like some drug dealer getting rid of the evidence...well, let's just say I was really impressed by the whole scene, the dept and the subtlety.

The movie really doesn't miss at all, scene after scene of great human observation and filmmaking. I won't go in any details because the movie speaks for itself.

For me, this movie also had an extra juiciness to it, the fact that all characters are presented incredibly faulty and weak, even the lover's character, who was so sure of himself ends up stupidly dumped in garbage, the husband who was so much in control of his life but ends up cheated upon and doing dumb things and the wife who behaves erratically and ends up being responsible for the whole mess. All characters also do noble things, which have a certain flavor because of their faults, it feels REAL. The script feels REAL.

I laughed my ass off reading some comments here complaining about how the characters motivations weren't clear or real enough. Maybe you didn't get a better look around you or you don't want to contemplate how weird people really are in their actions. But for me it's an indication that this movie bothered a lot of people because it is frank and uncompromising. A great great movie.

Being a fan of war movies and history, I remember watching this one when it came out and be impressed by the production,but feeling guilty about watching and liking it (because the of the biased script and the direction of the movie).The reason I'm commenting NOW is because I noticed, to my surprise, that this movie is used as a reference for a very good and accurate war movie and I want to make some points clear:

1.Where a movie like Platoon was accused of cramming in too many scattered historical events into one story, BHD manages to take one much more simple, recent and better documented event and be incredibly selective and subjectively focused in its depiction. Hence - war porn,we see the actual act in vivid detail,but are treated like retards regarding the why and the how. Nobody is interested in an elaborate script of a porn movie because it is assumed (and rightfully so)that nobody gives a toss.However this is war and history,not a sexual act.And the effect is the same, we get turned on.And whoever doesn't feel guilty about being turned on merely by human slaughter and misery should really start thinking about it. Aren't we supposed to learn something from movies and books instead of just be entertained?

2.I read that Ridley Scott said that he wasn't interested in politics at all when doing the movie.That may be convenient but it's an absurdity,at its best. Surely he must have realized that it would turn into a recruiting tool for the military, just like Top Gun (incidentally directed by his brother). He also must have realized that by not telling the whole story (trying, I mean) he distorts reality to a point where it doesn't become entertaining anymore, it becomes insulting.

3. The funniest and scariest part (just like in Top Gun) is that this is a story about elite forces, people that do this for a living, and yet SO many people identified with the characters. Most men couldn't even hold and shoot a Minimi light machine gun without probably killing their own mates in battle, due to stress and confusion. The friendly fire rate in Iraq and Afghanistan is nearing 40%, that says a lot about even the real training of ordinary troops and yet people in movie theaters eating popcorn or watching the DVD at home on a comfortable couch confuse reality with Call of Duty (VG)...if that doesn't scare the heck out of you, it should.

In conclusion, I would have liked to give a top mark to this one, because the production is really spectacular and it's a guilty pleasure, but thinking about it, it doesn't even deserve a 4/10 because of its sheer irresponsibility.

French director, and French writer (Luc Besson)...and this ???? Take it as an adrenaline action-packed movie and it's great. But the background story is offensive to say the least. Whatever happened to that famous French/European subtlety ? This movie manages to vilify Albanians,Arabs and French and make heroes out of CIA operatives and the US in a way I thought only Rambo could. They probably wanted a action movie with a background moral message, and they succeeded and while doing so, managed to make a caricature out of a very complicated issue (prostitution trafficking in Europe). On top of that, to vilify Arabs from an American point of view NOW, when the US has 2 dubious wars in 2 Arab countries ? I gave 5 points for the childish enjoyment of seeing a good action revenge movie, and took 5 points for a shameless use of serious issues. Hollywood, please grow up.

As soon as the movie was half-way,I immediately said to myself: here we go again,another Dances With Wolves or Braveheart.Again,mythical main characters that ruin otherwise good movies.It must be that when actor- writer-directors have complete control,they go overboard in terms of character credibility and script. In this one,Paul Gross' character is simply too pure.Brave soldier,great commander,a gentleman,all odds against him,c'mon...In addition,the scene in the end is simply too heroic (just like the beginning scene in Dances With Wolves or almost every scene in Braveheart). Of course,the battle scenes and some aspects of the script (like the woman's morphine addiction), plus some beautiful frames makes you watch it,but in the end,WTF comes to mind. All 3 movies that I mentioned needed was a director like Scorsese or Oliver Stone or Sidney Lumet to tell them when to stop and on what to focus.Because as they are,they don't hold very well.

P.S. I wish they would stop portraying German soldiers in both world wars wars like they were mindless morons that ran into machine gun fire.Sure, in WW1 there were mass infantry attacks like that, but in almost every movie they choose the Germans as the "attacking cattle".

I was so prepared not to like this one: it's French, it's about love, and has a certain naive vibe to it (which I felt in Amelie Poulain and in most of the French flicks), somewhat typical of French cinema. However, this one was so good in some ways that it made me even re-think my opinion of Amelie Poulain, Jeunet's best known film. The cinematography,editing and story-telling are fantastic, and the 2 main actors Tatou and Ulliel were incredibly entertaining and spot-on. The war story as background was surprisingly harsh and yet not offensive and gratuitous, just fantastic scenes. I found myself hooked from the very first scene when a soldier in the trenches of WW1 lights a lamp in the early morning hours and the camera then embraces a fantastic view of a the trenches and a battlefield, so poetic and real. Then, I was really pretty much hypnotized until the very end of the movie. But it would be impossible to really do justice to this film by trying to describe it, you'd just have to see it. Anyway, Besson and Jeunet both may just have demolished most of my preconceptions about French cinema.

I know that it is a faux-pas to ask an artist to justify or explain his works, but I think this one makes you wonder if maybe Gaspar Noe doesn't have some explaining to do.The events shown in the movie as such are not over the top.Rape does happen,retaliation does happen,lunacy does happen,extreme cruelty and urban filth sceneries like in the movie do exist.Nothing wrong with that.

Comparisons with other cringe-inducing movies are inevitable,Straw Dogs,Deliverence,Cruising come to mind.However,none of those were...well...so damn "artsy".Those movies and others like it had a human and real vibe to them, regardless how twisted they were.In this one, you get the feeling that you're dealing with a humorless Quentin Tarantino. You realize that you're dealing with a twisted artistic experiment, but to what purpose ? To gross you out ? Check. To induce nausea ? Check. To feel horror ? Check. Well, I could achieve all that by smashing my face against a wall and then look in the mirror.

Judging by the amount of gore in the movie, you may ask yourself if maybe this isn't Gaspar Noe's way to let us experience his fictional self-mutilation. Leaving one scene in the middle of the movie and the very last one aside, there is non-stop violence that would probably be more appropriate for a snuff movie. What the hell is the point of scenes where a man's face and skull are crushed like a melon with a fire hydrant or one of an extremely long depiction of a brutal rape and beating ? Where is the point ? If I'm going to stand being grossed out by a movie, I want a reason. I want to know where the director's feelings are. Irreversible doesn't seem to shed light on any of that, it just purposely shocks you. The reverse chronological order, the sound effects and the hand-held camera stuff may be interesting but so are my hangovers in the morning. In the end (actually the beginning), you find out that all was great and all is lost now. Not really a discovery and not really food for thought, not to mention feeling kinda numb.

In conclusion, this may be a unique and interesting line in Gaspar Noe's, Cassel's and Belucci's resume, but so is a certain underpaid and back-breaking employment in mine. I'd rather deal with my own demons rather than some artist's experimental gore and fetish, if that's all there is to it.And as far as I'm concerned, it is just that. Unless of course you're pervert enough to want to watch Monica Belucci being raped for 11 minutes, which, when I come to think of it, may have purposely been just the right thing to promote this pretentious and artsy flick.

Don't get me wrong,I loved this movie. It's a beautiful and powerful fictional story, beautifully and powerfully told. Incredible job by everyone involved,and this is a very rich movie,it goes everywhere and never misses,and the control and confidence with which it is driven forward by Darabont reminded me of Coppola. It also reminded me somewhat of The Hill,Pappilon,Brubaker which are one of my favorite films about incarceration.Which brings me to my only discontent about Shawshank Redemption: the fact that Andy Dufresne succeeds in solving everything so completely. Revenge,freedom,happiness,reward for his patience and determination, all with one precise blow. And fate somehow cooperates.Well,that's too much for me.The happy ending was nice,but it was a bit too happy.It really goes straight for that pure part of our being that would want everything to be spectacular and complete, which gives us great emotions but ultimately "insults" our common sense.Andy Dufresne managed to beat the system. It took 18 years but he did it. Beautiful but I don't buy that. Makes for a great movie but doesn't leave much room to meditate.However I wouldn't even think of rating this one less than 9 and really deserves top marks. However,looking around me and thinking about my fate and the fate of others and the fate of the world, I see no Andy Dufresne's. I see the warden, I see Red and I see almost all characters but not Andy.He's like Tristan or Heracles to me,and I don't believe in those hero myths.So,almost perfect movie,but I'll make and take a point by rating it 9.

I'm a WW2 and war movies fan.I thought I made that clear from the start.I gave "The Dirty Dozen" and "Platoon" 10 points,and I'm not a particularly indulgent reviewer.So,even though it was directed by Spielberg,which I don't like as a director,I had high hopes for it,simply because I saw the beginning Normandy landing scene in a preview and I was amazed by its force and grandeur.Also the actors were terrific,Hanks,Sizemore,Pepper...But goddamn you Spielberg,you really know how to put poop sauce in our spaghetti,don't you? American flag...American flag...old tear-eyed guy reminiscing...comforting family...American flag...a tombstone...American flag...I GET IT, Spielberg,give me a break....then,nice war scenes in Northern France...and the poop sauce really starts to hit the spaghetti...absolutely unrecognizable German Wehrmacht...now I won't rant about historical inaccuracies and plot absurdities ('though there are plenty),but most of those guys looked like zombies,not German soldiers. One thing is certain: Spielberg has no idea about war, not really.He's talented enough to draw it for us,but shallow enough to be clueless about what it is about.

So, yes, I watched the Normandy landing scene and the end battle scene 3 times...guilty pleasure I guess...and I fast-forwarded all else...including the very end,which was as melodramatic and pretentious and naive as almost the whole picture.

So,4 points for the effort,the actors,the battles...(the spaghetti). The rest was,as I mentioned, poop sauce.

Confused already? No? Well apparently millions of people weren't either,when they declared this to be one of the best movies they've seen in their lives,and then presumably bought a second and third and fourth cinema ticket to see this.I am not one of those people.I was confused.And amused.And pardon me for saying this,but I had to wake up the latent retard in me to be able to enjoy riding flying dragons,some unidentified horse-like hippo,a Jurassic something and a whole world apparently perfect. Well,that bothers me.Nothing is perfect.Even when you're high,you know that you're going to have a hang-over.Those Navi's were so perfect that it made me suspicious.The movie doesn't show this,but i bet they were into something really nasty,like attacking other tribes and raping all the women.And I bet they had their way with those flying dragons.Yes,I'm talking zoophilia with a dragon.Nevermind connecting neuron pony tales,how about connecting some penis and dragon pussy.Disgusted already? Now you know how I felt when watching Avatar.Oh yes,the CGI was ground-breaking.Let's hope next time Cameron just employs hundreds of Indian and Chinese computer programmers to give us Avatar 2, no actors,no common sense,no plot,just a diluted message and just computer generated Navis being perfect in their perfect world.

Coming out in a year full of alien soap opera (Avatar),artistic masturbation (Inglorious Basterds),ridiculous castings and story line (The Soloist) and the same old sequels and remakes of worn out topics like John "Rambo Jesus" Connor, Sherlock Holmes and John Dillinger (haven't seen the last two,but I'm merely pointing out the choice of subject),THE ROAD stands out like a ray of hope for movie-making these days.A simple topic presented with a heart.Decent and powerful performances,CGI used as it's supposed to be used,in the goddamn background.It mainly details the relationship between a father and son,in the most hopeless of circumstances(post-apocalyptic-all resources gone-man turned beast scenario).It works on almost all levels for me,it raises questions,stirs emotions and moves the heart.Viggo Mortensen carries the movie with elegance and dept,without overacting,which would have been easy in the case of this character.For a movie this depressing and bleak,it really left a positive vibe behind.In any case, IT LEFT SOMETHING behind,which is more than I can say about the movies I've seen this year.This movie is one of those happy accidents when (I think) it turned out to be more than expected.Recommended,but I suggest that you live the popcorn and coke aside for this one.With so little food and starving and desperate people in the movie,you may feel guilty afterward.What I mean is,don't necessarily expect to be entertained,this is no variety show.

There is something magical about this movie,it touches you in a very special way,regardless of your personality.Every aspect of the story is so painfully and emotionally identifiable, and this is one big story.There is a certain purity to it,maybe that's why it comes across as such a brilliant movie.It's like a soft summer rain, like a calming whisper, and yet very profound.The director poured his heart out into the movie,and it seems his heart is a very special one.It's paradoxical in a way,because the movie is about life as it is,there is nothing corny about it,but it's the way it is depicted that makes all the difference,it's the sincerity and the candor of the storytelling. The casting also helps, the 3 Totos are dead-on and Noiret stand out,beautifully supported by the rest of the cast.Needless to say that I cried at the end,and I'm not usually emotional.Fantastic.

Sidney Lumet is a wizard.When you start watching this movie,you are almost put to sleep within the first 10 minutes.Then, starting with Pacino's sudden erratic behavior,you are violently shaken back to life,then taken on a roller-coaster emotional ride and by the end,you are scarred for life.But there is one condition: you need to accept and agree that the world is gray,crazy and absurd.Otherwise,the movie almost makes no sense.One reason for that is that the Pacino character and the screenplay are extreme beyond belief.BUT (and I find this genius),it is presented to us in a human,clear,methodical way,like it's the most normal thing in the world.It's Kafka without the philosophy and symbolism,replaced by human drama and social issues. Everything about this movie is impressive and Al Pacino above anything else.The characters are marvelous,so identifiable and yet so over-the-top.The movie also succeeds in making collective characters (the public,the police,the press) so vivid and together with the individual characters, are perfectly coordinated in a crazy dance right before our eyes. Too bad about the Oscar competition with One Flew Over The Coockoo's Nest that year,where it lost to almost every category in favor of Milos Forman's masterpiece, because it definitely deserved more hype than it got.But it is a cult classic nevertheless,I've rarely seen people talking so passionately about a movie than about this one, and it's interesting to note that it appeals to almost all ages (except under 18, maybe). On a last note,I find that Lumet's work is so underrated.His movies are just as impressive as Scorsese's or Kubrick's,and yet he is one of the least hailed.

I was mesmerized by this movie,Polanski and Brody were a dream team.Everything fits into place,and this is one Holocaust movie that doesn't point any accusing fingers and doesn't turn into a memorial.It is visually stunning, with a breathtaking performance by Brody in the foreground,history in the background and Chopin masterfully interwoven in between. Polanski and Brody made everything seem so intimate, crystal clear, simple yet gut-wrenchingly emotional and I have rarely seen a movie so well-paced.It just flows naturally, like a beautiful piece of music. Polanski is in a class of his own and this is his crown achievement. As for Adrien Brody,absolutely fantastic,one of most moving performances of all time.

I couldn't stop watching this, I've enjoyed every minute of it.The whole crew did an amazing job,and I admire Cronenberg's work.The subject matter (prostitution from Eastern Europe and the Russian mob) is painfully present.I also enjoyed the whole immigrant issue in Britain in general and the Russian one in particular.It DOES resemble The Godfather and other Mafia movies and it's refreshing that we see another mob world other than the Italian one. The actors,Mortensen,Cassel,Watts and Muller-Stahl were great.Authenticity of the whole Russian thing was astounding,a lot of work went into the research,which was used very well by the actors (casting was excellent). I could go on and on about the qualities and mention some of the flaws (for ex. I didn't like the double-agent twist of the story,I thought it would have worked better with Lhuzin being just a Simpleton gangster who turns out to have a heart of gold, the whole undercover twist kinda ruined the whole emotion of the movie).But the flaws certainly do not ruin the movie significantly and it's near excellent. BUT, HOWEVER ..... right after I watched it I had a bitter taste in my mouth,and it's the same with a lot of otherwise good movies of the last decade or so. I like my movies motivated,personal and humanly focused.That's what I like about directors like Martin Scorsese,Oliver Stone,Michael Cimino or Sergio Leone. They are personal and they have an agenda and it's the human drama in all its complexity that is the focus of their work.Also,their movies are driven by WHAT THEY WANT TO SAY, by their vision and emotion.Politically incorrect,sometimes manipulative,they always sacrifice some of the form for the essence.I like that,it's what makes me love a movie. With directors nowadays you got a near perfect form but a very unclear essence.Take the subject matter of this movie:Eastern Europe prostitution,Russian organized crime and immigration.Great topic.But where is the artist and the man Cronenberg in it's depiction?Where is he in all this?You can enjoy great scenes but ultimately you have to SEE what the artist thinks and feels.Especially since this is not Batman or some fictitious topic,it's a very current and painful subject matter.The tragedy and drama of the characters...USED, so we can see great performances from good actors and serve as a background for a visual masterpiece? Where is your humanity,Cronenberg? Of course,I don't mean to suggest that a movie like Schindler's List,with it's childishly biased agenda, is preferable. I just think that if you are going to have reality as a background,have the decency to have an artistic opinion and emotion.Art for art's sake may work for Batman,but with such profound and painful issues,you need to have a heart. Otherwise, you're just using the tragedy and drama of those people in order to make a good film.And that's cold. Very cold.

Take 2 major stars and actors,give them a corny script,pretend you're dealing with existential philosophy,then take the characters on a caricature tour around the world,invading the screen with postcard backgrounds,go from corny to disgustingly melodramatic within 2 hours and then end it with a symbolic 8-th grade level finale.

Also,take life issues and depict them in a cartoonish manner and make sure you do it so basic that even a retard would get it. Write wooden dialog and make 2 otherwise excellent actors use their mannerisms to the full,in order to make up for a weak and unrealistic script.

Then,create 1-2-3-4 predictable scenes,and use one-dimensional characters,in order not to confuse the audience(God forbid)with "too much" human complexity. We want to keep our wives loving,our children cute and innocent,our old men cranky and grumpy yet good-natured and lovable.

So after all that,what do you get? CRAP.

Politically incorrect,violent,wonderfully acted,depressing yet exciting,no cheap heroics,no patriotic crap.One of the most inspired movies of all time.OK,movie was made in 1967,right?So,what do we have:criminals,prostitutes,violence,women civilians killed (stabbed and burnt alive),graphic violence,racism,religious fanaticism,lunacy,retards and war,action and comedy. It's delightfully paced and exciting,esp. due to some wonderful actors and their performances(no reason to go into that,just watch the movie).The chemistry between the actors is fantastic. One of my favorite movies ,I just watched it for the maybe 50-th time last night (first time I watched it I was 12 years old) and still hasn't lost its magic to me one bit.