Reviews

"Ferrari" is a heavy weight production, with much attention to details in order to faithfully convey the period during which the events took place, and in this regard the cinematography, the wardrobe and the settings are excellent.

The problem is a good film needs a good story that catches the viewer from beginning to end. The story here is plain (Ferrari has a long standing affair) and we get to see Ferrari's travails during his career to get his car win the races and be Number One. The story telling is slow, and none of the characters is really appealing. Adam Driver is good when he is not stone-faced, and shines when he reveals how Ferrari the manager is fierce specially giving advice to his drivers (Adam Driver - drivers....sorry bad joke!).

But the real problem here is why cast gorgeous and extremely fine actress Penelope Cruz in a role that require here to do very little besides being the disgruntled wife, and to disfigure her (literally !) to be almost unrecognizable? Is that good casting? Or just have her as a name on the film posters? Beats me.... 4 stars for the technical aspects of the film.

The film sets very high standards for science fiction films, with a stellar ensemble cast, great cinematography, spectacular filming locations, outstanding sound effects, impressive interior sets, the list of superlatives is long...nontheless, a few remarks:

• One wonders, in fighting scenes, tremendous technological weapons are used, but then individual fighters still use...swords and long knives! At least in "Starwars" movies they used swords but they were lazer swords!

• Sometimes when Timothee and Zindaya and others walk on the sand, they seem to have taken courses at the Ministry of Silly Walks !! (a British tv comedy show from the 1970's)

-A legendary actress like Charlotte Rampling is filmed most of the time wearing a huge head veil....why cast her if we can hardly see her face ?! (don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of Charlotte, that's why I am objecting....)

-The film gives a good training for those wishing to practice sandworms sailing, showing how to go about it, as individuals or as groups!

-The actors have this silly tube connected to their nose; sometimes they have it, sometimes they don't, go figure why

-Be prepared, or let your ears be prepared, for intensive bass sound effects (specially if you are seeing the movie in Imax), though they are very effective

But let's be serious, it's a great film by all standards, and a worthy cinematic experience.

Tedious film, most of it with handheld camera and closeups attempting to pierce the faces of its two main characters. The couple are put in an un-enviable situation, and it seems the director and writer are fond of videos games that have numerous hurdles and obstacles that keep popping out and which they have to overcome, because this is what they do in this movie: Every sort of hurdle, really just any illogical twist/hurdle (including a friend who is trying to reach them is trapped in a jail, a snake byte, an attack of ants, you name it) is thrown in to let them stay trapped. Then, suddenly, at the end, the cavalry comes galloping... Silly film, waste of time.

Other reviewers said it here and therefor no need to repeat: The ending is a mess, seems several writers worked on the script and could not agree on the ending, so we end up with a last episode that is a mishmash of...who knows what!

It is clear those who perpetrated this series are hoping for Netflix to lift up the phone and call them asking for more seasons...Netflix please don't!

In addition to the sloppy ending, some story lines are simply not plausible, the "background story" fill-up is un-convincing, and character(s) development is superficial.

Don't bother with this series, save your viewing time for other stuff.

The series is catching, with charismatic characters (except the corrupt police officer of course...as usual) and there are interesting twists and clever plot situations.

Having said this stick to season 1 (Triana survives the last episode of season 1 if you are worried...) as in season 2 the writers of the series seem to be going in all directions without knowing where to land, with new and unconvincing characters, and the second season ends...without an end, so obviously the producers intent to milk the plot even more but in fact it already becomes boring and not worth any sequels, so save your viewing times after season 1 for other stuff.

Well made adventure film, reminds of 1980's films like "Romancing the Stone" and "Jewel of the Nile", and is much much better than the recent "Uncharted" which belongs to the same category ("Uncharted" obsession with supposedly wise-crack dialogue was tiresome, with its overload of CGI).

In "Lost City" there is chemistry between the 2 leads, the action is not over the top, and while Sandra Bullock remains serious most of the time she manages to soften up towards the last third of the movie, Brad Pitt is efficient almost playing himself, and Daniel Radcliffe seems to enjoy the "baddie" parts lately, not unconvincingly. I was saving best for last: Channing Tatum steals the show here, not taking himself seriously and clumsily fooling around, this is one of his best performances. His "entrance" on stage at the beginning of the film is absolutely hilarious and he plays it with great second-degree humor.

The film is well made (flow of the story, scenery, action sequences, comic scenes) and is well worth the evening.

I won't say it's a different take on the story, it's something else and the title of the film should have been different, as the amount of violence and blood should not figure under the chosen title !

So in short don't you dare choose to see this film with your children or leave them to watch it, it has nothing to do with the fairy tale we all know, not even inspired by it or hinting at anything you know from the famous story (except Amanda Syfried's red hoodie !)

Having clarified this, it's an interesting film with great actors and a few stunning visuals, with adult themes. I gave it five stars, but of course Julie Christie gets 10 !

Do you remember "You can check out anytime, but you can never leave..." well this sums it up!

The producers should have wrapped the series by the end of season two, but no, they have to linger and the final episode of season 2 is open-ended, so the producers are hoping to milk this story for more, more what ?

They could have developed the theme of what people would do in the name of love (even if it is a cliché ) and they touch upon the theme more than once, which would have given the chance of unexpected twists, but the characters are not given enough depth and what remains are some steamy scenes.

I gave it 3 stars for the cinematography, costume designs, and songs, otherwise it deserves less because the series will waste your time as it has no closure.

A very original film with subtle humour. The film makers are clearly afficionados of classic art films and their work is positively influenced by masters like Luis Bunuel and Jacques Tati.

All three main actors (Penelope Cruz, Antonio Banderas and Oscar Martinez) are at the top of their game. The script is brilliant and, without being didactic, is conducive to further meditation on what is acting, what is fiction and what is real. Although many films tackle the subject of "film within a film" showing the process behind the camera and the long preparations before actually shooting, "Official Competition" shows what actors' egos is really like (even the character played by Oscar Ramirez who pretends not to be interested by awards, secretly rehearses a speech in case he wins an Oscar...), and we get a glimpse into the director' s mind and vision and insistence on perfection, with doubt never too far away (brilliantly conveyed by Penelope Cruz).

A treat ! Not to be missed !

Among the many shortcomings of this film, one is that, though Nicole Kidman is beautiful as always, one always sees actually Nicole Kidman and not the character she is supposed to play, and then, James Franco as her love interest? Really? No chemistry whatsoever between the two, despite their clumsy efforts to act as if they are infatuated with each other, and Robert Pattinson as T. E. Lawrence? Seriously? At least he seems to have had fun filming this in a costume party outfit...the only one who gets away with it is Damian Lewis, somehow convincing.

As for the film, it drags on, with soapy family scenes in England, or some desert photography (trying to imitate "Lawrence of Arabia"? No comment....) anyway don't waste your time here, even if the director is Werner Herzog, this is, by far, his worst film.

As other reviewers pointed the plot has similarities to the Bourne franchise, not a problem as the action here is more heavy handed (though wrecking havoc in Prague and wiping half of its police force is a bit over the top...) the pace doesn't slow, and Chris Evans does a great job as the villain, while Ryan Gosling and despite his charm and action scenes walks his way through the film more like a zombie... What is annoying and without spoilers the ending is open ended, as the bad guys do not all fade away, a cheap ploy from the producers who probably intend to do a sequel, sorry but it's not worth an extension.

No one in the technical crew of this film dared to stop the hairstylist for the cruel work done to Anne's look ? Anne, It is painful to see you throughout the film !

The one star is for the hairstyle, not the entire film, but actually the hairstyle deserves a rating of minus 10 !

I struggled, but really struggled, to keep watching the fist 30 minutes or 40 minutes of the first episode, effort in vain, because the plot is dislocated, disconnected, with numerous flashbacks, mysterious car lynching, mysterious abduction (man tied in forest...), pregnant woman's hallucinations, don't worry these are not spoilers because what I have seen of the first episode "setting" the background of the story is a total mess (blame the director, the editor, probably many more) if only it was catchy, it isn't.

I am giving it 3 stars because of the nice scenery, and the cast who seem to deliver good performances.

First impression, following the first few minutes of the film, is "no, not another movie about disgruntled teens in the suburbs", but as the film progresses it gets more and more interesting, with characters maturing in the course of one night as they have to deal with totally unexpected events, furthermore there are convincing changes of attitude (for some) and a plausible explanation of the occurrences coming from one of the nerdiest guys in the film! Very original story and quite engaging -and funny (with very mild shock scenes)- film, entertainment at its best !

I absolutely loved "Get Out" especially its resonance with current affairs and not only in the US. In 1973 a French film was made, "Traitement de Choc" (Shock Treatment) by director Alain Jessua and starring top French actors at the time Annie Girardot and Alain Delon, which featured the main actress going to a high end health resort and slowly discovering that servants in the spa -mainly Portugese- were mysteriously collapsing or falling ill. It turns out they are brought in as "spare parts" for the wealthy. The main theme at the time was to show that the "developed" nations of the North were taking the best out of the nations of the South, and it was quite a powerful film that triggered healthy debates. "Get out" is not only good for its bold statements but the film is artistically very well made and speaks to audiences everywhere, and not only millennials. Well deserved 9 stars.

The data provided by IMDb's web page for this film indicates that it had an estimated budget of 40 million Dollars but it generated revenues of less than one million Dollars. I feel pity for the producers, because obviously many good intentions were intended at the start, and certain themes brought forward were really interesting, such as:

-At the beginning of the last century, a strong willed woman seeks charitable work overseas;

-A love story between an American (Christian) woman and a Turkish (Muslim) soldier;

-Real effort was done in recreating the context of events (filming locations, historical background)

-Very good casting of the three main characters (the nurse, the young doctor, the soldier)

-The theme that in wars it is never totally black or white, and too often individuals are swept by events and are not free with their own choices.

So what went wrong?

-Some of the dialogue is poorly written and is a bit "cliché'd"

-Many situations are left without closure (the nurse never writes to her parents even though she grew in a house that values compassion and caring for the less fortunate: She seems to be solely guided by the memory of her late brother even though her parents effectively prepared her for her life choices / the nurse does not tell the doctors how she saved the day by letting Turkish soldiers out of the church / the doctors are not told that the Lieutenant saved a group of Armenians at the risk of his life);

-Sir Ben Kingsley is wasted here, though he tried to make the best of the very few lines he was given;

The major flaw in the film is the way it was directed: It drags on, and appears slow time and again, cohesion seems lacking, and no real effort or passion seems to have been invested in presenting a sweeping love story in a particular historical setting despite all the material that was available (good story, top actors, location). The film is partially saved by its cinematography and its convincing three lead characters.

One final word on the historical context: The film does not pretend to present an accurate account of the tragedies that played out during those times (especially the full scale of the horrible Armenian genocide) however and as stated earlier it is about individuals caught in circumstances over which they had no control whatsoever. I wish I could give it more than 4 stars, I feel sorry because the film could have been much, much better.

I have seen this film when it first came out, thought it was of mixed quality, but was definitely impressed with Tom Cruise's jogging on the side of the skyscraper... Having re-watched the film on TV some time ago, I thought what is the matter with casting directors these days, casting Tom Wilkinson as head of IMF? he has very few lines and his scene doesn't exceed 5 minutes, couldn't this role be played by a veteran American actor, not necessarily an A star but someone among hundreds of US aging semi-retired actors in their fifties or sixties? I have nothing against Tom Wilkinson he is a fine actor in his own right, but really, seeing him here, one only sees "Tom Wilkinson" and not some tough rugged guy who supposedly had previous field "impossible" missions, so, why overlook so much talent out there from Uncle Sam's family who could have been much more credible and perfectly fit the job?

I caught this film casually on TV, I was not instantly hooked but somehow could not get myself to switch channels, and am glad I did not. What is remarkable in this film is that it did not seek to present sympathetic or likable characters, it presented characters and their relations to each other, amid hard living conditions, reminding me of Italian "realistic" films made in the sixties in black and white, sometimes filmed in slums near big cities, and reflecting the lives of real people, and not always offering solutions or happy endings. "Breaker" should be a good example of what independent film makers can do (I hope the crew of this film gets good recognition and future opportunities, their effort here is award stuff), and it is a relief that amid mega blockbusters, noisy action films, and CGI studded productions, we see such films. And for those who worry about happy endings, the film is not as bleak as you might think ! Well deserved 9 stars.

This is a hard-to-find NBC TV mini-series from the eighties. The film is a very well-made historical (true) period drama, in six hours, a super-production relating the life and times of czar Peter the Great of Russia, with a stellar ensemble cast including Laurence Olivier, Vanessa Redgrave, Omar Sharif, Mel Ferrer, Ursula Andress, and Elke Sommer, some of them in cameo roles, but they look great in period costumes. Peter the Great is powerfully portrayed by Jan Niklas (younger czar) and Maximillian Schell (adult czar) with Maximillian Schell giving the character epic proportions in the latter years.

The series is unpretentiously directed by Marvin Chomsky, with attention to detail to the prevailing conditions and settings of the times: For instance one does not feel artificial light was used at any time, as all filming seems to have been done outdoors in natural light or indoors with chandeliers and candle lights. The Director of photography is Vittorio Storaro who is the cinematographer of such visual feasts as "The Last Emperor", "Apocalypse Now", and "The Sheltering Sky". This mini-series was filmed on location in the ex-USSR (Russia) when it was under Communism, with artistic and technical assistance of an extended Russian crew, which was, at the time, a remarkable example of cultural cooperation between East and West. I hope this film will be digitally remastered, it deserves it, and it would be advisable to affix a (12) rating on the DVD due to scenes of some violence and mild intimate encounters, and of course include side features perhaps by contributors to the original series at the time. This must be one of the best ever made-for-TV historical films, and a great entertainment with palace intrigues, power politics, passionate relationships, and men and women who changed the course of history.

How come such a clever film passed under the radar when it was released and did not get the attention it deserves, when it could be considered in the league of films such as "The Sixth Sense" and perhaps have a cult following if wider audiences were acquainted with it. This great film was not served by its tittle "Self/less" which is frankly not appealing; I wish the guys behind the film had made an effort to choose another title that would be less off-putting.

I will not go over the plot widely discussed here by other fellow reviewers, but suffice to say the story line is very original and clever, and the film works very well as an action thriller, with twists here and there, but above all it is not superficial when its main character Damian is wondering about his legacy, immortality, trying to redeem himself, and coming to terms about the meaning of his life and trying to do what is right as he has been given a second chance.

The choice of actors couldn't be more inspired, with both Ben Kingsley and Ryan Reynolds excellent in conveying their inner doubts, with Ryan Reynolds moving at ease in familiar territory for him (the action scenes), and Matthew Goode superbly creepy as the cold calculating manager with whom Damian is dealing. Technically the film is spotless and gripping, and is not easy to forget. Highly, highly recommended!

This is one of few real time films -meaning the flow of events matches the duration of the film- that is quite successful in keeping the viewer's attention all along, and Jodie Foster is very efficient as a director presenting what seems initially a daunting technical subject (how a computer "glitch" causes an 800 Million Dollar loss to shareholders in a public traded company) as a dramatic thriller that never looses pace.

The cast is excellent, Julia Roberts as the ever conscious producer calculating how each camera angle is best to follow on the unfolding live drama, George Clooney in one of his finest roles as the careless theatrical advice giver of the money program who gradually comes to realize how damaging his show is to the masses (in one particular touching scene he is in the street in NY and sees on-lookers imitating his dance moves on the show, and he becomes aware of what a buffoon he is), and finally Jack O'Connel who is very convincing as the candid investor who really wants to know how "the system" works (casting him was an inspired choice, he is not a well-known actor so he adds more credibility to the character he plays, a simple man from the street who looses all his money in Wall Street). None of the main or even secondary characters in the film are one dimensional, they have their problems (like lonely dinners for some) and concerns and values, whether it is the camera man or the public relations lady officer reporting to the big CEO, or even the main police officers in charge, all are multi-dimensional characters and their human aspects are not ignored.

Even though the film deals with a serious subject, an eye opener leading one to wonder about the real money monsters out there, it remains an excellent thriller with top class actors.