Reviews

This cartoon has nice atmosphere, well drawn animation. It evokes many reminiscences of similar children book stories (every bit you have seen somewhere else), which feels somewhat compilative, synthetic after watching. It is suitable for families with kids and teens. The story is linear and predictable, it takes place in the village on the sea-side in Europe. In the old house full of old books and the characters from these books as well as preservation of the books themselves play important part in the development of the story. The drawings are by award-winning artist so I had higher expectations before watching, but I don't regret watching it either.

Watching this film you might wonder "What on Earth this has to do with Michelangelo, except for the decorations?"

While it is a good idea to try a character and period study, rather than a glamorous Hollywood-style biopic, this film is a blank shot at it. On the one hand the cast is interesting, the non-professional actors play well (though such cast would fit better Boccaccio's "Decameron"). The film overall slightly reminds films by Fellini or Milos Forman's "Amadeus" - where there are many grotesque moments, the main character could be almost a caricature but Forman unlike Konchalovsky manages very well the contrast between comical and tragic. In the "Sin" the grotesque is purposeless, because the script is very weak, the storytelling is not engaging and the main character never steps out from the void of half-craziness. In Forman's film Mozart could look dumb, but as soon as music started he turned into a genius. Konchalovsky's Michelangelo only counts coins, argues contracts and purchases marble. He never touches a chisel or brush, he is never shown as a thinker or a poet. There is no moment to sympathize with him or understand why such person could create great art. It is an empty caricature rather than a human.

To sum up, this film is an unfortunately waste of promising actors and excellent Tuscan scenery. Some snapshots are well done because the cast and the decorations are good. But overall you will not gain much by watching this half-baked production, unless you are interested in evolution of Konchalovsky as a director.

As often happens with good actors they are terrible as directors - this is another example of it. The mission of saving art during the war deserves a tribute and it could have been as powerful as Schindler's List. There is no need to invent anything, just a loving close to documentary retelling of the true story, assuming that your viewers are not dumb, would suffice. However the opportunity was completely wasted and spoiled by this light-hearted and factually wrong collection of feel-good anecdotes which fall apart as a plot. It's a pity that great cast was wasted. It also has a lot of cold war stereotypes written and often even driving the script, which is impossible to imagine in the actual relations between the allies in 1944-1945.

This is a Soviet adaptation of Jules Verne's novel "Un capitaine de quinze ans" (Dick Sand, A Captain at Fifteen). It starts fairly close to the book and gradually diverges, ending like a western in a desert chase and shootout on the ship. Both scenes are cliché and have nothing to do with the book. The Negoro character is made even more dangerous than he is in the book, that actor who plays him however gives a good performance.

I don't agree with the other reviewer, this adaptation is not more violent than an average western movie. I think the positive side of the film is that casting is done well and characters look recognizable. Some actors play well. The main drawback is that the script diverges too much away from the book, especially at the end.

Other Soviet adaptations of Jules Verne like "Captain Nemo (Vingt mille lieues sous les mers)" or "In Search of Captain Grant (In Search of the Castaways)" are much better and closer to the books than the Hollywood/Disney ones.

This history film is about the events before the famous Grunwald battle between Teutonic knights and the joint Polish-Lithuanian forces. It depicts Polish sufferings under the grasp of the greedy Order. I think this is a very weak film even by the standards of the 60-s which produced lots of poor historical films. But for a modern viewer it becomes practically unwatchable. The story line is quite simple and predictable, the characters are depicted in a primitive black and white fashion. The script leaves no places for acting and psychological development of the characters. The costumes are very rudimentary as well, all identical and as if cut from paper. Finally the history is altered and dumbed down to become a boring patriotic poster.

These days you can find much better historical films, and I don't mean Hollywood blockbusters. This film feels very weird, it is an obvious attempt to create a "great" historical play worthy of the great bard, however the result is a poor mock-up. The standard recipe followed by the script is to portray "complicated" characters, who change their mind every minute like a wind and go from quiet to yelling all the time. This mess should be interpreted as a chess game of plots and intrigues. It is also weird to see that king Henry II played by O'Toole runs around the castle like a village kid. It is just not believable that this chap holds in fear two countries and all his family. Hepburn is overacting and predictable. Hopkins as Richard is a disaster unless you want to believe that he was a soul searching majordomo. John is portrayed like a young imbecile, exactly like in a later Disney's cartoon "Robin Hood", who for some crazy reason should inherit the crown.

If you want to see a real historical/theatrical drama with a similar plot, but where characters are portrayed much more realistically I would recommend "Louis XI: Shattered Power".

This is a lighthearted, enjoyable film full of humor and irony over human condition. Typical Allen in what he always excels. Don't expect from this film great philosophical and existential dramas. People who leave bad reviews either don't get the irony or maybe it resonates with their personal similar experiences. It is a bit like relatives of Antonio writing some of the reviews. The current 6.3 grade undervalues the film, in my opinion it is a firm 7.5. IMDb in general undervalues European-style films. Watch Allen's film, enjoy the walk through Rome, derive moral lessons at your will. This film is on par with his late films (obvious comparison with Midnight in Paris, Magic in the Moonlight and others). Midnight in Paris probably has a bit more depth,just due to the script. This film consists of four stories developed in parallel, with only the city of Rome joining them together.

These series tell English history via life of a single village called Kibworth in Leicestershire. This is right in the middle of British nowhere, but you will be surprised by interesting historical connections this place has. Woods engages villagers in archaeological digs in their backyards and then has professional archaeologists to analyze samples of ceramics to date and describe the finds. It's amazing how much small pottery shards can tell you. He also goes to archives and traces lives of various village families, this bit was somewhat more boring. Overall it resembles Michael's other series, where he tries to trace history via life of ordinary people. However in his Alexander or Trojan war series the history itself is much more dynamic and interesting and the places are much more colorful. Michael is as engaging and fun to watch as in his other series but the material is arguably less entertaining here.

Another unfortunate bit is that many major and interesting events of English history are not even mentioned here (ex. hundred years war, many events of Elizabeth I reign, era of great geographical discoveries etc.) since they left no mark on Kibworth. So these series convey the spirit of English countryside and people very well but they are not good if you want to time-travel through major events of English history.

The idea of these series - to show development of art in ancient Egypt is quite good but the implementation by Alastair Sooke was too shallow. We see Alastair traveling around to very beautiful places both in Egypt all along the Nile, the desert and in museums of Cairo, London and Berlin. This part is quite good, and scenery is picked well. However the commentary is too basic and the opinions expressed are sort of flat and simplistic. So the series benefit from Alastair's energy for climbing and entering dark tunnels but it would have been better to add expert in Egyptian history and art who would have provided more interesting and more thought provoking commentary. There are plenty of historical BBC series which have done it in the past without being boring or too academic (ex. those by Michael Wood or John Romer).

The second film from the series was probably the most watchable one, the golden age of Egypt is hard to spoil.

I've seen a discrepancy between the grade of 8.4 and the mass of bad reviews but still decided to go and watch it. Should have donated to wikipedia instead. Just trust those who tell it feels like a weak remake. There are almost no new ideas here just the same rehash of the good ideas and visually very similar shots from the first two films which becomes now a cliché. Bad father - good son or vice versa, death star but bigger, scenes in an alien pub, scenes in the desert, scenes in the mountain terrain with snow. Lots of explosions and flying, special effects OK as usual. Very few jokes, one or two good ones. The acting is wooden. All the gender, race issues checked in but with weak acting do not look believable. There is something fishy with the 8.4 grade, even assuming the wave of fans. Mechanical turk?

Don't believe those who compare it to Tarkovsky's "Andrei Rublev". The only thing common between the two is black and white film and long 3 hour duration. This one is just a depiction of a (mainly) studio set full of mud and ... This has nothing to do with the book, has no meaningful plot or character development. If you are in for serious cinema avoid this "production". If you want to see something revolting, boring and repetitive go for it. The only thing this film shows is that a director who in past produced strong films like "Trial on the Road" can completely disintegrate at the end of his carrier. A sad story. This failure spoils the good impression of German's previous films as well as is a shame for the excellent novel who's title and popularity it tries to exploit.

A trash movie which tries to resemble Dune and Metropolis. There is no plot except for a car chase there and back. No acting is needed either. All the good guys survive all the bad guys die. Filmed around beautiful desert landscapes with snapshots carefully planned by graphic designers. Feels like flipping a comics for teenagers or watching someone playing first person shooter or racing video game. As usual on IMDb the current high rating is due to flow of fans of the earlier movies (who would probably be disappointed), comics or games. I wouldn't recommend it to any serious SciFi lover. To fill the needed 10 lines: The only thing that is worth praise is the stunt team, some motorbike shots are excellent. Graphic designers also did their job quite well but their skills could be put to better use.

I would recommend this film to any people interested in history of Europe/Italy during the Renaissance time. The events take place in the year 1458 and describe the political turmoil around the election of the new pontiff. Although young Rodrigo Borja plays a prominent role, this film is not solely about him but about the conclave of cardinals as a whole. The acting is excellent and it is impressive how a film shot in a few closed rooms without any visual effects or fast action sequences can grasp the attention of the viewer by pure strength of dialog and portrayal of character. I especially liked the acting of Brian Blessed (Piccolomini), James Faulkner (Cardinal Guillaume D'Estouteville), Brian Downey (Cardinal Juan De Mella), Rolf Kanies (Cardinal Bessarion) and others.

The film conveys the atmosphere of these times brilliantly and it is tempting to ask for a continuation. One caveat is that the film is not following the exact sequence of historical events, and I would advise reading a wiki article about the conclave of 1458. But only AFTER watching the film.

This film has excellent cast, costumes and decorations. However it has a very weak and unconvincing plot and fails at storytelling. It feels like wandering through and exotic clothing shop or costume ball with carefully chosen grotesque characters. You await to see a great story but you get a banal and predictable plot. So this film is some kind of baroque, decorative piece which is supposed to amuse and entertain but never goes deeper than that.

I was also surprised that the picture of a boy with the apple which is the center of the plot was so poorly executed. It is supposed to be a very valuable renaissance-like painting and they hired an artist who worked some months on it. The result looks like a cheap prop for a film, which does not look convincing at all. It is weird since there exist plenty of artists who could produce an excellent classic portrait in just 1-2 weeks.

I grade this film at 6/10, so it is not a total waste of time, but you can find better films to watch.

These TV series are about sleepers - works of art by famous artists that escaped catalogs and were missed by auction experts. It is quite entertaining, and would appeal to people interested in old masters, impressionists and early 20 century art. The team spends amazing amounts of time traveling around the world in search for clues in archives, trying to cover gaps in picture's provenance, meeting world experts and performing pigment and canvas analysis. This process is like an exciting detective story, quite often more interesting than the picture itself which in many cases is a relatively mediocre piece by a famous artist (like in episodes about Monet or Degas). I think the most interesting episodes were about Van Dyck and Van Meegeren.

I hope they make the 4th season of this show. Since in most cases the paintings turn out to be genuine, it might be more interesting if more fakes would be shown, to make it less predictable. Also although the price aspect is important for owners and art dealers it would be great if the art and history aspect would somehow be given higher priority.

Pretentious film, with a weak plot and OK but unimpressive acting. The film pretends to show a psychological drama inside a famous string quartet. Instead it is very banal melodrama with a predictable and flat plot.

Don't expect to learn new things about Beethoven or classical music from this film. One of the actors (Christopher Walken) is not fitting the role and this is poorly masked by barely showing his hands when he is playing cello. The other actors at least give impression that they had some violin training. This film is supposed to be about finding an ultimate perfection in music but the actual performance leaves much to be desired.

This is a French animation about the turbulent period of Egyptian history during the rule of the pharaoh Akhenaten (14 century BC), who is noted for abandoning traditional Egyptian monotheism in favor of worship of a single Sun god Aten. The story is based on a novel of french writer and archaeologist Christian Jacq. Although the story is aimed at young viewers (from age 7 and above), it pays unusual for such cartoons attention to traditions and culture of ancient Egypt. While it may not be 100% accurate, it manages to convey the spirit of this old civilization without being didactic and boring. The animation is also very well done, it has its own original style (it somewhat resembles the vector graphics of a computer game "Another World"). The art of the main characters and the backgrounds are superb, the weaker point could be the use of computer to bring these to life in some scenes.

Overall it is a rare and excellent cartoon for kids and their parents, for those who are interested in ancient history, 8/10

We had high hopes for these series, expecting detailed account on lives of common roman people. However there is way too much adult content and spicy remarks which makes it unsuitable for viewing with children.

Right from the start there is a sense of sensationalism and self-advertisement, since the first 3 minutes of each film is just a roughly chopped trailer of things that would be repeated later. Overall we though that the first film in the series was watchable but it becomes worse with the second and third being almost unwatchable, with the main focus being on vulgar and dark aspects of roman life. There is very little logic or plan in the story and most of it consists of reading tombstones and over-excitement after finding on them Mr. Eroticus, Mrs. Volupta and similar names.

The authors probably thought that it is very hard to say something new about such well studied subject and this drove them to another extreme.