vissini95

Nightmare Alley is one of the most depressing films I've ever seen. This fact is its best asset but it makes it almost difficult to watch. When I did, I thought I wouldn't be able to smile for a long time.

It's a film noir, though, and noirs were not exactly made to make us laugh. They were notorious, among others, for the rigid punishments suffered by their main characters, as a result of their misdeeds.

However, few suffer more than this film's antihero, Stanton Carlisle, portrayed by Tyrone Power in arguably the best performance of his long and distinguished career. Interestingly, Stanton is not a vicious and violent criminal, but rather an overly ambitious and opportunistic man who thought he could fool everyone in his way from a lowly carnival to the top. He did it, but then it was time for the fall.

The fall is a sudden and catastrophic one, as Stanton meets his match in a pretty but diabolical psychiatrist and, his fraud now exposed, is forced to go into hiding. What happens to him next is a fate probably worse than death or prison. While the original novel leaves him in a state you wouldn't wish even to your worst enemy, the film opts for a bittersweet ending, where there is still hope for Stanton and his devoted wife, but it's certainly gonna be no bed of roses.

Power is wonderful, but the other actors (Joan Blondell and Coleen Gray, among others) are also a powerful factor for the film's success. Another strong point is its dark, sinister plot. However, it's not an easy one to watch as, besides its depressing characters, is somewhat too analyzing and complicated. Despite this, it's a classic.

Alejandro Gonzalez Iñárritu swept the most prestigious awards in 2014 with "Birdman". He came back in 2015 with a totally different film, which may (and should) give Leonardo Di Caprio a well-deserved Oscar for Best Actor.

The film's direction, cinematography and entire mise-en-scène are absolutely magnificent and absorbing. It's a film depicting a frightening scenery in Upper Midwestern United States (although it was shot mainly in Canada) with the elements of nature (snow, wind, waterfalls) playing a major part. And amidst this fascinating background, an injured man left for dead (Di Caprio) fights nature, his wounds, a tribe of Indians and many other obstacles to find the man who killed his son and left him for dead (Tom Hardy) and take his revenge.

It reminded me of many epic films of the past, especially ones when a character left for dead seeks retribution, such as "Gladiator". The film is an epic itself, and Di Caprio's performance is captivating, especially if you take into account how much demanding such a part was. Tom Hardy is also great as the cruel, sadistic, self-serving villain. Some scenes, including the climactic final one, are full of suspense and thrills.

The film should be a contender for the Oscars, especially in the Best Actor, Director, Cinematography and Sound categories. It was a film difficult and expensive to shot, demanding for both the cast and the crew. The only drawback is that it's a bit too long (150 mins), but in the end it's all worth it.

8-8,5/10

When I saw this movie I knew it's considered one of the best of 2015, and among the favorites for many prestigious awards. The story seemed interesting, and so it was, but the film itself was rather boring.

Inspired by a 1950's novel by Patricia Highsmith, Carol portrays an eccentric lesbian love story between two much different women. One of them is the titular character, an elegant woman in her forties whom the experienced and brilliant Cate Blanchett portrays beautifully, especially her sentiments and passions. The other is Therese, a weak and introvert young woman portrayed by Rooney Mara. The two stars of the film play their parts fine, both individually and combined as there seems to be good chemistry between them.

However, I strongly believe that the analysis of the characters, both the two women and the others, is not as deep and touching as it could - and should- have been, and the inevitable result is that the viewer fails to identify themselves with anyone. You just sit and watch their adventures and misfortunes, but, other than a mere sympathy, you can't feel much about them, or even for them. Furthermore, both the relationship between the two main characters and their relationships with other people (Carol's family, Therese's boyfriend and few friends) are left unexpanded and unclear.

I know that the LGBT subject of the story is very subtle, and it was even more when Highsmith wrote the novel, and it's natural for a film depicting such a story to attract attention. If you have read other novels written by the same author (or watched the film adaptations), such as "Strangers on a Train" or "The Talented Mr. Ripley", it's nothing of the kind. And that's another fault of the film; while Highsmith's novels are based in suspense, this one fails to attract your interest and make you anxiously wait to see what happens.

In the end the result is a decent but mediocre film. Blanchett and Mara, especially the former, do their best but the screenplay is somewhat weak and unable to keep the viewer's attraction. If you can identify yourself with the characters and see "between the lines", if there's anything important there, you'll probably like it. Otherwise, there's not much too see.

6/10

One of the greatest directors of our era, Quentin Tarantino, returned with an almost 3-hour film, without any big stars (but with many of his regulars) and much trouble during production. But he made it again.

The Hateful Eight is perhaps the Tarantino film with the more mystery in it; for long enough during the film you don't know who is who and who does what, and there's even a scene when the great Samuel Jackson produces a Poirot-style speech trying to solve one of the plot's mysteries.

As in every film Quentin made, the greatest part is the screenplay. Quick and witty dialogue, especially by Jackson and Kurt Russell, colorful, ambiguous characters, black humor, great use of actual events (this time, the American Civil War) and of course, suspense, mystery and masterful plot twists. Chronological order is not observed, typically for Tarantino, but this time it's necessary in order to deceit the viewer, as he aims to.

The cast acts fine, with Jackson, Russell and Leigh performing at their best. Because of its similar scenery (19th century United States, with race relations an important factor), you can't help but compare the movie with Tarantino's latest Django Unchained (2012). The latter film had stars like Waltz and Di Caprio and much more action than this, but The Hateful Eight almost equals it with its mysterious plot and brilliantly claustrophobic directing by Tarantino, plus the wonderful score written by the great Ennio Morricone. I think Django was slightly better, but this one had significantly less potential to exploit.

In conclusion, the film proves for one more time that this guy is a master behind the camera, and provides 165 minutes of suspense, intrigue and fun. It's a great movie to watch, not a masterpiece, but another piece of Tarantino genius. And for the die-hard Tarantino fans, they may observe that the style resembles the earliest films he made, such as Reservoir Dogs, with slapstick violence and no sympathetic characters. Not his best, but a true Tarantino movie.

I found and decided to watch that film as I looked for a Christmas movie to see during the holidays. I've seen almost every holiday classic so I went for this rather unconventional Christmas film. And got rewarded.

A rather unusual trio of Humphrey Bogart, Aldo Ray and Peter Ustinov star as three escapees in 1895 Devil's island who find refuge in a store owned by a family in financial trouble on Christmas Eve. Their first thought is to rob them and flee, of course, but they seem to be rather good-natured and helpful to the family when they encounter their problems. Eventually, they help the family deceive their sinister cousin, brilliantly portrayed by Basil Rathbone, who along with his son try to exploit the situation and take over their enterprise. A pet rattlesnake owned by Ray's character and named "Adolphe" provides help when needed.

Although the film depicts convicts, crimes and even deaths, it's a pure comedy. It's a little weird to watch Bogie play in one, but the truth is that Ray, Ustinov and Rathbone are much more funnier than him. Coincidentially, there was another film in 1955 depicting three escaped convicts finding refuge in a house where a family lives, The Desperate Hours, and it also starred Bogart. Of course, the later film is a tough noir with Bogie portraying a lunatic criminal, while here he and his fellow escapees seem rather sympathetic.

Only one thing is a complete fail in this film, and it's the final minute. Having solved all the problems, our friends are ready to escape to France via ship, but they decide to return to the jail as they "like it more there". It's clear as sky that this ending was influenced by the Hays Code, which was in force at the time and demanded punishment for every criminal action, including escape. However, telling us that they preferred the Devil's island to freedom in France is, in my opinion, a serious offense to all these people, guilty or not, who lived their Hell on Earth in one of the most infamous prisons of all time.

Ignoring this little blemish, the film is a funny comedy and a great choice for the holiday season. A great cast, witty dialogue and some hilarious scenes ensure it.

I love it when Hollywood parodies itself. That's one reason I decided to watch this film, which depicts the unprecedented frenzy surrounding Hollywood of its time, with everyone wanting to become a movie star or at least be close to one, rich people investing money in movies for both profits and fame, film producers and cast willing to do anything for a profit and movie stars considered to be, both by the public and themselves, the most important persons in the country.

The film shows all that by depicting a wild party in Hollywood thrown by movie star Schnarzan (as Tarzan), who wants to be some new, wild lions for his pictures because the public is bored of his old ones. There's not a sequenced plot, but rather a number of musical and humorous sketches, each directed by a different, always uncredited, director and with a different combination of actors appearing. There's even a short Technicolor cartoon presented by Mickey Mouse!

Both the musical numbers and the jokes presented would probably be entertaining in 1934, but in this day and age seem rather outdated. The clever portrayal of Hollywood paranoia and great performance by Jimmy Durante as Schnarzan save the day, however, and movie fans who have a thing for classic and pre-Code films might enjoy it.

The main reason I watched this movie is because I'm a Laurel and Hardy fan and I thought the boys were the stars. No such thing, however, as they appear only in two not-so-funny sketches, including one with Mexican bombshell Lupe Velez, and their screen time is about a mere ten minutes.

The film is hard to find nowadays and you should just skip it unless you are a fan of similar pictures and, in general, films of this particular era. In that case it's probably worth a shot.

Run All Night is a good film. A decent film, with Liam Neeson showing us for one more time what he is capable of as an actor, giving depth and emotion to his character, although the movie is an action one. There are some scenes, especially when Jim Conlon (Neeson) and his son are pursued by Jim's ex-boss, in which there is high suspense and adrenaline. Neeson's character is one full of guilt for his previous actions, depression because his son has become estranged, but also passion to save him and do the right thing, even if it costs him his life. Redemption comes for him in the end, in a fashion similar to classic film noirs and more contemporary mob films and neo-noirs. The film produces a decent amount of action, thrills and emotions, but the script is certainly unconvincing, and the director unable to make the most of its most tense scenes. It's a movie worth seeing, but not something quite to remember, especially if you have seen Neeson in older films that had obviously more quality and legacy.

I watched The Birth of a Nation today, exactly one century after its original release. As a big movie fan I always considered this film to be the first real film, the first big example of cinema as an art and a form of entertainment. After watching the film, my view has been completely justified.

The film is the first ever to resemble a modern film, the first that the director is not just taking pictures and making them appear as being continuous, but is considering the artistic quality of his work with a similar way as a director of a play.The actors are starting to really act and not just posing for the camera and let the intertitles (remember,sound did not appear in films for over a decade after the film) explain the story.For the first time in film true sentiments such as love,passion and mourning are shown in a realistic way and techniques as making-up and editing a film also make their inaugural appearance. Furthermore, it is the first blockbuster,with a big production cost and much bigger box-office profit, as advertising and promoting the film was another first for the industry invented by director D.W. Griffith.

Unfortunately, on purpose or not, Griffith made another innovation. He showed how a film can be used as a propaganda tool and a way to send a message to the public,with the exact same way as the other arts do.But the message Mr.Griffith wanted to send,being a Southerner and a son of a Confederate soldier himself,was at least a despicable one,full of racism and hatred for the blacks and every man who believes in racial equality. Certainly a film director may alter history for better artistic quality, but in The Birth of a Nation the history of the US during the Civil War and Reconstruction Era is not altered; it's raped. The use of propaganda in this film is perfectly shown if you considered that it is partly responsible for the formation of an extremely dangerous Ku Klux Klan who used it for recruiting purposes as it shows the original KKK as heroic. Thus, Mr.Griffith is indirectly responsible for a great number of racial and hate crimes committed by the KKK in the next years.

In fact, I don't think there is any film in history more important for the industry as The Birth of a Nation, as techniques we now consider routine were invented by Griffith for this film. Thus, Griffith has to be given the credit of being "the father of film making" (as Charlie Chaplin described him) but his racist point of view, matched only by Nazi propaganda films 25 years later, means this film should not be held in high esteem for its content.

I didn't have to watch this film in order to realize that Scorcese is one of the best directors ever; I already knew it. But this film , in another great collaboration with Di Caprio (after masterpieces such as The Aviator and Shutter Island) comes to prove that Scorcese is able make a great film whenever he likes and that , for almost 40 years , he continues to direct films that will be famous for years. As in almost everyone of his movies , everything is so realistic and amazing at the same time. The film is funny but also touching and although it lasts 3 hours you're not able to leave your seats for even a second , as it shows no more and no less of what should be shown. Di Caprio is once again excellent portraying a true person who had and lost everything within just a few years , and he proves that no one can portray rich famous and successful characters than him. Also amazing that the film is based in a true story , although Scorcese's realistic direction would convince you it is even if it wouldn't. I have never seen a better description of the rich , luxurious but yet so corrupted and inevitably destructing lifestyle of Wall Street majors in many years. To conclude , the film is a must-see and I hope that Di Caprio wins the Academy Award he is deprived for so many years.

Maybe it's because I haven't read the novel or seen any other film versions , but I can't understand why some critics are so harsh with this one. Baz Luhrmann seems to know what he's doing for another time and , as in Moulin Rouge , he combines impressive colors and pictures with quality and drama. I can't imagine any other actor ,at least at this day, who could portray Jay Gatsby as Di Caprio did. This elegance and charm he clearly possesses just make him ideal for the part. Mulligan is a little bit indifferent but you can't say she is not playing well. Maguire is also great , even if the idea of telling his story to a psychiatrist seems a little out of the spirit of the film. But there is high drama in this film especially at the end. You must not miss this one. 8/10

This film is maybe the only of the Batman saga and , generally , of the superhero movies to have much quality besides the extraordinary special effects and the quick action that made it one of the very few films to have earned more than $ 1 billion in the box office. Christian Bale is just fine as Batman but the true hero is the villain. Heath Ledger , just before his death , displays an excellent performance as the Joker , the best I have seen in this kind of films. Nolan is once again a true king of blockbusters , and proves his versatility to combine box office successes with high quality films. During the whole film, twists and reversals are very common and definitely surprising. A film you must see , not only because it's a very amusing way to spend 140 minutes of your time , but also because it's one of the best of its kind. 8/10