theta30

The movie descries ten nights in which Kepler studies the skies, while having temporarily access to a telescope sent by Galileo. Kepler is interpreted by Denis Lavant, whom I know from "Holy motors", a very good actor, who said "For me, a role isn't just a face and a voice, and the great actor that I admire are those who use their body to give a shape to their character". "L'oeil de l'astronome" (also as "Stargazer") has at times an aura of fantasy, enhanced by the nocturnal explorations. Fortunately, it spare us of the Hollywood cliches of love interests and drama. Though there is at times more subtle dramatic tension and feminine play. It is also a family movie-one local child enters Kepler's lab

The various characters that inhabit the Mercuriales Towers resemble those captured in their own urban island as in Jia Zhangke's "The world". However here the two young girls, escape this encampment and follow a strong friendship. The director seems to want to express almost too much, as often happens in debuts.

There is an underlying atmosphere of magic, supernatural, which reflects youth's frustrations, anger or drama. For example the demolition at the final is perhaps a reflection of the separation of the two. The rebellious acts against Paris urbanity and mythological creatures reminds of Rivette's "Pont du nord". Moreover, there is also sensuality. The way this angst of young age is expressed is remarkable. I can't say there is anything remarkable about the youngsters here, being average, but what matters is the keen reflection of their temperaments in our modern world.

Despite its low rating, it is the best of the series so far. It is coherent. It has thrilling moments (Joivan Wade style), street Purge originality, a social issue subplot, good humour (from Dolores), and a quirky experiment.Something in the series doesn't add up-if you eliminate the poor, who will do the blue collar jobs.Eliminating the sick on the other hand was tried by nazis.

Wow, a feast for eyes,ears and brain. The team made sure each minute or second is a treat. A car trip that tracks a previous recorded black and white travel spiced up with surreal interpretations

Nicolaescu made abysmally bad movies. Oglinda however is somehow better. Coposu was consulted for this movie. In general, the judgement of the characters is slightly neutral, with a dose of nationalism and admiration for Antonescu. It is peculiar how Hitler is shown as a calm,monotone partner of conversation rather than the flamboyant one that is usually depicted.

Not sure why it has so poor ratings (I found this movie very solid), maybe the absence of a terrible hero. Or that its ending is not sweet-guess what -some scientific endeavors end tragic and are recognized late.

The movie does not cater to the PR themes that are abundant in European cinema-we see Marcelino being attacked by both creationist and evolutionist groups.

There is good deal of how a scientific exploration develops, a nice family story, human drama and all this is combined with great artistry. There are a number of bibliographical movies that, as if to dumb down its subject for the masses, end up in melodramatic mush (eg "Creation"). "Finding Altamira" is not like this.

This movie is a disaster. Nothing really happens here. The conversations are trite, such as dogs or how one looks like.

Take this so bad it's funny scene: the doctoral candidate meets her supervisor and we only hear the professor talking-she does not interact in any way.

The only remotely interesting happenings are the meetings along a table: with her family and other one with friends.

The movie's scenario is quite straightforward, as if it's an expanded short. It depicts a budding relationship between a fencer and her trainer. It is interesting and pleasant to see how the relationship develops. As some commenters observed Olimpia Melinte plays well, brings light and naturalness-she should be cast in bigger movies.

Also, there are beautiful long shots of the sea side city.

I think this is a fine addition to the usual grim Romanian film curriculum.

This is an interesting German movie. Luca, the protagonist is facing exams for high school diploma. She tries to learn along with an older guy. She has a dog that cares dearly and uplifts her after years in which didn't feel good.

The movie explores her relationships with various friends, some of which are slacking or weird. Also, the strenuous relation with her mother. We get to know her grandmother.

All in all, it is an interesting development of character. And the movie is finally uplifting for those who pass a worse part in their lives.

There are sparkling and funny moments. There are a few predictable moments (with the angry boyfriend) and the ending loses steam.

Some commentators complain about the racism theme or that the movie has too many varied themes. But imho that's not the point.

In fact, the harassment of the new black family in the neighbourhood is depicted quite well, the only positive result in this mess of a movie. It is terrible bad from other reasons, mainly because you have to suspend your intelligence.

Several times, it is childishly predictable (eg when the boy hides under bed and hears a fight-guess who was there?, or when his dad eats that sandwich) Secondly, there is a lot of unnecessary violence, but it's only for the sake of violence or to fill the lack of plot. Gardner Lodge and his lover are caricatures and it is hard to believe people as reckless, empty and callous as them could exist. While one specter of emotions is emptiness, the other ends in cheesiness, as in the friendship between the young boys-seen in contrast with all the rest.

It is clear to me that Suburbicon copies poorly from Fargo, Season 1.

It's an entertaining and above the average last score-gone-awry movie. Unlike other such movies that include few sociopaths, the main three characters express at times humanity and lack of selfishness, especially Stacy (played by A Brody). The known actors Brody and Malkovich deliver our expectations from them. I found the dog attack scenes too long, though maybe others will like them. To make a point or too pass time, the characters share typical and engaging biographical stories. There are tough images involving dogs. And yes, there's a goof-in one scene we watch from the perspective of a dog; however dogs do not experience the same colours as us.

I think Romanian cinema would benefit from depicting more movies about professional, normal people rather than dysfunctional ones.

In some sense, probably cinema is also a mirror of society. Since "corruption" is a subject nowadays in Romania, "Why me?" approaches this subject.

I think the movie describes pertinently the influence of the superiors on the prosecutor, their attitude of bullying into getting what they wanted-a mock up trial on other prosecutor so that their material interests would survive, the harassment he is subject to. The question is what to do-to acquiesce or to stand ground? A similar moral dilemma has the policeman in the movie "Police,adjective" and similar harassment suffers "Serpico" .

However the movie lacks on two points: 1) it does not show the descent or turmoil of the protagonist which usually accompany up to the final act. He is mostly calm or self-assured up to the end, in contrast with the tragedy of his final act.

2) it does not show what is the origin of his moral conscience. Was it influence of some people, did it come from his own study and reflections? Also, what principles does he support?

Interesting tv-show, recommended. First episodes introduce us into what is properly called Babylon inter wars Berlin ( such as a world of decadent art, after first war misery, bordellos, and pornographic studios ) A chaotic, vicious world; there is also political corruption, family disappointments, betrayal, just like in real life. I would say the political setting is realistic, as in the police upper offices or the underground ultra nationalistic movements. Charlotte is a girl that tries to survive, is quite astute, and appreciated for that.

The main protagonist, Gereon, is driven by a sense of duty, and sometimes acts against his superiors or associates' motives.

Svetlana Sorokina sings as a kind of Lady Gaga of her time. Her lover, Kardakow should have been called Koshka(cat) as he has nine lives. Most communist revolutionaries were such as lawyers, teachers or military. Unusual to be an artist- I think they made him an artist to connect him with the artistic scene important in the show.

Unlike Hollywood shows, not all the stories end up well, there is also tragedy. I was afraid Gereon is all too perfect, but we find out he commits perjury.

We also find people of about any social status living in less comfortable accommodations (eg journalist and detective bachelors sharing lodgings). There are many references of the type "he is from town X" (so he must behave in a certain way) where insert X, a German town-I think such remarks about province appeal more to the German audience. The theme song is haunting and beautiful. Also, there are some cool bizarre negative characters (The Priest, The Armenian)

Am I the only one not impressed by Gary Oldman's performance? Half the time I did not understand what he says as he mumbles or whispers. And I understand the other actors, so it is not a sounding issue. The portrayal of Churchill is as feeble and old, which I don't think he was since it takes strength to carry on what he did. The make up is almost as thick as Bram Stoker's Dracula. We know Churchill was spiritual and cantankerous, but during the entire movie I only hear one or two real spiritual sayings. A more authentic, lively and better performance is given by Brian Cox in the movie "Churchill".

Other aspects: cinematography is quite good ( due also to the hefty budget). Music is also top notch. An emotional crescendo is built up by the director up to the final, strings attached, and I recognize I was carried out by it myself. A common gimmick nowadays is to introduce the perspective of a "common people", in this case, the typist girl. Another is (due to political correctness) to introduce a non-white person, so a black man has the longest frame time in the underground scene. Some scenes are weird( eg the prime minister searching for a reference from Cicero-and we never find out what the quotation was; He sends a telegram to an officer in Calais,but the officer stares at German airplanes, we don't know his reaction)

A middle age architect named Thana buys an elephant and starts travel by road. He leaves home due to some domestic issues with his wife. Along the travel he encounters few quaint characters.

It is clear from beginning that the elephant is a fit metaphor for the protagonist. The movie is recommended for elderly people since there are many instances in which the aging theme is treated. Another sub-theme is dealing with the memories of the past.

Along the way, Thana also encounters greed, ignorance, selfishness or cruelty. Occasionally, there are moments of gratitude and kindness.

One of the characters is a poor man who pretends he is married with a woman that he knew years ago. That reminded me of 'The three burials of Melquiades Estrada', a journey movie that treats similar themes.

The elephant (Pop Aye) itself is cute and smart, as expected. You might learn a few bits about the pachyderm's behaviour. Animal lovers would love it. In conclusion, an enjoyable experience.

There are not many special effects or means to create these, except the guns. There is a painting by Bruguel, whose paintings appear as a reflection of human condition in films by other directors (say, Solaris). We see Paul's family reading books. That hints that there is a reflective sub-tone of the movie.

Travis acts as a catalyst since his spontaneous reactions often are followed by more misfortune.He does not have the down to earth mind of his father. Travis is a teenager who builds up fear and frustration. These reappear through his drawings or dreams. The dreams become more and more elaborate. Here the director appeals to a trick, which becomes a theme. He tricks us into believing his dreams are real and the horror fodder that we are used with (such as the scene where Kim spurts blood out of mouth). This deceptive method reminds me of Haneke. In this sense I found the final interesting, since it still could be partially Travis's dream. And here comes the other, encompassing deception: not only dreams are deceiving, but what is suggested as reality might be an appearance. Who really was the "sick" one? What really happened on the night when the red door was opened? And of course, what happened at the end? Alternative scenarios could be construed and we are not given the answers that we might crave for. Interesting indeed.

I can't say I was much thrilled (maybe because of seeing too many movies recently) and felt like the movie lacks some salt and pepper, despite the good intentions. Thing is the more you think about the movie, the scarier it becomes. Perhaps what comes at night is some basal, primitive, terror. The naturalistic, simple scenery in which the action takes place suggests that. There are some plot points that might be discussed (they put off and on gas masks or wash their hands, usually sloppily, to fend off some unknown pathogen-a kind of blind protection; why did they accept strangers when they distrusted them so much?; and so on).

+++Chen is a doctor-he has a irresponsible brother who mistreats his son. As the movie progresses snippets of information about his previous life are dropped, almost casually, either through dialogue or flashbacks. Indeed, one theme is the temporal intermixture.

It's interesting for me to have insights into Chinese modern lifestyle shown directly through the street life (The Iron Ministry, Blind Shaft). Hence we see people going along with their business, poor people or desolated ones. Also, we see superstition, tedium, old traditions, appliances that don't work and vain attempts to fix them.

The second part is almost a different film. We leave the city, often grim, with glum buildings and we enter a mostly enchanting mountain area. As a reviewer mentioned we have a long shot as in Russian's Ark by Sokurov. Perhaps this technique is associated with filming in a way also seen in music videos: several young people, the same ones, continuously pop out and into the scene. The twirling sequence culminates by Chen revealing last piece of the story of his life to a hairdresser.

Now, the director pulls out an interesting feat. People borrow to each other moments of their lives and some people substitute for others. It is like being in a dream, which is constructed subtly and as if without strain. Examples: the flashlight story of Chen's coworker reappears in the story he tells to hairdresser; the latter is a substitute for Chen's ex-wife; the nephew is substituted by a motorcycle driver he meets who has the same name, draws watches, has a watch painted on his wrist, is bullied and to whom Chen offers protection-all these exactly like with his child nephew. Even more, two casually introduced persons share same nickname, Idiot.

And yes we share some more themes, more common in Chinese movies: lost love, responsibility toward family, choices to correct fatalities that lead to more tragedy.

---The camera filming the long shot has several failures, such as jerking or lack of focus. I can't say the movie is a masterpiece and it feels the debuting director wanted to express too much. But he made a compelling, interesting feature.

+++Varakin is a father who comes to US to see his daughter whom he didn't meet for 4 years and is now 7. The girl lives with her mother in a luxurious home and with a well-to-do new father, apparently living American dream.

However, the girl seems unsatisfied and she gets very attached to the Russian man. The latter is handsome and genuine and plays guitar. But doesn't speak English.

There are some funny moments, as we expect(stereotypes or not), from the way Russians behave within American culture.

The little girl is precocious (maybe too smart for her age), cute and well acting.

The morale of the movie is that money and material comfort are not substitute for love.

--- I think many characters are illustrated with too a thick brush. The new parents are too materialistically blind and selfish. In his runaway, the fugitives are taken by a redneck truck driver, who is too coarse. The prison cop is too silent. Character development suffers.

At some point, I think while entering the library, one can see the shadow of the camera on wall.

Assassin of the Tsar might be a parable, for which I give the following view: the event was one of the most important in the Russia's history. Killing the Tsar was profound in the people's mind since common people looked at him with reverence. Moreover, his family and entourage of 9 people also was killed. This tragic event might haunt the conscience (in an abstract sense) of the Russian people. Its justification raises moral questions and now, after history showed the effects of Russian revolution, we can ponder about it retrospectively.

It would have been easier if the Tsar was marked by avarice and carelessness for his own people, decadent and a simpleton, as probably some communist propaganda movies must had depicted. However, the director chose to show him in a different light: he is studious, tactful and intelligent. On the other hand, the local chief NKVD-ist Yurovsky does what he does out of duty for revolution. One asks in the movie "Is it that simple?"

The interpretation might be extended as the assassin representing the Bolsheviks and the Tsar, the aristocracy/high class that was to be eliminated. In this light, we explain the following: Yurovsky is a approached by the mother of a girl that disappeared and he knows nothing about it. Doctor Timofeyev (the embodiment of "typical Yurovsky") worryingly speaks that he is not guilty about it. The girl's interpretation then is the mass of innocent people that died and suffered as a consequence of Bolsheviks' revolution.

Assassin of the Tsar is a fantasy/absurdist movie that is presented in a serious mode - respecting the subject by avoiding the dry humor that often accompanies absurd movies. I would interpret the second doctor (Aleksandr Yegorovich) as the embodiment of the typical light-hearted/forgiving part of the history.

I think the movie is a parable of Chile's or Latin America's modern tragic history. Dictatorships of any sort ravaged the continent for some decades. Artists such as Neruda suffered under these regimes. Remember Chilean's Victor Jara executed on a stadium? I think Chileans viewers will find clues in the movie that other ones would miss.

Oscar Pelochonneau represents a typical instrument of these dictatorships: the military/cop/bureaucrat/judge who executes the unjust sentences. Even if he reads Neruda's poetry, he does not understand it; he is under the weight of his mediocrity. Moreover, he despises the rebels-in a scene we see how he calls them scums; and this shows his ignorance.

Neruda represents then the creator, the artist whose words transcend historical time-his words survive the temporary regimes and give hope to those who suffer. In this sense, in a surprising act, we see how Neruda's friends give away clues to where he might be - he can't be apprehended because his creation cannot be apprehended, so we might just well tell you where he is. Also, in this sense, even his follower and what he represents is an idea that the writers of age imagined already.

Common in Latin America literature and cinema (eg Madeinusa, Jauja), we encounter a mysterious, lawless, remote and harsh territory. In these territories one uninitiated foreigner might experience transformation and sometimes redemption. Now, we have Oscar following Neruda in such a territory at the country border. We may expect that after his experience here, the typical Oscar will raise somewhere to be a better person.

Perhaps due to the focus on the above themes and the pursuing story, there is a smaller emphasis on the actual poetry or on his socialist views. It's interesting to glimpse into the beginnings of socialist attempts in Chile. The movie raises other questions-say, how a bourgeois as Neruda is after all, is understanding the lower class - and he is confronted about this by a peasant. Other question: up to what point you risk your freedom to help him escape?

+++Despite the title, the protagonists are not so much weirdos, just average teens and this is recognized in the movie-everyone is a weirdo in his own way. We have here a simple nice story that I bet it is not much different than what could have happened today-but for a reason that you realize after you see the movie it had to be set in 1976. Also, despite the story line, there is no politics involved, only a drop. It is a story about coming of age and responsibilities of parents. The movie is shot black and white which seems suitable and there is a nice 70s rock music line. Actors play very well (with a mention to Julia Stone aka Alice). I thought Kit's mother played overzelously, but later in the movie it is revealed why she had to play that way. --- As a Canadian touch point, there is a foreign element-an Asian man that is in a relationship with Kit's mother; in turn that seems odd because these adults have very different personalities. I wished there were more background revealed about the parents.

+++ It so happens that once in awhile some fine movies crawl in at the local cinema amongst many mediocre ones. The last such good one was Midnight in Paris.

Fences captivates through intense dialogues. These reveal present family problems, and pleasant or dramatical aspects of the past. Tory has had a rough upbringing (left home as a teen, prison) that left traces in his personality. Later in life, he experiences anger toward his son and is unfaithful. He prides himself on how he managed to raise his family despite the adversities. It is up to viewer to evaluate the worthiness of his life, especially if the viewer has a family. I don't have a problem with movies that contain little scenery and mainly talking (eg Carnage) if the talking is interesting. That's the case here- we are imbued into 50s black culture and the language is savorous. The script also touches social topics such as union and racism (eg the drivers are white) Interesting is also that Tory's best friend Bono is white, he calls him "niggar" and Bono shares some of his culture.

Fences resembles the good ol' Spike Lee creations.

--- I found the close ups unnecessary and making the filming more confined than it should be. The last 20-30 minutes could have been cut; at some point in the end it became preachy goody-good Hollywood style. Sure, more scenes showing the neighbourhood would have been nice (as in A Bronx Tale)- perhaps they would have affected the budget.

I found myself dozing after about 15 min and wanting to leave the theater-reminder next time sit close to entrance.

Other than that, the story between the two protagonists is full of clichés. The mechanic is typical mechanic and typically experiencing Robinson Crusoe despair. For some reason he finds "perfect" match with a writer, which in turn, for some reason falls for him. There is no dislike between them whatsoever. The dialogue is bland; I don't see what's special about her writing, any teen can write like that. Everything in the movie is typical and anyone can write such a script. Hey, guys did you hear about someone called Cpt Picard, who had his own quirks and imperfections? SF evolved. But, probably the creators of the movie were interested in something as average and bland as possible. The heroes are two eye-candy white actors (though as not to be totally politically incorrect they have a black captain).

Also the selfishness act of the protagonist is not so original, the idea can be found in Interstellar.

The only good thing here are visual effects, the things that happen in the spaceship, the images of the outer space are beautiful. And the spaceship looks cool. The part after she wakes up is slightly more interesting. As they start to talk, occasionally they talk about more important information. For example her mentioning how the company profits from travellers.

A taxi driver makes a car accident and then he pays the bills for the victim. The bills accumulate and he becomes more and more miser. Personally I found the movie too melodramatic, in the tradition of Chinese melodramatic movies. That is, someone is involved in some kind of tragic event, it is traumatized and in despair commits himself tragic events. In this respect, in this not an interesting movie. Once in awhile there are technical and cinematographic pleasantries-such as use of intense music or natural phenomena to keep apace with the intensity. And there is a sustained tension and interesting music score. There are not many extended dialogues between characters. And neither character development. Theme is how much humiliation one can bear-a theme I saw it before.

*There are no references to own biography to know why Bloom transformed himself in a sociopath-we don't know about his family or childhood. One only can see that he progresses in his trespasses of the law *He is a type such as the ones portrayed by Jim Carrey in his movies: at times naive looking, smiling often, doing simple things such as watching comedy or watering a flower pot. Can such a personage become a multiple killer? Maybe I am wrong, but it is kind of improbable, though theoretically possible. One reason he does he does is the attraction for Nina Romina and the desire to be likable to her. *The main reason I watched is to get some insights into media inner workings and in this sense the film delivers finely. For example, you learn that the crimes suffered by upper class people have priority in the news. *Not only Bloom lacks empathy but also the top journalist Nina Romina - in a last scene with her we see her congratulating him, after cursorily acknowledging death of his partner. In this sense, they found each other and I think this is a point of the movie - possible desensitizing of media workers.