cuteasfunk

Istanbul and the associated reviews are really interesting. Yes it is a bit cliché'd and yes some of the characters are one dimensional. Errol Flynn's acting is unique and there are clearly attempts to refer to film noir (even though this a colour film) and there is an attempt by the film studio to lay this film over the moral dilemma of Casablanca and throw in Nat King Cole and "when I fall in love" as a replacement for Dooley Wilson and Time Goes by. But let us not forget films cost a significant amount of money to make and studios are stupid and they feel that they have to piggy back the film's selling point with another film's Unique selling point...see Altman's The Player....if you need proof.

But actually the pull of this film's USP, namely the love interest's amnesia and Errol Flynn's affection for her are quite striking. The diamond smuggling sub plot works to a degree albeit the villains, as one reviewer says, are rather thinly drawn.

What I found interesting as well was 1950's view of women. There was no depth to the relationship between the lead characters just a suggestion of something deep and intense going on. However floating on a love boat in the Bosphorus was all that explained this "love". Also the potential life after the successful acquisition of the diamonds was hinted without any explanation...and the lead female's new life was ugly to the 21st century mind...a suggestion that she would look after Mr Fielding, (presumably cooking, looking nice and proving oral sex) and in return he would feed and clothe her and take her to places like Istanbul, was contrasted with Marge and her husband, where the husband dished out a black eye because Marge might have been tempted by a Frenchman who would have gone with her to see Hamlet in Turkish was almost risible.

But I stuck with this film to the end and enjoyed the mild threat and laughed at the cloak and dagger stuff........no it's not great but it is worth watching.

I have now seen both films but haven't read the books. It would be so easy to dismiss the US film with caustic comments about Hollywood redoing international films for the worse, but I think this is more complex than that.

The first film had flaws, maybe not of pace but of character development. This version does provide some exposition of the principles and their behaviour. But the Swedish film tells the plot better and more intensely. I remember the scenes revealing the murders elsewhere in Sweden, far better in the original rather than Fincher's which were almost impressionistic.

I liked the development of Lisbeth in the final scene. It is irrelevant whether it is accurate with the books because in context it is more reasonable that Lisbeth feels something for Mikael because he doesn't demand anything of her...and entirely plausible when she reacts by throwing the leather jacket away and driving off.

Fincher's film is more beautifully shot for sure. But was that worth the enormous budget and is that not the greater travesty, that the studios and the directors believe that we need sumptuous visual spectacle to follow an original disturbing story? I appreciate both visual presentation and challenging story line and plot development, but one very rarely gets it....because a true original yet disturbing story would not usually attract such a large budget.

Go see this film it's not perfect but if you are so dumb you can't watch sub titles then this film might just shake you out of your intellectual torpor

Great film...slight flaws but who cares.....there's more invention in this film than all the other films released in 2009 put together (just about)....

One reviewer here said you can almost imagine it happening here....doh!....what do you think happens when you take a population that is not indigenous and place it next to another population....the one ghetto-ises the other and blames all the ills of its own society on it... also the indigenous populations seek to exploit it...both at the bottom end (nigerian black market - non PC but absolutely scary....it could be Albanians or any other population that we wrongly have nightmares about).....and at the other end...corporate greed.......

I do hope that this film does not become part of a franchise and I do hope the director has other films in him....whilst some of the cgi was used in car commercials and I don't know which came first...the story and the story telling is brilliant...so he should be giving us something new in a couple of years.....

I will not write a bad review of this movie per se.....there are plenty of other bad reviews with which I agree. I want to say that this movie summarises everything that is good and bad about American mainstream cinema.

First, why allow the director to remake a 50 year old film that was quite good in its day? Sure the director always wanted to make the film...but why give him $80m to indulge his ego....(He must have thought he could improve it?). But actually when the original was made...it was a fabulous concept that the aliens came down without wanting to destroy us......we need a new scenario.....

Secondly, Hollywood seems to be run by accountants and this is an accountant's movie. Just enough costly special effects and stars to warrant the promo budget.....but not enough thought into the story/plot. Anyone who has seen the Altman film "The Player" will also recognise the "pitch lines" that probably went with this film...."War of the Worlds where the Aliens care about the planet...."..."Keanu Reeve in the Matrix, only this time he is from an Alien Matrix that wants to destroy our false world". Whatever it was, some money people bought it.

I don't know why Hollywood executives feel they have to discourage originality.....? My understanding is that most films make their money back eventually. I suppose it is difficult. The world film audiences are a very varied bunch. Those who love action, those who love "cgi" and special effects, those who want character development, those who want a "message".

To develop that thought further. If you have a spare $100m to invest in movies...you can get some movie stars, you can get some special effects....if the story were not a remake....most of us would have given this a better rating....did they commission the remake to help sell the film?...if so, then the remake may have sold it to get bums on seats, but it made the film watching experience all the poorer.

What if they had remade the film but took it to a totally different place....? What if they remade the film and "reduced" the special effects but increased the plot twists and had a seriously challenging ending.....?

I wonder if all the people who have commented negatively on this movie could have done a better job of getting the director to produce a better movie....Hey Hollywood!....try asking real film fans about how to make a film instead of relying on greedy, cocaine drenched, egomaniacs....those numpties must be the cinema equivalent of banking executives....except what would we as the audience feel if they actually over-risked occasionally....if more of the films they commissioned actually did something different with cinema and took a chance?

I know that only occasionally does a left field film come out that goes mainstream...but $80m for no good reason...honestly....when does someone say enough is enough. Oh...I can't be bothered to go on....a bit like the ending of the film....they couldn't be bothered so they ended it after two hours.

Here endeth the rant....sorry.

I don't want to retell the story of this film...because to do so would be to reduce the power of this magnificent movie.

The intensity and claustrophobia of the set up is part of the plot....how often can you say that a writer/director uses such a wide range of other elements to tell the story than action and dialogue.....although some do...very few seem to bring so much together....the cinematography, the music, the lack of dialogue, etc etc, and the other characters in stark contrast.

It is a simple story...but Oh I could watch this film daily....my only regret is that I did not get to see it in a cinema......The director's other films are equally brilliant and I am still planning to re watch 2046 a few more times because it is obviously more complex....although it might not be a good thing....This film has as much depth as 2046 wants to have.

Great line early on - "Oh thank God the "symbologist" has arrived!" -spoken sarcastically...unfortunately if you have read the book or if you do go to see the movie you will know that it is reiterated more warmly at the end of the film.....it might even be on the posters and trailers for all I know.....

Let me ask you , once you've been to see the film.....did you think that you needed all the symbolism explained?

As Dr Mark Kermode said in his review on BBC Radio, the problem with the "Da Vinci Code"...was that they stood around and pointed at something, explained it and then rushed to the next place.....Angels and Demons has improved.....now they do the explanations whilst they are running to the next set piece - "result"!

On a separate note, if you want to play a little game in the movie....try to work out what area of the world Ewan Magregor is supposed to have come from ......Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins comes to mind....

And if you don't laugh out loud about ten minutes from the end when Hans Zimmer's music tries to capture the solemnity of the moment amidst the funniest slapstick since Laurel and Hardy.....then you take yourself and this movie far too seriously....!

The biggest problem for me is that I believe cinema audiences are not fools...... we do not need exposition every thirty seconds.....because let's face it...if you've read the book you know most of the stuff...and if you haven't read the book...then you might have been tempted to read the book to get the detail....(I know there will be some for whom such a movie would confirm that Hollywood dumbs down everything)...but in this film they could have used the symbolism that is the source of the film to make a much more cinematically intelligent movie e.g. "Light" as a symbol for enlightenment and yet in contradiction Lucifer the "light giver".....or make more of the conflict between "science" and the "church" which is the cornerstone of the film's plot or illuminate the contradictions between angels and demons.

But then maybe I am wrong, maybe we the audience are stupid and if we go to a movie based on a best seller...we can't expect anything else but that the accountants and the number crunchers will have told Ron Howard what they want the film to "do"....in all senses, artistically and financially.....

For me opportunity lost to make a great intelligent movie that would have departed no more from the book than the film we have before us.

Sorry...I know an immense amount of work goes into films and I rarely write critical reviews......but if you are a genuine movie fan you should go to see this movie and play another game rather than "guess the accent"...perhaps you can determine how you might have filmed it given the gazillions that Ron and the team were given to make it.

The Bond Franchise is going through a transition....and clearly not yet a renaissance. However, reading some of the comments....I felt compelled to try and balance up for those who have not yet seen the film.

First things first....there are no gadgets....as we are no longer in the 60's or 70's and a pen that acts as a radio receiver or a laser gun etc etc is not particularly astounding when an ordinary member of the public can film and then send a video half way round the world on a phone....I applaud the decision to drop gadgets....(also in the last Brosnan Bond the John Cleese Q was taking the camp quality of Bond movies too far......

Yes the camera work is a little impenetrable at times....but that is the current shorthand for "Actionspeed" - eventually someone is going to produce an action movie but at a "bergmanesque pace......

The plot......well it's not the Brothers Kamarazov.....but then the movie is a "divertissement" ....there are many "loopholes".....most notably....what's the point of the hotel in the desert?

You do need to have seen Casino Royale to understand the dilemma and drive behind Bond wanting to get to the bottom of the organisation that was responsible for Vesper's death.....and I am not sure anyone actually buys the resurrection of Mathis as a good guy.......

Daniel Craig......? What is the fetish with facial cuts? Can we have a little less muscularity and a little more depth....of which he is clearly capable

I found the movie to be quick, exciting, with enough plot twists and confusions to make it a relatively light but enjoyable and intellectual diversion.

Let us be clear there are enough movies about that the producers have spent money of this nature and not produced either a thoughtful or exciting film....

Overall, I think this film is trying to move the franchise forward and they have used Casino Royale as the starting point......the real interest will be where they finish......

Forget that the viewpoint has already been explored with Blair Witch... this film is a fantastic departure from the traditional method of film story telling.....

Forget that there is very little depth to the narrative, beyond the allusion to 9/11.... the power of the delivery is incomparably more intense than a similar narrative such as the recent War of the Worlds.

Forget that the actors are, as per Blair Witch, not particularly well known and that the focus of the storyline shifts interest slightly between characters .....we still become interested and concerned about the characters.

As you will know this is basically a hand held camera gimmick.....but taken to a new level...for instance...... in traditional film story - telling...when the camera focuses on something.... it is "code" for telling you to watch...this was taken to new heights by the film Cache.....but......with this film in a number of incidents the camera shot for a variety of reasons does not always focus on the action......and as a result the audience engagement is intensified.

Also unlike Blair Witch, there is a great deal of cgi going on but you only see it in passing because of the camera work....nonetheless, I am told that for a film maker to use cgi the camera must remain steady...therefore for what seems to be an amateurish presentation is actually taking professionalism in a totally different direction.

Cinema audiences have become incredibly sophisticated. We do not need men to wear white hats or black hats to tell us good guys or bad guys....we do not need exposition from third parties to follow complex story lines...although oft times we are given it...this film makes you work a little to join dots...but no-one in the audience I sat with piped up with "what's happening"......there was enough happening to make that question redundant.

The ending will be disappointing for some people .....but I felt that it was exactly right for the narrative device and anything more would have appeared to be have been contrived.

At times I felt I was on a fairground ride travelling with 4g of force....but here's the thing...you go to a fairground and pay £2 for 2 minutes of physical excitement....with this film...you pay your £5 entrance fee and are subjected to 80 minutes of physical excitement, mental stimulation and nerve flaying brilliance.....

I am uncertain about the idea of a sequel....but I think that it is likely that the production team must already be streets ahead of the usual Hollywood thought processes and therefore we should rest easy and await with anticipation.

Go see this movie...but take travel sickness pills first.

Like others, I believe this film to be one of the greatest multi-textured Sci Fi films ever made.....

As Roy, the leader of the replicants says "Questions.........."

In the Director's Cut....the Unicorn Origami is left by Gaff...as a symbol that he could have killed Rachel....but he left her because he thinks she is a replicant with a four year life term...but also don't you think he is revealing that he knows Deckard's unicorn memory.....therefore Deckard is a replicant .....? Unlike most films, the exposition is limited....reduced even further from the original.....

Questions.....

Do you think Roy killed J F Sebastian and why? Questions......

Photos are physical memories.....but they can be scrutinised digitally...? Questions....

Why was Deckard in Semi retirement?