This film is a western and a drama at the same time, which contains many morals. The first is that bravery is not necessary to publicly be expressed in acts of violence. Personal achievements are better to keep and not brag about them. The fight and disagreement between two people should not be transferred to the family and community level. They must be resolved between the two involved. Love should not be confused with pride. The film shows how the most economically powerful tries to reduce the poor, aspect not much delved in this film . Gregory Peck acted at highest level, Jean Simmons quite similar. Charlton Heston did not convince, Carroll Baker showed her acting skills. Burl Ives was the efficient as always.
Simply wonderful, interesting, instructive, all the positive qualifications that can be given to a film like this. The story is there, the confrontation between Palestinians and Lebanese Falangist groups in the past. The Lebanese director-screenwriter Ziad Doueiri had the idea of presenting a plot based on a fact, in his personal opinion, insignificant, from which the water was heating and then boiling, to end in the tragedy of a trial. During the legal process, the differences between the different groups emerge, the Christian sympathizers, many of them guided by Falangist entities, and on the other the Palestinian refugees, who seemed more like illegal Mexicans in California than Arabs in a brother country. A third factor is not seen in the film, the one that brings about these differences. That factor affects both parts, even if one of them is reluctant to recognize it as such. There is a huge rejection among these groups, difficult to eliminate. Each one is assisted by its reason each one believes it owns his truth. In these circumstances, lighting the wick is extremely easy. One bad word is enough and everything will catch fire. There was, as there was also an unpleasant response, highly offensive, capable of setting a whole forest on fire.
Once again, the enormous weaknesses of a country's judicial and prison system are demonstrated. Once again, it is clear the level of poverty and misery of several black families, which survive as means of drug distribution in many cases. According to a statistic that appeared at the end of the film, there are more than 2.5 million convicts in the United States, of whom an estimated 120,000 are innocent. Imagine an innocent sentenced to life imprisonment, who returns the life lost in prison? That, if it is finally proven innocent, which does not always seem very likely. The plot of this film is a sharp nail to assimilate for those who proclaim the existence of another pleasant and unreal environment. Tyrannies and dictatorships without mercy are condemned, something very fair, but criticism of the imperfections of the so-called democracy is not accepted, it is scary to speak about it when it comes to gross violations of human rights. Congratulations to the director and the rest of the team that made this movie.
Not many people know Sub-Saharan Western Africa, its way of living and thinking. They live in poverty, families with few resources to be able to eat the bare minimum daily, even so, they have what is called resilience. Adapted to the evils left by centuries of colonial domination, to which the corruption and inefficiency of many of their authorities are added. The families somehow achieve a balance of life, which leaves them time to enjoy some little things.
Watching this film was like remembering previously seen realities by me. The film is presented as a fable with its well-added ingredients from the customs of the ethnic groups that make up Senegal. All is about a trip of famous actor of Senegalese origin to the land of his ancestors, and a child from a village in northern part of the country, who due to his sympathies to the actor decides to travel with no means to the capital with the sole objective of meeting the artist. From the meeting, unexpected or unknown events begin to occur for the actor, a man who was actually unaware of the culture of his ancestors.
The film reflects the hospitality of its people, the free way of living, not very given to worrying much about time, also the evil that is generated in some to deceptively obtain what they do not have, the behavior of the police, local beliefs, their rhythms. A film made with many truthful bits of the everyday.
Yao is a cultural entertainment, which takes the viewer into a country, where several ethnic groups live and about seven local languages are spoken, in addition to French, the official language.
The strange thing is that I do not remember hearing the name Rosa Parks mentioned in the movie, which does not detract from its merits. Where segregation and discrimination exists, injustice prevails, and the so-called law and force is the prescription, obviously the law of those in power. It was good to see the strong reaction of the black people guided by the Montgomery Improvement Association. They did not have any choice than to move in their vehicles or long walks to their jobs. Wonder how a person in hours or days becomes conscious of the excesses of discrimination. She may be empathic, but something else above is not realistic. More emphasis should have put on what the black people did in those heavy days. In any case, the film has undoubted merits since it reveals the degree of hatred and repression suffered by the blacks.
This film shows that supremacism of the whites in several countries of the planet is a form of inhumane treatment, which does not seek any way of normal relationship. Fortunately, populations are not homogeneous, they tend to have minorities that oppose those majorities and offer a rational opposition. There are people who do not agree with slavery, nor with extreme discrimination, but accept segregation, not integration. Other minorities advocate a normal relationship regardless of the color of their neighbors' skin.
The acting of Puerto Rican Juano Hernández, as a black man accused; Claude Jarman Jr., the teenage defender; David Brian, the alleged defense attorney, and Porter Hall, father of the victim, who as usual embodied his role to perfection, were all of high level, nothing to envy to those stars of higher category films.
A very successful remake of a comedy-drama, directed by Neil Burger, which deals with the life of two beings with different stories. One with culture and a lot of money, another uneducated and without money, but with a lot of ingenuity to make live a fantasy world hitherto unknown by the billionaire. What one lacks is left over to the other, so the life of one is complemented with that of the other. The idiocy of the rich class is evident at times, a very positive aspect of this film. There are many who boast knowing and are true ignorant. What you have as a soul is many times richer in those beings that lack wealth, at least they are better able to understand the needs of persons next to them. Good acting by Bryan Cranston, and a magnificent one by Kevin Hart, who really stole the show.
At present it was very convenient a film as such, which deals with mobsters and the murky world surrounding it (unions, politicians and others), it´s the world where words as nasty, bs, rats and other vulgar words-expressions are quite common. The good thing here is that these elements always finish in prison, they mock the law but up to a limit, and usually the rats are all trapped at once. Hoffa was a powerful man but supported by other groups. With no support of the power Hoffa, union´s boss, would've been nothing. That's why it is a good film for reflexion, moreover for those who claims victory early not taking into account that support can sink any time. Interesting film and plot, congrats to Martin Scorsese for bringing together a group of experienced actors, who, as usual, excelled in this film. Joe Pesci was simply outstanding, Al Pacino and De Niro also but a little bit less than the first mentioned. The make up of these actors was also extraordinary. They look young, then a bit older and finally ancient, magic make up.
When one hears a politician boasting of the armament that his country possesses, one claiming that he has the mother of weapons, the other the father, while some "cockerels" of the third world are also doing nearly the same, those who do not solve food and housing and in the end they end up offering slogans with death as an inescapable promise, it is because those presidents or supposed courageous men have never been in war. The film "1917 (2019)" of British director Sam Mendes, based on the stories of a family predecessor who had the misfortune to participate in World War I, is a clear example of the number of lives lost in a war, the pains that cause in the families of the fallen ones and the economic damages that it causes. This film reflects the damage with many details, one of them is the hatred among rival soldiers, to the point of assaulting when they are doing you a favor of life or death. Dean-Charles Chapman and George MacKay, both managed to attract all the attention of the public throughout the film and their performance was such that they looked like the same soldiers on the battlefield. They managed to bring reality to the big screen. There were no foolish scenes of those vulgar war movies that show non-existent supermen in those confrontations. It is a quality film, with a real plot, well-designed fiction, and excellent photography.
I still remember Jack Nicholson playing the role of Joker in "Batman (1989)", and supposed that probably the film has something to do with Batman again. Wrong, this is a different film with another approach, where Batman is absent better to say, is nearby. Joker is a clown, of the many that one could find in Times Square in New York, He made a living by making people laugh, sometimes even with his own misfortunes. The film tries to explain or justify Joker´s antisocial behavior or his aversion to the high bourgeois character, Thomas Wayne, that is Bruce's father, aka Batman as an adult. It is the society that exploits and pays them with crumbs, so it is not just Arthur Fleck (Joker), there are many more discontents and those who want to exterminate everything that oppresses them. The film makes you think and reflect of the situation where this people try to survive. Joaquin Phoenyx's performance as Joker is very convincing, as he is repulsive, disgusting, hateful, everything the director and screenwriter tried to reflect with his performance
In Spanish the title is "The truth is painful" but in the pockets of the magnates
We always learn with good films, and this is the case. Dr Omalu (Will Smith) asserted that many animals have better protection of their head and brain than the human being, e.g. the tongue of the woodpecker extends through the back of the mouth out of the nostril, surrounding the entire skull, which becomes a kind of safety belt for that vital organ. The human being has none of that, you hit your head and you stay with the blow, which in the medium term will bring fatal consequences, many more if repeated weekly. The film is a clear evidence of the abuse of the human being in American football, sport causing several deaths for the same reason. The NFL's attitude is quite similar to that of cigarette producers in the 1990s. They denied all the damage that tobacco caused to human health. The racial aspect is again addressed in the film. Dr Omalu arrived in the US with an idea, which later changed. Good acting of Will Smith and Alec Baldwin, both demonstrated one again their versatility to play different roles.
The plot goes around a real event, a murderer, presumably a member of KKK or any supremacist movement in southern US, who decided to kill a black rights activist late at night, in 1963, i.e. in a totally adverse environment for those who were not whites, and where the supposed justice was in their hands, almost all of them as racist as those who practiced apartheid in South Africa.
The value of the film is that it shows us how a large part of a population thinks about the institutional that existed in the past, how there are white people who do not want that story to be touched again and do not accept that at present the justice corrects what it did not do before. The performances of Whoopy Goldberg and Alec Baldwin are outstanding. In superlative terms, the one achieved by James Woods as the typical racist man. This actor in the scenes managed to cause disgust and rejection, and the same can be said of those who embodied the white defense lawyers in the film.
The film is a good confirmation of the abuse of several priests over innocent children. Its values are of showing the misery of criminals and the hypocrisy of their bosses trying to cover these shameless acts. This abuse will remain till the church supresses ancient celibate, but it will tale time present Pope does not seem to have the courage for such suppression. The consequences of the abuse go beyond the physical ones, they have a long-term negative moral efectts on those persons ego suffered the abuse.
Plot recalling real events of the post-war Poland in 1945. While this country, especially the Jewish population, was cruelly treated by the Nazi hordes, the liberation was not rose-colored. The Russian liberators have historically not been welcome on Polish lands. Many battles in the past took place between both countries. The Red Army suffered an extremely merciless war on the part of its adversaries. You have to be in the skin of those people to judge them, but still there are things that are intolerable, and the savagery has no justification. The rest you can imagine, when troops are occupying a nunnery, the soldiers' actions and the contradictions of nuns following the gospels. The film shows the negative side of both sides in this situation. French actress Lou de Laâge plays excellently the role of assistant of the French Red Cross in Poland, seconded by Polish actresses Agata Buzek, Agata Kulesza among others as nuns, and the Parisian Vincent Macaigne as Red Cross physician.
One cannot agree with the criteria given by some analysts, who said that this film is not scary and is not so tragic. It is really scary, let´s suppose that tomorrow human cloning will be approved, something that ethically would be inconceivable. On the one hand, some want to reproduce certain types of humans, on the other hand, others look for a simple massive reproduction to produce organs as spare parts for those opulent who need them. The movie shows nothing but children slaves of people lacking ethics. The film is well done in general, and it is perfect for polemics, perfect to discuss what we should avoid to happen in the coming future. Obviously, one is touched by this story, but deep reflections of it are necessary.
Resolving a divorce case in a courtroom led by rabbis does not seem an easy task. One who does not know the internal aspects of the Talmud can only suppose that there are precepts or laws that are described in the Tanakh or Hebrew Bible, on which the decisions of the judges are based. Without going into religious details, it is observed that man, as in the rest of religions, has a power that women do not possess. The man can refuse to give the divorce and there is no law that forces him to do the opposite, whereas if it were the other way around, probably the same thing would not happen. The film has an interesting and low budget plot, the controversies and the statements in his scenes give it a high value. The final result is not what one always expects, but it is something that is within the established in that society. It is an interesting film, which increases the knowledge of the world where we live in.
The plot goes around an elderly couple, parents of children, who decide in the twilight of their lives to visit the capital of their country and thus meet their sons, daughter and grandchildren. Many things happen during the visit, that one cannot really imagine, itr didn´t go well. At certain point, the film reminds me somewhat Visconti´s "Rocco and his brothers (1960)". The behavior of the parents, their way of thinking, is far from that of their sons and daughter. The epilogue of the movie is very educational, worth to be analyzed, let anyone thinking if something can be done to correct some aspects of their lives, which may help life´s improvement in today's modern society. One cannot just live thinking about the material, the spiritual has to occupy good space in our lives. This film shows that good movies can be made without always having to deal with crime scenes, fictions, or with almost pornographic scenes. The cinema may serve to entertain, true, but equally to educate, and this film teaches and educates.
It is wrong to consider this film as a Western, one can see it as a film for justice and peace, with clear explanation of civil war's vicissitudes, where even those not involved in military actions cannot avoid the fact that their lives or those of their loved ones to be sometimes fatally damaged. It is a family, with a father opposing the war, he has no slaves, therefore he considers unnecessary to defend slavery is not his issue. He and his sons always refuse to enlist in the army of the South and participate, obviously, in military actions.
This film Shenandoah shows one and another cause provoking corresponding effects, unfortunately damaging and irreversible. That is what gives a war, whether fair or unfair. Usually when one sees the misfortunes that a war provokes, wonders if those rulers who brave and invite for military confrontation, have once suffered in the flesh or their loved ones these vicissitudes. The aesthetics of the film is undoubted, both internally and externally. The vulgarity and indecency of others stand out against the decency of the family in question in the film.
Garth Davis managed to make a film that touches a very serious situation existing in the world, especially in India, where annually it is estimated that 80 thousand children are lost or kidnapped by the existing mafias, which aimed at killing these creatures to take their organs or turn them into slaves of wealthy families or for working hard in factories that are not in sight of the population. "Lion (2016)" touches the issue of how children are kidnapped, managed and sent to unknown destinations, where prostitutes are painted as false mothers to delinquents who may well sin of pedophiles. The best for these children is to be adopted by decent families although they will never forget where they are coming from and look forward to come back and meet their relatives. The plot of "Lion" is very interesting, and let us know the concerns of these children once they become adult, their dreams and sufferings.
I read the book with interest in the past, and this film is not completely faithful to the original version in the book of Arthur Golden. However, it is interesting to see the geishas, their functions in Japanese society and the limit of their intimate relationships. A geisha may have been a servant in her childhood or adolescence, but she may ascend to that position depending on her beauty and the education she received, her art for dancing, singing and even to talk and entertain the demanding patriarchy. Being Geisha is a luck in a society, where the woman is a secondary entity. At least she gets out of poverty and rubs herself into the Japanese aristocratic circle. The film exposes everything clearly with due coherence. Nice to see the performances of experienced actress Michelle Yeoh as well as others as Ziyi Zhang, Suzuka Ogo, Ken Watanabe, Li Gong and Samantha Futerman, an evidence that Rob Marshall looked for experienced Asian actors/actresses, and not only Japanese.
A film with an interesting plot, an educational one about the values of disabled people, those who struggle to live and forget their disability. A blind man is a human being who can see through his soul and his feelings. A blind man can write books, he/she can taste good food, good wine and even enjoy healthy air from uncontaminated environments. Those experiences are clear in the film. Above all, there is the fact that the blind can love and desire, live happy moments with their partner. The film exposes all these virtues of the blind person and the baseness of a rich person, unable to maintain a reciprocally affable relationship, and even capable of hitting someone who does not see. Intelligence on the side of the supposedly weak and the ruin on the side of the opulent.
There are films that go deeply into corruption issues. Poverty and the lack of decent employment possibilities lead to the human doing "acrobatics" of all kinds to make a living. No matter how the objectives are achieved, one should be machiavellian, the end justifies the means, and that is, apparently, what the film "Nightcrawler (2014)" shows us. However, a man survives, triumphs and it is when he loses his rational human behavior and his ambitions become exacerbated. Love does not exist, only a superficial one in order to satisfy even more his ambitions. Excellent acting of Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo and a London-born director-actor Riz Ahmed. A success of director Dan Gilroy with his first film.
There is a literary work of the same name that also serves as title to this article (Les liaisons dangereuses or Dangerous Liaisons), which was written by the writer Pierre Choderlos Laclos (1741-1803) and published in 1782, with a plot showing the human miseries of the high classes as far as feelings are concerned. Broadly speaking, it is a story of seduction, betrayal and revenge, where perfidy is the dominant element of that society of nobles, where love is nothing more than a caprice or a temporary passion. The work has been taken to the cinema in several occasions, but the versions more known are the French one of 1959, directed by Roger Vadim with acting of Jeanne Moreau and Gérard Philipe; the British production of 1988, directed by Stephen Frears; and the third one, which is the subject of this article, co-production Canada-United Kingdom-France, in miniseries for TV (2003), directed by the Frenchman José Dayan, set in Parisian society in 1960. Dayan chose a first-class actress to play the role of the seductive beautiful Madame Isabel de Merteuil, Catherine Deneuve, an elegant woman from head to toe, with a very suggestive look and really attractive movements. The libido of any man rises when he watches the figure of this actress in this miniserial. His interpretation as an entity devoid of love, full of ambitions and selfishness is simply masterful. The other antihero is the Visconde Sebastian de Valmont played by the English actor Rupert Everett, who became famous as an actor previously with a supporting performance in the comedy "The wedding of my best friend (1997)" by director P.J. Hogan. Everett played well the role of another depraved, who boasted of his personal beauty. It is not a purpose to describe the plot of the miniserial, but especially emphasize that the performances of their actresses and actors were all well done, to the extreme that it seems that they are the same characters in the novel. The interest in following the novel increases with its development.
Another film based on real events, where a young Englishman full of life, suffers of a terrible disease. From that point a whole odyssey begins, where he and his wife try to overcome all problems. Courage, inventiveness, persistence, the fight against all kinds of adversities are present and show that with determination you can achieve a lot in life, to the point of being able to help others affected. It is a touching film with an unnamed feat, of great educational value, directed by debutant Andy Serkis with acting of Andrew Garfield and Claire Foy.
It is a film based on a tragedy of Beam's family, composed of three girls as well as their parents. Illness, an irreversible one affected one of the girls, and that is when family adventures begin, accompanied by economic and sentimental difficulties. The solution arrived unexpectedly, many can believe it, others cannot, and everyone is free to have his/her own opinion. Another value of the movie is to see how Americans, considered the most powerful country of the planet, suffer to lack sources for medical care, despite having true masters of medicine. This film was directed by Patricia Riggen with a cast of actors some not very much known, such as Jennifer Garner and Martin Henderson, in addition to the now famous Queen Latifah. The plot of the film is based on the novel "Miracles in the sky" written by Christy Beam with the real events that happened to her. The performances of the girls in this film are impressing, are really outstanding ones.