leforcat

Do not listen to people who didn't even get the facts right. This is not a Search & Rescue movie, and the lead isn't just a hiker. It's not about if the wind looks right or if some snow seems fake. It is about a strange encounter and about human reactions to each other. It's about how humans can change each other's lives. It's very powerful in this way.

Take Swedish film of 2003. Take away Bergman, Moodysson, Jarl...

You're left with people bitching and puking, filmed with no concept and no direction.

Camera wandering aimlessly, 75% of it shaky close-ups. Dialogue obviously badly improvised.

Obscenities.

Good idea wasted.

I'm sure the actors had a wonderful experience, though.

If you're in for mentally exhausting experience of people quarreling - have a go. Others: beware!

This is one of the worst directed & executed films I've seen for years and years. It's all made by the "lets jerk around with the camera and cut & paste later"-method. Not ONCE did the director seem to consider a possibility to chose a way of presenting a certain scene to it's best advantage - it's all "filmed" by a guy jumping around in sneakers with a camera at half-distance. He even forgot to cut & paste, for the most part. And no, it does not make you feel you're there - it makes you feel sick.

It's shame films are still being made using this gimmick, before it will be abandoned. And yes, it's important, because if the technique of the delivery draws more attention than the message you wish to deliver - you've failed.

A great subject-matter wasted. 2/10.

This movie is a huge insult to Peter Sellers, The Pink Panther, and everything concerned. It's also an insult to the once-funny Steve Martin's past, and it's tragic he doesn't seem to realise it (which is almost unbelievable). Why? Because it's not funny, it's that simple. Had it not been for the legacy, it would simply be another not-funny-at-all mess that regretfully made some money for the schmucks that produced and wrote it (I guess people will go see it because of all the stars, which should be enough). But because of the legacy, many young viewers will have their experience of the real Pink Panther series biased and maybe spoiled for ever. It's like spitting on Peter Sellers' grave. Another review I've just read says "The Pink Panther 2 proves Steve Martin is now nothing more than a paycheck-cashing hack" - now, that's harsh, at least I didn't say that myself!

There are only two reasons to see this film: 1. Jean Gabin and 2. An almost flawless example of a certain zeitgeist of the early 70:s. There has been several films made in several countries around the basic theme: in an evil system it's the oppressors that are responsible for creating criminals, who are actually themselves victims of a faulty society, therefore criminals should be set free and the system overturn - a new, better system shall come in which, by default, there will be no crime because we won't have any cause for it. All based on a Marxist conception of criminality in modern society that, by the way, still after 40 years rules among most criminologists in western Europe. All this is handed down to us by an extremely heavy-handed director (Giovanni is responsible for writing some of the best scripts in French cinema and should have left directing to directors), complete with lines such as "People will march on the streets!" and Gabin's final judgment on society "It's a killing machine". An utterly unbelievable criminal-turned-angel Delon tries to go straight after a 10-year sentence but the effort is shattered by an utterly unbelievably evil police detective. All this is witnessed by an elderly parole officer (Gabin) with a heart of gold. The plot is predictable, the end inevitable, and only the worst Hollywood-moralizing studio efforts are better at hammering a message down your throat. Here the message seems to be political while in Hollywood it's often rather religious, but the technique is the same, and strangely, you can hardly miss the Devil and God working around a hapless Man even here. Unless you're a fan of the great Jean Gabin, it's a waste of time.

This should have gone straight to DVD. Perhaps it did(?)

It has the look - for the most part it's full of close ups and the camera work is full of fast and slow movements for no obvious reason - all of that will look terrible on the big screen but is pretty much standard for TV. And since there are so many close ups, neither achieves the punch that a more restrained use would provide - and at the same time the film doesn't have to show the lack of production values.

The plot is too predictable and the suspense consists mostly of eerie music that we recognize from countless TV productions also - it does not work.

Only for die-hard fans of the always reliable Denzel Washington.

An excellent Film Noir, somewhat spoiled by the studio that prevented Kubrick from editing the film the way he wanted - the story would have been told in an even more non-linear fashion. As far as the experience goes, the side characters dominate, and particularly Marie Windsor steals the film every time she's in the picture! Her own favorite film was "Hellfire", and while it's true she had a bigger part there, her moments in "The Killing" are unforgettable, she IS the incarnation of the Sultry Mole & the Femme Fatale. She is also the character who's actions actually causes the set-up of the plot heist to run off track, and is therefore the key character for the whole film. Supported by a memorable performance of Elisha Cook Jr. Great deliveries also by Timothy Carey and the always underrated Ted de Corsia.

I guess the ambition of this film is to show the personal drama taking place alongside the big drama of the last ditch demise of the great "Yamato", and from this point of view the film performs well but expectable. There is the tragedy of young lives being lost for a lost cause, the psychological wounds of the survivors that never heals. There's also the mandatory journey to the spot of the disaster made on an anniversary by one of the survivors and a daughter to another, maybe inspired by J. Cameron's "Titanic". Factually, though, the film is a failure. It would of course be impossible to make a replica of the ship, so it has been recreated digitally, and to excellent effect in the few scenes you actually view the whole ship, or most of it, making its way through the seas. Those moments alone are worth the price of the ticket. But the budget didn't cover much more than that. The mock-up of certain parts of the ship look just like mock-up, we don't even get to know about one light cruiser and several destroyers that followed "Yamato" to disaster (most of them were also sunk) and we don't see one single US ship (aircraft from at least 12 American aircraft carriers participated in fending off the Japanese). What's worse, we are not told how the battle developed or what tactics were used by the Japanese task force nor by the US air squadrons. The great battleship was eventually sunk after being hit by many torpedoes and several big, armor-piercing bombs, but most of what we see is low flying US aircraft strafing the crew and hitting the decks with small caliber ordnance, causing incredible carnage. The strafing did take place on several occasions during the day, the ship was also hit by small rockets from F4U Corsair fighters, but it all had marginal effect. The huge 456 mm guns are seen firing away towards the approaching aircraft, and while this in fact did happen, one couldn't stay exposed on deck, as the enormous blast would probably kill or at least severely injure you, so crew were forbidden on the outside on such occasions. All in all, the never-ending screams of dying seamen don't make up for the lack of most of other angles of this last major battle of WWII. All in all, some 3000 Japanese lives were lost on the "Yamato" alone, plus more than a thousand more on the accompanying ships, without disturbing the US Okinawa operations in any way. Some figures are mentioned in the film but the tragedy of this sacrifice in not fully pointed out. During the day the US lost 12 airmen and 10 airplanes.

A young woman spends the last day of her summer vacation strolling along the now deserted Baltic beach. A young man appears and courts her, she's reluctant but their love is eventually fulfilled - and the man vanishes. This simple plot focus on the woman who is the strong character, while the man almost gives an impression of an airy faun. The sparse dialog seldom interrupts the choreographic action, the camera swiftly following the two characters across the sand dunes. Had it not been for the images of shining metal jet fighters across the sky at the beginning and at the end of the film, it could have taken place anywhere, anytime. The female protagonist is certainly a metaphor for the young Polish nation, gathering confidence after six terrible war years. Quite poetic, beautifully shot.

Some kids on summer vacation in a small coastal village in the south of Sweden invent, out of boredom, a sinister plot involving hidden war treasures and secret agents. Or do they in fact stumble upon a real conspiracy? Well chosen cast, excellent black & white cinematography, beautiful, moody 60's music and a perfect mixture of humor, suspense and even horror - this is a kind of film for teenagers that simply don't get made anymore. Produced by the legendary Olle Nordemar, also responsible for more or less all the great Swedish films and TV-series for kids during three decades, including all of Astrid Lindgren. This series is one of the very best but, sadly, it is not shown very often, not even in Swedish public-service TV.

It's moving, it's credible, it's true and its beautifully shot. It's likely that his is the best neo-realist movie ever made, at least since the neo-realism - I think De Sica himself would be proud! The characters are presented with lots of mixed characteristics - good and bad - that really should prevent one from getting involved, yet, after some half of the film one cares as if it was one's own family. The ever more intense adventure of the boy and the woman makes one forget about the camera - an achievement only a very few masterpieces of cinema have reached before. A true tribute to humanity! Don't miss for all of the world!

I give it a 10 for emotional reasons, although it should be a 9 because of the rather uninspired cinematography and the overexposed score. I've seen it at least 30 times, I've worn out two VHS-recordings of it before I got in on DVD, and I enjoy it every time - which is after all a true measure of how good a film can be!

The plot is nicely explained elsewhere in the other comments. What makes this so good is that almost every element of film-making is excellent - script, direction, rhythm, cast, characterization, dialog, chemistry between actors, credibility, attention to detail - everything clicks 100%, which is very unusual in any kind of film! Everybody in the supporting cast down to the smallest parts does an excellent job - I have never seen Yaphet Kotto, Dennis Farina, John Ashton, or even Joe Pantoliano this good! There are lots of humor, melancholy, action and suspense - and all that is achieved with no special effects, no sex, and very little violence!

In my opinion this movie should be used in film schools as a case study of how a mixture of good parts knit together by strong direction and skillful production effort, results in a great film, and also how to make a good script with a story that is driven by a nice combination of events as well as characters!

The 3 stars all belong to Arnie! In 99.9% of these kind of action movies we all know that the hero will prevail and win, the only question is how, and in the way of winning lies the main quality of the film. Regretfully, there are no surprises in this one.

Here the plot is simple but promising: in a near future state has taken control over everything, since the natural resources of the earth are dwindling, and it has dehumanized most of the culture in the process. A police officer (Arnold) refuses to shot unarmed civilians and is sent to hard labor, his record falsified to make him look like the brute he was actually refusing to obey. He manages to escape, gets caught, and is given possibility of "redemption" by starring in the biggest and only entertainment show on television, a reality show where participants have to run for their life, normally without a reasonable chance of survival.

The imagination of the script and of the production designers sadly only lasts for some 10 minutes, till the end of the prison escape. The rest is standard action completely spoiled by the pretentious. disturbing 80ish synthesizer score. Arnold manages to do his part with honor and some great one-liners but the rest of the cast is too weak to balance him and the fight sequences are predictable.

The film must be given credit for inventing reality TV before it was really popular for real, but that aside it's only for Arnold and/or wrestling fans (several wrestling stars in the cast)

The plot is simple: a naval aviator leaves his girlfriend in Paris on an urgent call to his carrier, something big is in the making, is it the Russians? Eventually the threat - from outer space - is repelled and the pilot returns home. I saw this movie as a teenager, in Poland, I remember the uncanny realism of the way the story was told, the direction was restrained, concentrating on "facts". There was stark contrast between the suspense of the hunt for the unknown enemy and the daily life of the people in Paris, unaware of the drama at sea. I remember leaving the theater, looking up, making sure it was all just a movie.... I've been trying to see this film ever since - in theaters, on VHS, DVD - without success, it seems all forgotten and neglected.

A successful albeit bored mod photographer of the swinging 1966 London snaps a series of spontaneous shots of a loving couple in a park. He later discovers that the images may contain more than he was opting for, a murder mystery that threatens to involve him, but the conclusion eventually escapes him.

I first saw Blowup around 1970 at the age of 16, and it made profound impression on me, though at the time I had no idea who Michalangelo Antonioni was. The long takes in the park felt incomprehensibly magic, and realistic at the same time. The key scene when the photographer gradually blows up the snapshots and possibly discovers the mystery, although seemingly lacking action, was filled with suspense of an almost uncanny nature. The staggering feelings of the photographer transcended to me in a yet unmatched way. 35 years later the film may well be a fine portrait of the zeitgeist of the late 60s, but Antonioni's reason for choosing England as the place to make his first non-Italian film was simply the fresh attitude he sensed among the trend-setting Londoners of the time - it suited the project perfectly. The detailed portrait of the main character during the first half of the film have no relevance to the plot - but it presents comments and gives deep to the development of the film's story. In fact, the plot itself is irrelevant, necessary only to accommodate the main theme of the film - the conflict between image and reality. This is how the film is commonly understood, a brilliant survey into a man's experience of reality set against the reality itself. It is also the first time that Antonioni picked a man for his main character, simply because it was easier to set up a typical male control freak against the uncontrollable.

When looked upon closer, the key scene has a deeper function. The photographer enlarges parts of images, discovers things, puts images into sequences, which, given proper meaning, in turn leads him towards final disclosure. This can be seen as a comment on the directors method of making films - Antonioni always uses images - bits of reality - which in turn create a plot to carry the story on throughout the film, rather than starting with a complete story around which one builds a series of images or actions.

We may suddenly realize this is also a comment on life as such. We understand things only by grouping the images that surrounds us, eventually attributing them with meaning that leads us through our daily life, right or wrong - we do not have a ready-made story to follow. "We shroud reality in so many layers of interpretation that the truth will never be seen", said Antonioni almost 30 years later, which further enlightens the message of the film. When the mystery finally dissolves without conclusion, and the plot seems to lack meaning, it is because there is no deeper meaning in life, but, in the process, the photographer learns some relieving insights about the vane, relative nature of reality. The optimism is pronounced, but in an Antonioni-film conclusions are left for the viewer to make.

Director's earlier films dealt with troubled relations between women and men in a modern world (Il Grido, L'Aventura, La Notte, L'Eclisse), between a woman and the world itself (Red Desert), while later films focused on clashes between the spiritual and the materialistic (Zabriskie Point) and the nature of own identity (The Passenger) - Blowup seems to peak in it's survey into nature of life itself. We may consider, though, that Antonioni's films are primarily meant to be experienced, contemplated, but not necessarily fully explained. In his own words: "this film is, perhaps, like Zen; the moment you explain it, you betray it! I mean, a film you can explain in words is not a real film." Quite obviously, he was right - I was perfectly able to love the film the first time, without means of understanding much of its meanings I acquired years later.

Although not acclaimed as an actors' director, Antonioni nonetheless inspired David Hemmings to probably the best performance of his career, and boosted the careers of Vanessa Redgrave and Sarah Miles. Being his second color film it's not as innovative as the Red Desert, but it uses color - particularly red in a few chosen moments - with great force and sensibility that, sadly, is hard to perceive on a small TV-screen.

The merit of this film is that it portrays the mechanism, the mentality and the impact on human character of what might very well be any communist regime there ever was in a stunningly perfect way (as a person grown up in a socialist country, believe me - I know!) - only here represented by people who are supposed to prevent communism from spreading! A great comment on human nature - whether intended or not is less important. If I didn't know better, I'd believe this was a Hollywood remake of some film about Stalin's 30:s purges or Polish repressions against the right wing combatants in the 50:s. Solid performance from De Niro, supported by a talented cast. Martin Scorsese appears in a cameo that must be one of the most extensive in his acting career.