a great film. for Marlene Dietrich's performance, for the music, for the atmosphere who translate the fears of the period. a parable more than an historical film, brilliant example of Expresionism, mark of an unique director. in same measure, an eccentric work. for the sacrifice of historical truth. for the sculptures and fake icons, pieces from Dracula's universe from an exotic land, for the isles of blasphemy, not easy to accept by an Greek Orthodox Christian. sure, the purpose first. sure, an admirable movie who remains not only a hill for cinema art but a precious experience for the viewer. so, see it ! for understand not a character but admire the high art of a brilliant director and a genius actress.
an useful film. for understand the roots of modern Romania. a beautiful one. for archaic language's flavor, for the nuances of emotions, for the powerful clichés who defines the Walachian society not only in the year 1835. a seductive film. for the good performances, for the crumbs from great films, for the art to broke the limits between artistic film and documentary. an interesting film. for the science to reflect a period's deep lines of life. for humanity and for the grace of details. for the art not to remand but recreate not only a portrait but a state . for dialogs and for the values. for something who reflects the profound Romania behind the definitions or verdicts. Teodor Corban does an admirable job and Radu Jude becomes more than a promise for Romanian cinema. because, for the foreign public Aferim ! could be a slice of exotic world from Balkans in the XIX century. for the Romanians it represents chain of answers for a lot of questions. and, maybe, an exercise of honesty.
as many comedies from same period, it is a nice film. not perfect,not real convincing, using a lot of clichés but nice. and that fact saves it. a film about tension between a woman and a man, few amusing scenes and few good performances, Rosalind Russell in a role who use the experience about same type of character, Lee Bowman in a seductive role who has the fundamental problem to have a great ignored potential , Adele Jergens as the perfect choice for a lovely character. it is easy to criticize it. but it has the virtue to propose not only a story who seems be more a sketch but to use interesting cast. and that fact remains useful. for remember a form of cinema with special flavor.
but seductive. for landscapes more than performances. for the noble idea and for the homage to Omar Khayam. for the presence of few good actors. for a different image about Orient , useful in period of crisis and confusion. more than a film, it is a sketch. not impressive, fake in many scenes, unrealistic and very simple. but interesting as sign for discover more about culture, civilization,poetry and Persian circles of knowledge . and each meeting with Vanessa Redgrave is a happy moment. this film is not an exception. short, a naive film. about a lost world, piece of contemporary way to discover and understand the essence of European civilization.naive. seductive. and useful. not exactly as entertainment. but for remember.
part from a trend. fascinating show. wise manner to explore mythologies, fears, myths , questions and fantastic. adventures. and fight for survive. a series who has a great virtue - its special voice. visual and not only. two brothers in search of truth, justice and revenge. a lot of characters, moral doubts and challenges. and a splendid use of vulnerability who gives new type of heroes. a film about darkness and about the courage to transform it. nothing pathetic. only a travel to yourself for the lead characters. it seems be another horror/mystery series. but it has the science to not be another Millennium or X Files. and the result is real interesting. and almost fascinating.
not good, great or memorable. only an useful film. for self define. because the themes are delicate. because the performances are at high level. because it is a film about a meeting, second chance, friendship and the public image as way to define the other. a teacher. and a boy. a story who becomes more and more complex, large and profound. because Nick Stahl does a splendid performance who surprise again and again. because Mel Gibson propose a character who seems be reflection for a lot of questions, because the gestures of community's members are the gestures, words and verdicts of the large part from public. because it is not exactly an artistic work but an useful exercise for discover the social connections in different light. an exercise of honesty. and, maybe, useful self definition.
it is easy to criticize it. it is not difficult to enjoy it. because it is not only a romantic movie but a deep honest declaration about force of details who defines life. a film about hope, dreams and love. with a seductive Mel Gibson who use exactly the note for define the story more than chronicle of a new life and sweet emotions. like many romantic films, it is predictable. like many romantic films , it is far to be out from the clichés circle. but it is honest and beautiful and fresh. it has good actors, a not bad script and interesting performances. and a theme who has not end. so, Forever Young. old fashion romanticism, Mel Gibson and his good job, the music and the crumbs from Romeo and Juliet are enough to seduce. and to remand the flavor and the grace of stories full with old fashion romanticism.
like a clock. precision, strange beauty, delicate mechanism. the acting, the landscape, the script. as pillars of an admirable work who remains the novel by Kleist but it has the gift to be more than an inspired adaptation. a film about justice and sin. and a splendid role for Mads Mikkelsen who gives to his character not only the traits of the novel but something special, powerful, entire convincing. the grace to use the nuances of Michael Kohlhaas, the wise manner to use the silences, the force of gestures, the beautiful measure who discover the essence of tragedy, the presence of Roxane Duran who reminds, in same measure, Elisabeth I and the young Elisabeth II, the performance of Melusine Mayance, the speech of Denis Levant who remains the perfect definition of the root of tragedy are the details who transforms an adaptation in useful support for reflection about great themes.
or little more. Mel Gibson and Helen Hunt. a smart script. an old problem and seductive answer. romanticism from old fashion recipes but presented in new and not uninspired manner. an accident and slices from romantic comedies from 1940's years.Mel Gibson does a great job and he seems be the best choice for the metamorphose of Nick Marshall. Helen Hunt is herself. vulnerable and powerful in right proportions. a lovely presence - Alan Alda. sure, it is not perfect. but it looking for be different. and the result is OK. the mixture of comedy and nuances of emotions, Marisa Tomei in an almost special role - far to be a surprise- does the film a classic. and a nice entertainment.
a crime film. far to be memorable, it is not bad. only version of an old recipes, with clear characters, with wise used actors in key roles. the expectations are far to be high. but the film remains decent and the story, unrealistic in essence, seems be more than nice. because if you ignore the details, nothing is too strange. Jack Palance does a good job using his simple presence. same situation - Anita Ekberg who is only the beautiful seducer with few moral fights but nothing complicated or bizarre. a film from a genre who reflects the expectations from a period. so, nothing special. but a decent crime who, far to be Hitchcock, is useful for memory. and for a kind of nostalgic entertainment.
for the Duras's atmosphere. for the lead actors. for the story, landscapes, dialogs, the piano lesson or for its end. for the illustration of a state of soul as result of a mixture of sin, fear, high expectations and fall. a film about a woman and a man. all in simple manner presented. a town. and few meetings. and level of dark revelation. a film of silhouettes and silence. and it is enough for discover an universe who could be part from yourself. a film about choices. and about a strange form of music. Jeanne Moreau is not a surprise. Belmondo is the perfect choice despite the expectations about other actor if you read the novel. the result - not comfortable but good occasion for reflection. about love. and about versions of Madame Bovary.
for fans of genre. for the fans of actors. and only for them. because the film gives nothing new, interesting or unpredictable. the good guy victim of dark plan, the fight for survive, the experiment and the end who preserves possibility of the second part. Peter Stormare and Jesse Metcalfe looking transforms the roles in credible ones, a script far to be generous but inspired to use large area of dark hospitals, zombies and mad doctor, blood, metamorphoses, the end of terror who is only first step of the second. nothing original. but not the worst piece of genre. the recipes is the same - well known actors and a poor /conventional script. so, a film for the fans.
a play. great performances. nuances of acting as fireworks. bitter and clear and ambiguous atmosphere. two great actors in a fight about revenge, power and the force of past. a seductive story about a return who change life of community and defines options. Ingrid Bergman seems be the perfect choice for Clara. Anthony Quinn, far to give something real new, has a beautiful mixture of pride and humility, vulnerability as answer to profound cold fierce. a film who reminds moral laws and the lost of innocence behind the truth. a film who reminds the Old Testament episodes and who reminds the idea of justice in a special angle. a Durrenmatt - a lot of questions and the need of honesty for yourself. a special couple. and a beautiful film.
clichés of genre. good actors. not the best performances but convincing. many sketches for relationship between characters. the old flavor. and a not bad story. a film who, far to be great, reminds the rules of genre in correct manner. use a high cast. and has every ingredients for crime. a sketch itself, at the first sigh, it is seductive for the tension and for the memories with many other films about same theme, for the sensitivities illustration of period, for the dust and landscapes and the tricks and the presence of actors. a film for remember the flavor of an old cinema more than entertainment. fact who could be a virtue. because it is, in many senses, a trip in time. and delight for the fans of Anthonz Quinn, James Mason or Michael Caine.
it reminds Casablanca and a lot of other films about same theme. it has the virtue to be a kind of crossroad of genres. and , the great thing, it is a film with Humphrey Bogart. the same. nothing new or original or seductive. at the first view. but... . each film with Bogart is a form of revelation about him. because it is really the best American actor but that title has a profound source. not only the art or the dialogs, the script or the gestures but something who becomes magic, a spectacular mixture of force and vulnerability who has as result a hero out of each ordinary definition. a war film and a love film. and, more important, a magnificent actor. that is all. Sirocco is not a surprise. maybe not a delight. but a very useful lesson. and that is a serious great stuff.
because it is not a French comedy but a Gabin's film. because Philippe Noiret is adorable and Mireille Darc the same. because it has all the ingredients to be nice, seductive and little more than an easy film . because it represents the scene for Jean Gabin for remind a precise art who is not easy to ignore. a good director. an inspired cast without be the best but, with strong pillars, the result is far to be bad. a film about family , adventure and identities. and, sure, about Monsieur. the best part - the beginning. the end - useful for not ignore the memories about the lovely French comedies. a serious film despite the appearances. because it has charm and sensitivity and force of seduction. and that is all. see it !
one of the great classics of childhood. because it is not a fairy tale but it preserves the flavor and the freshness of it. because it is magic for the splendid drawings and for the delicacy of story. because the dalmatians are more than dogs and the clash of the real dalmatians is almost disappointed after see the film. because it has magnificent characters and admirable rhythm. because it is one of precious memories of adult and , again and again, a seductive show. because, after two films, the animation remains not only the best but unique. a film for each age and for lovely trip in past. a film about small basic things. with humor, grace and high precision. short - one of the animation who must see . again. and, surely, again. for a form of joy, tension and humor who seems be part of different world, almost strange by ours.
the first film was interesting for Glenn Close. the second - for Gerard Depardieu and for the strange effect of Big Ben. but the difference is too small. because it is a family film, with adorable puppies, with same adventures and new characters/cast, not convincing but amusing, chain of adventures and chaotic - hilarious events, with the predictable end and a lot of fun. so, nothing surprising. but nice for the good intentions. and for the joy to discover a colorful universe. for the remind of Dr Jekyl and Mr. Hyde. and for the memories about the first part. so, a nice movie. not great, not special but useful for a rainy afternoon.
the photography. the costumes. the cast. three pillars for a different adaptation of Anne Golon's novel. the romanticism has different level and nuances. Nora Arnezeder is not Michelle Mercier and Gerard Lanvin is different by Robert Hossein. but that fact is one of great good points because the story has as target a new public from a new century. and that fact does it credibility and force, a special charm, a new image about a story who seems be well - known. the wise manner to use the nuances - that is its basic virtue. the not passionate style, the delicacy for details, Angelique as fighter more than a victim or woman looking her protector. a beautiful film and an inspired project. and, sure, a new series. full of high ambition.
not a revelation. but nice, amusing, childish, using old stereotypes and great actors. a film who reminds the original animation and who remains, after the joy of scenes, a little source of disappointment. because it is 101 Dalmatians and the expectations are high. the great skills of animals, the story who seems be a sketch, the stereotypes who transforms few scenes in reflections for Home alone, the romanticism who is, in few situations, fake, the puppies in not real credible situations does the film not the best choice for the seekers of the original flavor. but it is the film of Glenn Close and, yes, she is Cruella De Vil. short - a nice film. nothing more. but it seems be enough.
solitude of a man. his family as his victim. a character who reminds Lope de Aguirre or Brian Fitzgerald. in different tone. maybe, because the story is real and Harrison is far to be Klaus Kinski. a film about obsession, fear and madness.crumbs from flower power movement, extraordinary images, good performances and admirable illustration of man 's fragility, force and hope. a powerful film , beautiful for its profound thrill, one of interesting roles for Conrad Roberts and good occasion for remember the art of young River Phoenix. a film about duty. and its roots. a must see. for the landscapes and for images. for the story and for the acting. for the metamorphose of a man. for the struggle of his family. for the vain search of purity. for the links between father and sons.
a real, real good film. for the beautiful animation. for the smart manner for remind an old hero. for the science to be perfect choice for the kids but, in same measure, for the adults. for the large circle of nuances and emotions and drops of fairy tale, romance and fascinating fights, myth and moral values. for a credible Sinbad. and for the powerful flavor of childhood in right tone, with precise force. a film who explores all in a lovely manner. the result - it seduces in a special form . and that fact is its secret ingredient - to be a splendid breathtaking travel . one of animations who has a high level. for the original story. for the credible characters. and, sure, for the actors
maybe, not the best Sidney Poitiers. but one of his great roles. and that could not be a surprise. not the hit of Martin Laundau's career. but a convincing innocent victim. the remarkable detail in that case - the huge good intentions. and the honorable result. because it is not crime movie. only a drama with deep roots in social problems, in family's troubles, admirable work of a splendid cast who becomes a fresco and who use the mystery in real wise manner. a film not about a murder but about vulnerabilities, expectations and different forms of truth. Sidney Poitiers gives to Mister Tibbs not only the frame from genre but a new style who transforms it in a conscience of his social circle. and he does a great job in this sense. not, maybe, for the admirers of great crimes, an important film. only an useful one. and it could be enough.
not the best adaptation. but lovely. because it explores, with grace and precision, humor and great cast, the levels of Perrault's fairy tale, using inspired solutions and wise tricks. its fresh air is the axis. the performance of Christopher Walken - seductive. Jason Connery seems bee the ideal option for the poor Corin. and all seems be at right place. so - no surprises. only a nice story , few songs - not bad, not brilliant - an interesting manner to use the fairy tale in original manner and the ambition of musical moments. the scent of childhood - that it is the fundamental gift to the viewer. and that fact is real a virtue because, after its end, the joy remains for not small time.
nice, seductive, a great Larry Hagman, a comedy who use old fashion recipes for a story who is only simple and amusing. it is far to impress but it could be victim of admiration for the cast, architecture of confusion, compassion for the poor pilot and good occasion to remember Larry Hagman's art out of Dallas circle. a film about love, sensitivity, error and sin as result of innocence. all in smart manner. all precise at all. a film about drama of a honest man . not original but amusing, it is only a good easy comedy. and that status is the key for transforms it in pure joy. so, see it. for relaxation. and for few doses of useful humor.