deickos

This is Fellini's best film - many people in the movie business could confirm this, they were able to borrow ideas one way or another from it all these years passed. What makes it so special is not only the abundance of themes and characters inside the main story or even the impeccable performance of Massina that binds everything together in her remarkable journey. Fellini here seems to possess something really rare, a unique moral and artistic authority that is so pervasive throughout the film and is able to embrace all humanity - beyond all these nights of both laughter and suffering finally comes redemption. Cabiria though has lost everything, she has managed to find herself nevertheless and is recognizable for what she truly stands. She glows the same way all the moments taken from this film inside other works.

Visconti's work is always refined and involves deep psychology that goes far beyond the elaborate and complex scenery. Passion in all forms is the theme of this film - love, betrayal, jealousy, egoism, arrogance, instincts, conflict, motives, reciprocity, revenge. Visconti although maintaining (as is his style always) a distance and although confines emotional outbursts to the minimum, he manages to reach the end of the road without a glitch. Death (suicide) and (self) destruction is the order of things. It is precisely because he believes in a deeper (or higher for others) order that is able to maintain his composure throughout this tempest of passions along all the way. Something very few people in the cinema have accomplished so far.

The closing words of the film are "these people are so careless, they always do what they want and expect others to deal with the mess". Fitzgerald's remark was prophetic for his era - but at least then it was FDR who put America on its feet again. It was prophetic again when at the turning of the century America was led by irresponsible incompetent idiots and psychopaths - America now is a shadow of its former self. I have not found another writer capable to portray this country like Fitzgerald and in this aspect this film is a must-see. The film itself was prophetic on its own right when it came out after the worst decade in America's history, then. Unfortunately the worst were and are still to come.

Although the story had a great potential, although the production was supporting and although the trio in the leading roles performed honorably, this film was ultimately betrayed by the director and notably the editor. It frequently looks incoherent, the scenes do not tie with each other and the result is so superficial (and superfluous at times) it looks like tv and soap opera. I remember the other historical drama N&S from the '80s - although it was done for tv it was ambitious and had quality. Not this one though - the few good moments (especially between Gregory Peck and Fonda) are abandoned and almost suffocated by the mediocrity of the entire. Maybe the director should have worked with Mexicans.

When such things are not only possible but moreover applauded and awarded, then you know something is really wrong. Not like the Vietnam years when actors would come and protest the war, but rather like the late '40s this dark era when a sword was suspended upon anyone's neck who would dare dissent. Of course censorship has many faces, and is best served when it lies inside people's hearts. America steadily tumbles in a long protracted decline. It is not just the wrong people, it is the institutions that are corrupted to the core. The day has come when we can see the '90s as a golden era compared to what has followed. Hypocrisy makes us proud to export democracy and human rights around the world while there is a crisis inside and when no one outside finds us convincing and truly committed any more.

If you want to understand what Hollywood and America have come to, watch this movie. Two people are suffering, a man and a woman. They are not "suicidal" or simply depressed. They are integral and decent human beings but their burden seems unbearable and they choose to end their lives. Silently they protest about something it seems. Surprisingly they are not the main theme in this film, no the main theme that dominates everyone's attention is the homosexual sisterhood. Everything revolves around this, maybe these people kill themselves because they are homosexual and thus unaccepted by society one might say. Well this is what is meant to pass but a closer and more sober look reveals something else. These persons were somehow deprived of (maternal) love at an early stage and this shortage has ruined their lives no matter how hard they tried to fight it. That is the essence, but it is passed.

The way this film was made hijacks the crucial message of the story, as if it wouldn't have been possible for this story to come to light otherwise. Without the lesbian suppression protest. Apparently for those who collaborated for this film only this matters. This is the only they can think about.

When Vietnam is the theme one starts comparing the films with one another. This is a revealing process in storytelling and in character creating. Not everyone is sincere - the trained eye is looking for inconsistencies that betray those who aim to impress while in fact are irrelevant and manipulating. It is not enough to maintain an anti-war stance - personal involvement is required when ideas are expressed and ideals are aimed. There is no doubt there are thousands untold stories about this era but on my knowledge only one film was ambitious enough to look higher, and it was not this one. In this case there is a story to be told but it is not as strong and convincing.

In his film history documentary mr. Scorsese named his influences in his work (F. Capra etc.) and some filmmakers of the past he considered important (Ford, Vidor etc.). In the end he mentioned others only by name "due to lack of time" (after over three hours) like King, Kazan, Houston, Mankiewitz, Penn etc. - while at the same time forgetting so many other important names.

These few he acquiesced to mention in the end, all had no doubt the quality of simplicity in their work- a quality that unfortunately evades mr. Scorsese in the Age of Innocence - what we feel should be the main idea is oppressed by all those needless details again and again that seem to obsess his mind. It is suffocating to say the least. Maybe he suffers together with his characters... Among these important names forgotten I will add Visconti. Somehow Death in Venice appears as a distant reference for Age of Innocence - they too share this late 1800s "Belle Epoque" atmosphere. But look how a master of his means like Visconti executed his plan and how a less talented apprentice like Scorsese does...

This has been praised for direction and performance by leading role. Actually neither is special, they are ok they fulfill the task but nothing more. Actors' directors leave them space to provide and perform but here this is not the case - whenever you think there is opportunity somehow it is strangled by the direction. As a genius (D. A.) would say "you have to let go" - unfortunately it never happens and thus the result is mediocre. I don't know why many viewers think this is a great film - probably they don't know what great films are like. I honestly believe even in supporting roles i have seen much better performances.

Though the film is decorated with Ava Gardner and Gregory Peck, one of the handsomest ever couples in history (that are indeed a joy to watch even in a senseless film like that), unfortunately they cannot compensate for wasting more than two hours watching this failure. The direction appears ludicrous the plot amateurish (only the photography seems ok) and one can just be sorry for the effort the time and money wasted for such a result. I think the rating here is unjust, way too high - a 7 for this? I don't know. There are so many bad films out there no doubt but at least one is somehow warned - but not in this film.

The most interesting scene seems to be when the mother feeds her abusive husband dog food and he likes it better than a gourmet dish. Streisand likes the mother character it seems and like her - having no other option - gives us the dog food we crave for desperately.

Although the most usual complains are about Streisand - in my opinion it is the story that sucks. The theme of the dysfunctional family is entangled with the rape story from some strangers in the night ("escaped convicts"). The only other story i could think of - being equally ridiculous - was the Warren commission's verdict about JFK: a bum responsible for all that mess.

Jim Cameron had the decency once to admit that he makes sausage-movies, adding they're good but sausages.

Many many people in the industry during the ages have produced and promoted all kinds of cakes, pizzas and sausages. A little of this and a little of that. They know people love it. People also love chips, and coca cola - people are ignorant.

Few had the decency to create something really good something of quality - a good wine that gets better as it ages... This film is bad literature - but a good sausage.

I don't want to talk about how mediocre the film and all the people's work was, prefer to talk about something more important. America is in deep decline. It wasn't always like that. When one sees people trying so hard to pass such works as quality then you know there must be a real shortage. A drought. When a friend from western Europe commented about the "black" President or Vice President or female SC justice she said innocently "what about it?". Trying to explain that for Americans it was a big deal she couldn't get it. For me it is the kind of hypocrisy America has come to the last decades. In 2008 it was not about the whole country crumbling and asking desperately for change (that never came), it was about "the first black President". It is so pathetic. That is what America stands for now: politics over essence.

Arthur Penn has directed some of the greatest movies of all time - others are The Chase (1966) and The Missouri Breaks (1976). His debut here is with a striking story that is proof of what love commitment perseverance and faith can accomplish - a miracle. Donald Winnicott once wrote about the immense the astronomical quantities of love and care that are required in cases of infantile traumas in order to recover even partially - quantities that in practice cannot be found. That is why there is so much pain in our world. Thus, dealing with immense figures is no doubt a quality of great art.

I will only do justice to this gem if I compare it to some of my favorite films of all time: Death in Venice (1971), The Chase (1966), The Fugitive Kind (1959), Nostalghia (1983), Solaris (2002), Ran (1985)... This movie is proof great art's shortest way is through modesty and true humility.

My sincere congratulations to all the people that made this masterpiece possible.

Although the story by itself is amazing - several hundreds Armenians fight their way to salvation and escape genocide - the handling is mediocre. Some people have pointed that the triangle weakens the main theme and I must agree. Another review asserts that the outcome is not focused and tries to include too many things and misses the main one: the Armenian Genocide, a tragedy that makes decent people weep and feel horrible. Though reading a book or watching a documentary can achieve that, I cannot say the same for this film - it is superficial.

This is a beautiful film, very modest but with a great message. It is difficult to explore the boundaries of sanity and madness, yet it is done here lightly and with much humor. Brando has a part to envy once more in his seventies as "Don Octavio del Flores - the best psychiatrist in the world".

This film was deliberately made for every taste. That of course is crucial to its success but that does not mean it could not have been better. A lot better I' d say. For example there are so many notes from the Godfather - why would it have to be so? For the recipe of success no doubt. The essential messages of the film are there to be seen of course but they are obscured Mr. Cimino by all that noise. Vietnam scenes are the required noise but the wedding? I don't consider him a master of his means, he just has too many things on his mind and is burnt out eventually. He should watch how the old masters (Henry King) delivered a story even when they had much less to say...

I first saw Evdokia when very young and immediately blew me. Now even after more than twenty years I can still discover more, there is so much inside this great film by Damianos. The scenes one after the other are made to stir you deep inside and cause a deep impact. It is as it seems traditional for top Greek films to be frugal and elliptic but this one is like it came out from a piece of Aeschylus. The picture is as simple as it can be yet so profoundly deep - it is amazing. Great poetry.

This film is the best of Kazan's because it is so personal and there is 100% commitment. The method is worthy of the story: this epic of salvation is intertwined with many smaller stories that all have an essential contribution to the moral of the film. We watch scenes of the Armenian Genocide alongside the main story, while the selection of characters is never left to chance - everyone stands for something, everyone represents a certain moral value that is constituent of the final outcome. While the journey of the hero looks unique, it is actually only one of the thousands of those who managed to escape the Turkish oppression at the time.

Mr. Aronofsky stayed on the same topic again this time - the poet. And though it is interesting to watch the whips and scorns of time the poet gets in order to create and afterwards, the result is not so, how to say it, entertaining. One may remember other allegoric films, i have a couple on my mind, but again the result is always below whatever expectations. Only one poet has done a good job writing a piece about his entire work so far - Shakespeare in The Tempest. Not everybody is Shakespeare though!

The idea and the title are good - what one could do with such a theme! Unfortunately the execution of the idea is mediocre and superficial. Mr Inaritu bypasses a real opportunity to say something true and deep here. Instead, he stays on stereotypes for the sake of the striking and shocking impression, that is it is shallow. Am I the only one that thinks this film is racist, or better plays with racism as a means of impression? The same that does with sexism etc. A lost opportunity not just to impress but to shake people out of their seats.

Although this movie touches many different issues and obviously makes people think, this is done superficially and not just in a stylish abstract manner as Mr. Inaritu and co. would like. Everything is form here - form is a type of action when there is too much of it, and people love action. Formalism is the term in visual arts. Or more plainly, it is fake - it is all package and wrapping - a consumer product like the macbook and the i phone. No doubt these people admire Steve Jobs.

This film is one more sample of how easily old masters like Joseph Mankiewicz played with the themes and variations and thus exercised total control on their means and their art. This is a very interesting film-noir version of a classic - I am talking of course of King Lear. It is surprisingly refreshing to see this version of the classic theme and although the story is not perfect it is convincing.

This is a great version of the theatrical play and fortunately with this film will stay with us forever. The cast does an impeccable job, Moridis, Pallis, and of course Fotopoulos as the jester. But whatever to say about Antigoni Valakou will be little. She delivers a monumental performance that has nothing to envy from Hollywood's best moments. Unfortunately European writers like Spiridon Peresiadis of this play and actors like Valakou will always be left aside for the sake of Hollywood.