Reviews (64)

  • 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.
  • At first it was like a film using Tarantino vocabulary. Or you could just say it was pretty messy in all three stories... But the end, that was worth watching: all of a sudden everything makes sense - each one of these crazy stories finds its place for the final American show. Like somebody said "in this completely crazy lottery ticket-magic 8 ball-total fluke economy that is America, telling jokes pays well". I am not sure most people will appreciate Mr. Minarovich's brilliant work.
  • If it was not for this detail the movie would have been nothing special. But this changes everything - Bob finally gets it that you can fool the system but not some forces beyond and behind it. It is in fact a search for limits in this life and this world that the whole drug thing is about. And Bob understands that but will he survive? That is the question.
  • I was on third grade when my friend came and told me about a cool movie he saw in 1984. It was OK the second part in 1991. But imagine another version 30+ years later. Doesn't Hollywood have anything better to do? Really. Everything looks so stale so cliché so boring. Technology has moved from 1984 - haven't you noticed guys, but your gimmicks look obsolete and worn from repetition. Moreover, this very technology that we all know and has changed our lives is miraculously absent from this movie.
  • The movie is quite faithful to the history - that's the good part. On the other hand as an action film is a failure, it is mostly tiresome and too long. Mr. Stone is obviously striving to show us everything or at least the most possible. Here comes the Greek saying - good is not too much (but less).
  • In the second film though the main theme remains the same, there is more beauty to discover. Few movies are as relaxing as this one. The music of Basil Poledouris adds to the effect - it is one of the best ever written for the cinema. There are some clichés here and there but cannot mar the result. I honestly believe there must be something wrong with anyone that is not touched by the beauty in these movies.
  • Although it is primarily an action film and everything else comes to second place, it is a good one. Timing for instance in this movie is just impeccable. The whole works like a well oiled machine that once started stops upon nothing. The first barbarian battle scene is indicative of what is to follow. No doubt Mr. Ridley Scott wields absolute control upon his means like a real master.
  • There is so much beauty in this supposedly naive and simple story that is beyond description. Or you can see it as another version of the Garden of Eden from the Bible. I think this is the simplest way to talk about our world: two children living outside it. This is the second time I have seen human courtship documented so beautifully - or as an old saying says: authorities and powers of this world that never let us live and love in life as we should have...
  • Beginning and ending look cool but the story is not good. In fact it is bad - pretentious is the word I suppose. It is always a pity to see technically good films to be betrayed by their own story - it is sad. And that is always the primal responsibility of the director. Mr. Mankiewicz has a tendency for scale but this time it betrays him. It is difficult (if not disastrous) to put many things inside a western - the genre is frugal by definition. Few directors have managed more complex forms and Mankiewicz is definitely not among them.
  • Though I personally prefer the other film - The Fugitive Kind - this play is also very good and the performances of Taylor Clift and Hepburn are all historical. I like how Williams delves into human tragedy through mental illness, dynamic relations and desire. You can always witness the worst coming on and out of stage. A classic and must see.
  • Dealing with kind of difficult stuff (adolescent crisis and dysfunctional families) but in a humorous spirited and light way. Cher is not the leading actress Winona is. I feel the whole movie revolves around her - that is courteous of Cher of course. Bob Hoskins is exactly what is needed. The director is always around like a guarding angel. So fun!
  • This was the film by Henry King I least liked - the production is alright but nothing really happens for me until... The supposed blinding scene and the (not so) supposed happy ending. Let me explain myself and hopefully Henry King - this grand master: there are two different versions and two different endings provided simultaneously! This is only done in Shakespeare - As you like it. One for the audience and one for the few.
An error has occured. Please try again.