davesf

This film has excellent photography, especially considering the technical challenges. The evocative title ("Cave of Forgotten Dreams") is inspired, and well reflected throughout. A haunting theme. It's a beautifully decorated cave (quite aside from the prehistoric art). However, the editing is not good; there's a lot of redundancy, odd sequencing, and too long overall. And some of the dialog is rather hokey.

I also had a hard time figuring out exactly where the cave is, even after looking it up on the 'net (finally succeeded using its GPS coordinates). It's another editing defect, I think. M. Herzog should have thrown in a minute or two of orientation at the beginning.

Anyway, I was more familiar with some of the other splendid cave art sites (Lascaux, Altamira), but Chauvet appears to be the greatest of all. It's a more recent find, which is why I was ignorant. I'm grateful to the film for its beauty and educational value.

For a modern Westerner, it is hard to imagine that people ever lived this way ... let alone, that some still do. This film reminds me a little of The Fast Runner (about the Inuits) in its foreignness and matter-of-fact superstition. This is probably like how most of our ancestors lived in medieval times.

It's a real eye-opener about a commodity (salt) that we so take for granted. And also about how little of everything it is possible to get by on.

The film moves slowly because the protagonists move slowly. Some of the dialogue is incredibly tedious and mundane, thus winds up being a defect or detraction. On the other hand, the photography is gorgeous, and truly remarkable is the trust and cooperation that the filmmakers received from the saltmen, who shared many of their usually well-hidden cultural secrets.

All in all, well worth watching even if a bit over-long.

If you've ever been curious about filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl, or more significantly, have wondered how a civilized nation like Germany could have stumbled into a black hole of evil and tyranny, you must see this superbly made documentary. It is scrupulously fair, presenting both exonerating and damning evidence without flinching. While it's very clear that Riefenstahl was not evil in the sense that Hitler, Goebbels, Goering, and Hess were, she certainly had blind spots, and a tendency to let wishful thinking sway her judgment. Like most Germans at the time, she often looked the other way when she could (though not always, as on at least two occasions she probably put herself at risk by openly criticizing the Nazi regime).

She is shown as being far more interested in art than in Nazism. I had barely realized what an extraordinary talent she was, not just as a movie maker but as a dancer, mountaineer, actress, and photographer. It is so sad that she became a significant cog in the Nazi regime, and was severely punished as a result (as indeed all of Germany was). It would have been worse if they had not.

"Triumph of the Will" stands as a monument, a sobering reminder of the madness of crowds and the potential tragedy that lurks when they come under the sway of a master manipulator. Riefenstahl's personal tragedy finds some vindication in her willingness to make this film and thus to help us learn the lessons from her life.

9 points.

I went out of my way to see this on the recommendation of a fiercely pro-life friend. I am still pro-choice -- strengthening people's family values is NOT a job for the government! However, it may well be a job for films like this.

The film really delivers on the tag line: "One Person Can Change Your Life Forever." And also on the José quote: 'My grandmother used to say, "You want to make God laugh? Tell him your plans."' I'm giving Bella 8 points. It's marked down for some profoundly unrealistic plot elements and for being one of the most obviously low-budget films I've seen. It often recurred to me that, were it not for José, Nina's situation would have been very different.

On the other hand, the acting and direction are quite good, and the overall effect gave me a very warm feeling. If you ever wonder whether one person can make a difference, or about the value of family, this film is really worth seeing.

This film is very well crafted in its own right, but it is as a diptych with Flags of Our Fathers that it achieves a true masterpiece.

Both films are compelling in the themes they explore, and perhaps even more so in the larger issues that these historical events influenced. In the back of my mind as I watched this was the thought that these brave / foolhardy men, in their relentless fanaticism, were setting the stage making the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki not only possible, but inevitable. The American soldiers, their families, and government wanted neither to let the Japanese militarists off the hook, nor to continue walking into the meat grinder.

How accurately does the story portray actual historical individuals (in the case of "Flags", obviously very much so)? Baron Nishi for one was quite a colorful real person, and the movie rings mostly true regarding him (although it's said that he and Kuribayashi really didn't get along very well). See: aafla.org/SportsLibrary/JOH/JOHv11n2/johv11n2o.pdf.

I'm disappointed that Kazunari Ninomiya did not win an Oscar for "Best Supporting Actor" -- the range and depth of his Saigo is simply astonishing.

A while back I made some donations to the World War II Veterans' Committee, which was deploring how crucial battles like Iwo Jima were being forgotten by the younger generation. It is thus ironic (gratifyingly so) that this one has been turned into such well-directed and well-acted art as two major motion pictures.

I would give "Letters" 9.5 but have rounded it to 10.

This is a wonderful documentary. And much more.

There are some films that could be made any time, any place. This isn't one of them. It contains extraordinary archival footage and priceless interviews. The whole is very well put together and really gives you a sense of the personal struggles and monumental achievements of Rodgers and his colleagues Hart and Hammerstein. It is both beautiful and heartbreaking. It's also a tribute to persistence, hard work, and the nature and importance of "good luck". (I think my favorite part of the movie is the vignette of Rodgers and Hart bemoaning their lack of traction early in their career.)

This is a love story to Rodgers, to America, and to the American musical theater as an art form. If you have any interest in musical theater, it is a "must-see".

So you thought Hamlet or Tosca were violent?

I struggled for a while with how to rate this movie, as well as how to review it. Considering cinematography and acting, it is very well made (as most viewers have acknowledged with its high ratings). But, it is soulless, with unremitting evil, betrayal, corruption, and mayhem. Ze Pequeno is the vilest character I've EVER seen portrayed (which is saying a lot). It's worse because he's very believable -- we all know there really are people like that. One spends much of the movie hoping that someone will do him in, but the film douses any satisfaction with that.

I prefer my films to have some inspirational values to them. 7 out of 10.

First I'll do my review, where I've little to add: Best made film I've ever seen.

For the curious, an email discussion:

Hi, Bill.

In the Japanese title "Shichinin No Samurai", do you have any guess (or happen to know) what the "No" is for? It looks like it might be a preposition, perhaps means "of"?

I'm only asking you because you know (almost) everything. ;-)

-- Dave

From Bill:

No can have several very different meanings in Japanese. It appears that "No" in this case is what the grammar freaks call a "nominalizer". It changes "seven samurai" from any group of seven samurai into a specific seven samurai or The Seven Samurai. But "No" doesn't really translate as "the". It isn't an article. It seems to be an oddity of some Asian languages.

> I'm only asking you because you know (almost) everything. ;-) <

Perhaps that is because I know whom to ask. The above description comes from Duane Byers who used to teach English in Taiwan and Japan.

• Bill

The protagonist Tom (Ernie Hudson) is not a saint, but he's a pretty decent guy. Some of the people around him are liars or are unsympathetic, to the point that it may make the viewer angry. Tom's friends are corrupt, and his son Tom Jr. is a jerk. Tom gets into increasing trouble (some of it self-inflicted). The story gets more and more depressing, until just before the end (without which it'd be a bummer).

The movie's great strengths are the acting and the direction. The production is taut and flows very well, including the flashbacks. Ernie Hudson's performance is superb. The acting by several others is also outstanding (everyone's is at least good). The comedic scenes are well done.

Some gripes -- modern (last 100+ years) guns do not discharge accidentally due to being dropped. (It must be getting hard to find people in Hollywood who know anything about guns.) Also, there is more swearing than necessary.

This film is a documentary. In approaching it, it helps to make allowances for the early date. But its age is also a benefit, as it is presumably the first film that was ever made of Pitcairn and shows it at perhaps its prime. I have read that the island now suffers from even fewer vessel visits and a declining population. This movie could not be replicated today, and I am glad it exists and glad to have seen it (which was quite accidental!).

Movie techniques were primitive in 1933, and the film's master is not in good physical condition. The acting is (as others have commented) abysmal, with the exception of the mother towards the end of the film. I agree that the future greatness of Errol Flynn would not be guessed from this. On the positive side, the scenery is spectacular and the story is exciting.

Try accepting the movie on its own terms, and you will enjoy it. I would give it more than 6 points, but have to round the number off. It is better than I expected from the average score.