thecygnet

I've just seen "Revolution" on TV and I have to say that it's a much better movie than one may think. Sometimes a movie is worth-seeing only because of its wonderful production values. And "Revolution" is an eye-popping visual feat: wonderful cinematography, first-rate period details. I might say that beside Stanley Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon" and Tony Richardson's "Tom Jones", this is the most beautifully made period movie about the eighteenth century. "Revolution" is also an important film because there are only about a dozen films on the Revolutionary War and almost all of them are a matter of obscurity - at least for a Hungarian movie lover. The most popular is Roland Emmerich's "The Patriot" (2000). In my opinion that's a much worse film than Hudson's maligned film. When "Revolution" was released it was a critical and commercial disaster. I think it didn't fit in any of the movie trends of the 1980s. But in the future it might be regarded as a flawed but valuable movie. Its flaws are obvious and much-discussed so I don't want to speak about them. If you're interested in beautiful period pieces and the Revolutionary War you might like this movie.

Director Robert Altman has always been famous for his multiple-layered stories and his great ensemble casts. Just to name a few: "Nashville", "Short Cuts", "The Player" or "Cookie's Fortune". The great "Gosford Park" is no exception either.

Featuring a dream cast of England's most prominent actors, such as Maggie Smith, Emily Watson, Kristin Scott Thomas, Helen Mirren, Michael Gambon or Alan Bates, this is a movie which offers at least five Oscarworthy performances (most notably Maggie Smith and Emily Watson, in my opinion). It was a sheer delight to see Alan Bates for example, who played in a string of wonderful films in the sixties and seventies ("Women in Love" and the "Go-Between" are my favourites). I have to mention Kelly MacDonald (from "Trainspotting"), who is marvellous in the role of Mary. The film is a really haunting crime-mystery but it also can be seen as a social commentary on the English class system - and this aspect of the film is more interesting. Old traditions, deviations, greed, snobbery and decadence characterise the lives of the upper-class and the lower-class as well. We see that neither the aristocrats nor their servants are normal people - only the newcomer Mary (Kelly MacDonald) seem to be a down-to-earth person until the end of the weekend: her eyes tell everything when she gets into the car. No words required. In the first hour we are introduced to the group of people who gather together for a shooting party in the countryside. This first hour is the best of the film: Altman draws a breathtakingly accurate and detailed portrait of the worlds upstairs and especially downstairs where every gesture is right-on-target. I have not seen anything like this before. While the servants are preparing for the dinner, the others upstairs are sharpening their teeth on each other - it is a festival of one-liners (especially for Maggie Smith).

I sat down with great expectations and I can say this movie did not disappoint me. It is always good to see a great cast and director working at the highest level. The cinematography, the music and the art direction are first grade (this is the minimum in the case of a film like this one).

Finally, I cannot do anything but highly recommend this masterpiece to every movie-lover and for those who would like to see the mechanics of the class system.

My father did not like it. He says it was dull. I would rather say it is dated.

In our times, when non-characteristic, sensitive and fallible movie heroes are on the top of the box-office charts (e.g. Spiderman, Harry Potter, Frodo, the X-Men or Neo) this 100% macho point of view seems awfully dated. I know, we have seen Arnold playing this kind of "sensitive hero" (End of Days, The 6th Day, Collateral Damage) and the result was horrible. At least, this time he is back in the form and does what he can. And he is quite good and believable.

This film has been late for at least 6 or 7 years. I heard about the fights over the rights but this does not change my opinion. I do not think that James Cameron could have made a much better movie out of this material - probably it would seem to be dated, as well.

Otherwise, I have to say it is a hugely enjoyable action movie. I am not a die hard fan of the first two Terminator movies so I was able to sit back and enjoy the ride and forget criticism. The best thing about this movie is that it knows its boundaries: it is nothing else but an entertaining summer action movie with a straightforward, not so subtle opinion about the connection between humanity and technology. I think that everything has already been said about this connection in Stanley Kubrick's "2001: a space odyssey".

The special effects are first rate but not revolutionary. But why should they be? This race between the recent action movies in order to create never-before-seen special effects is useless and senseless. After a time the result is laughable. Often the reliable formula can be much more entertaining. And the third Terminator movie belongs to this group.

It is also a good thing that the end of the movie is different from the majority of Hollywood action movies - at least it is not a flag-waving finale.

But there are disadvantages, as well: I think with the help of much more irony this could be a funnier (and better) movie. Arnold's first scene at the chippendale bar is the kind of thing I think of. Too bad that they did not follow that line. I also expected some character development in the case of human characters. All in all, it can be an entertaining movie if you do not have great expectations.

Put it simply, "Werckmeister harmóniák" is one of the most beautiful and haunting European film of the recent years, and maybe the best Hungarian film in decades. After the breakthrough of the acclaimed 7 hours long epic "Sátántangó" in 1994 it took 3 years to complete this masterpiece for Tarr Béla. "Sátántangó" and 'Werckmeister harmóniák" made Tarr one of the most acclaimed and adored directors of the contemporary film making. This mind-blowing story is told in only 37 shots (I counted it myself) some of them lasts for 5 or 6 minutes. Despite the small number of the shots, this film has one of the most effective editing of all time. Every edit is perfectly timed and has a meaning of its own. Kudos to the editor.

The stark black-and-white camerawork is by Medvigy Gábor, and the melancholic music is composed by Víg Mihály. The most harrowing scene is the raid on the town hospital, the longest scene of the film, shot in complete silence. Frightening and senses-staggering, the picture of the naked old man burns into the soul. Highly recommended, a must-see for anyone who is interested in the recent history of Central-Eastern Europe and wants to understand it.

I saw this film for the first time a year and a half ago and I have to say that I didn't like it. I found it over-complicated and over-directed although the fight scenes, the photography and the music were beautiful. Anyway I thought it was overrated in many aspects. When the HBO started to air it about two months ago I didn't care about it. Then everything has changed. Last week a saw Zhang Yimou's wonderful movie 'The Road Home' (1999) and I saw Zhang Ziyi, a beautiful young and talented Chinese actress in it. I decided to find out more about her and I saw that she played in this movie, too. Then I decided to check this movie again. And this time it lived up to my expectations. Zhang Ziyi, playing Xiou Long, is extraordinary and steals the show. She has the chance to follow Gong Li on her throne as the 'Queen of the Chinese cinema'. As I said the photography and the music were all superb but I still think it is slow and over-complicated at times. But there are much more for this movie than against it. In conclusion I would say that there are movies which are better at the second time and one has to find its hidden values. I would recommend it for the lovers of the Asian cinema along with 'The Road Home'.

One of the Hungarian commercial televisions is broadcasting all James Bond-movies from 'Dr. No' to 'The World Is Not Enough'. Yesterday evening the next in the row was 'Moonraker', the 11th installment in the series. According to the IMDB rating (5,9/10) and the critics, besides 'A View to a Kill' this would be the worst of the series. Having seen all the first 10 James Bond-movies, I would say that this is one of the best of the 1960s and '70s. Only 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service', 'From Russia With Love' and 'Goldfinger' could top this one. It is a very good action movie because it didn't take itself seriously and the film-makers at last realised that James Bond is deeply rooted in the worst traditions of the pulp fiction. Ian Fleming is not Len Deighton nor John Le Carré. So this is the first 007-movie which doesn't want to be more than an escapist action spectacle with gorgeous locales, sexy women, dazzling fights and state-of-the-art special effects. Fortunately the slapstick is more subtle than in the 'Live and Let Die' and in 'The Man with the Golden Gun', which are the lowest points of the series and I'm sure that 'A View to a Kill' can't be worse. Many people say that this was a 'Star Wars' ripoff. I would say that every James Bond-movie should be watched in the context of its historical (both cultural and political) background. It's natural that the producers wanted to profit from the success of the 'Star Wars' and other sci-fi films of the late 1970s. The greatness of the James Bond-series is due to the fact that every episode is a perfect interpretation of the actual state of the politics, culture and movie trends. I recommend this film to every movie fan but one should consider those observations above first.

P.S. If you don't believe in the power of love, you should check Jaws out.

In most people's head the animation film is connected to Disney movies or to Japanese manga animation films, which are very hip nowadays. But everyone seems to overlook Russian animators. The most influential of them is Yuri Norstein, whose timeless masterpiece was awarded at the festival of animation films in Los Angeles in 1984 and at many other film festivals throughout the world. But why is this short half-an-hour movie so beautiful?

Firstly, because Norstein has a matchless visual style. I expected something special after I've read about the film and before I saw it but what I got is something extraordinary: breathtaking pictures, fantastically clever use of mixed media, fine classical music. Secondly, because of the complex, symbol-ridden story, which is rooted in the Russian mythology. The story is about childhood innocence, the loss of the loved ones and the duty of the artist. It's very European, very Eastern-European and because I'm from Hungary and our past is very similar, this animation film is much closer to me than the American or Japanese ones.