lovepade

This is a documentary. As such it tries to show the reality of camp armadillo in the Afghan Helmand province. Armadillo is the most forward of the allied camps, and as such the one with the most fighting, and the least civilian work. Taleban territory is 800 meter from the camp - and peace is not something that the locals dare hope for.

Some people seam to think this movie is an argument against the war. I beg to differ. This movie simply shows us what war sometimes is: Young men, without a clue about why, leaving their tearladen family to fight in a country far away. AT great personal cost. Sometimes the greatest. Maybe - something good will come out of it, even though it can seem hopeless.

The movie shows us the different coping strategies the soldiers uses. The sense of brotherhood, the porn, the adrenalin, the dark sarcastic humor. It shows us how the soldiers doesn't always have time to ask before shooting. And it shows us how different the soldiers are.

It's a sober movie. Filmed at the front line, with images never before seen from the actual war in Afgahnistan. Beautiful camera work, sublime editing makes this a very good documentary.

EDIT: What I miss - and why I don't give it a 10: I am actually a bit surprised by what the soldiers do not say. In these circumstances I would expect a much more racist tone/humor. But there is hardly any of that. The few soldiers I have met in real life, have all had very complicated/nuanced/many faceted feelings towards the local culture: Admiration and disgust at the same time. I get the feeling that this movie have actually edited the worst lingo out of the movie. I think it would serve everyone good to know, that if a returned soldiers refer to someone as a camel-f***er - this is not always because that same soldier cant feel a deep respect for said camel-******* culture, customs, language and persona.

Also: A soldier 'snitches', and talks to his relatives back home, about a certain incident. Since everybody is talking about brotherhood in this movie, I would suspect that having a "snitch" in the brotherhood, has led to some interesting frustrations, misgivings and suspicions. This is not shown, which is disappointing.

But still: fantastic camera-work, and very sober war movie. 8/10

This film is excellent for three reasons: The acting - which is brilliant, especially Kingsly (and Connelly is mastercastet for her role), the story, which is void of the usual predictable clichés, and finally the cinematography and script. I list the cinematography and the script together because they really work as an integrated whole. The pictures could be criticized for being too perfect, but I see them as almost symbolic paintings, commenting on the story from another world. The dialogue is actually kept to a minimum. There are so many subtle nuances here.

I give this movie a nine out of ten, because it is 1) well made, 2) actually has a message/meaning/depth or what ever you'd prefer to call it, and 3) is a totally surprising thriller at the same time.

Maybe the film disserves a ten, but I somehow feel that this is only really good the first time you watch it. This is because of the time taken to portray the characters in here -which might get a little boring the second or third time you'd see it.

There a at least three ways to review this movie: The moralist one (0/10); the 'usual' one focusing on tension, plot, charachter etc. (5/10) and then the film buffs fantasy 10/10.

The movie has many factual faults. It is unrealistic etc. and yawn yawn. The point of this movie is that its a tribute to especially Sergio Leone and Martial Arts movies.

however this is not all. The picture composation and colors, the scenematography is absulotely stunning.

!

I saw this movie at the Zimbabwe International Film Festival 2001, where it won the audience favorite prize. Its competitors where among other excellent films "Love is a bitch", "Girl on the bridge", "Girl of your dreams", "Her eyes", "Mifunes song".

The movie is a sort of feel-good road movie through the Balkans. There is lots of action, flirting with fate, and going through hell to find the one you love.

It's cinematography is beautiful, and this is truly a very good movie!

8/10

(pls if you know how I can get this movie, please mail me)

I gave this flick 5 out of 10, which might be too hard. However; this is by far the worst (least good) Marvel-film I have seen. First of all, DAredevil is the weakest of the characters. Second, the fighting is not good and thirdly: the villian is as boring as the hero.

The truth is that I was plain bored. There was some nice moments with the rain scene, and the first fight between murdoch and the girl. But that was it.

(and why does there HAVE to be a comic character like Murdochs partner - its SO predictable... (for the record I love, Batman, Spiderman, Xmen and I CANT WAIT for HULK)!

I hate to write these short reviews but really; this film is easy as I agree completely with another reviwers statement, that this is a bad script happening to a god film. It means that the cinematography is great, that Tilda is stunning (as usualy) and most of the other acting at least average. However: THe script stinks! and due to this the cinematography never really thrills as it was clearly intended. I give it 4/10 which might be a bit harse, but this is the only film I can remember where good cinematography wasn't worth the effort. It's just plain boring.

Too long, too stereotyped, too predictable. Day-Lewis does a very good job, were as Dicaprio is one-dimensional (with a good portrayl of that one dimension, but its just not good enough).

The cinematography is very good however, and Scorsese puts a clear fingerprint on e.g. the fighting scenes.

Gangs… shows very clearly that a movie can have the best director, but without the story or the actors it's all pointless. 6/10

Sympathetic theme, inspiring idea, mostly well acted and very beautifully shot. However the movie is 20 minutes too long, and due to the uniqueness of the characters the course of action sometimes becomes too unrealistic. But I'll guess that depends on how much one is willing to accept? 8/10 (the movie is 7/10 but because of its original script – its an eight)

This film is underrated. Sure - if you can't deal with irony and cliches, you won't like it. however I believe that a true movie lover cant help but to love this one. Great Direction by McTiernan, so its a 7,5/10 for this original flick.

!!!CONTAINS ITZY BITZY MINOR SPOILERS!!!

This movie is good, no doubt about it! I especially loved the sixties feel, very neatly captured by Spielberg. Leonardo is Leonardo as we know him, doing what he does best. Hanks is perfectly cast, and I was surprised that his face didn't bother me once, as it usually does.

The story is intriguing and the tempo of the movie is high. Christopher Walken steals the picture with his exceptional performance.

The father-son theme of the movie actually works very well which is a rarity for this kind of film.

I would rate it 8/10, but (being a European) the depiction of the French police takes one point off the score. However the Music by Frank Williams, and the intro (which captures the spirit of both the film and the sixties) gives that point back.

One could argue that the film idealizes Abigales criminal career, and that the morale of the film is, that as long as you do something good, everything will work out for you – even if your special talent is crime. However, as this film is based on a true story, and since movies in my opinion are not supposed to lecture or mould the viewer, I stand by my 8/10 (even though the movie is not breathtaking, it's a tiny bit more than just professional work).

This film works surprisingly well sixty years after its original release. The story unfolds, and as it does it genuinely sucks the viewer in. You actually care about what happens to these people.

The pictures are beautiful and the acting is superb. Bogart of cause shimmers with his unique mix of poppy eyes, heart broken righteousness, and very masculine stoutness. Yes - we have yet to see his like.

It's easy: 10/10

(ohh: By the way, all the actors are marvellous characters: From the fat, patriotic waiter, to the French police inspector – and needless to mention: Ingrid Berman!)

Other users have been very critical towards this film, as have some of the official reviews. However it is very difficult to deny the skilfully techniques and homage's to heist movies in the beginning. Split screen, computers - the works. If you love the design of Fight Club, Matrix and the like, you'll definitely like the look of this film as well.

It has been said that this film idealizes violence and has no morale, since the cool guys are the bad guys as well. This is only partly true. All guys in this movie are bad, and it is the Nazi-cop, who most definitely have been exposed to bad influence through American movies .-), whereas the hero - Dobermann - is just a product of his environment....

The first half is pure style; the last half is more traditional action. It's a great flick, and at 93minuttes the length is perfect!

And Vincent Casell is an awesome actor, so: 9/10 if you like this sort of thing. If you don't, i.e. if you want a morale, social realism etc. 3/10!

The title of this memorable film hints to violence and abuse, and behind it all a pattern of lifesaving love. And so it is, only in a very peculiar kind of way.

It is by no means a ‘big' movie P.T. Anderson has made; on the contrary this flick is subtle and silent, poetic and attentive.

The Protagonist, for once played extremely well by Adam Sandler, is a sort of anti-hero, trapped in shyness and confusion, most likely connected to his seven-sister large family pulling him in directions he does not wish to go. We are unsure of his sexuality, but as the story unfolds it really doesn't matter. All that matters is that a woman enters his life and turns it around.

The woman, as always acted superbly well by Emily Watson, has all the love that is needed to turn our anti-hero life around.

So the story is simple: Confused man meets girl, and everything changes.

P.T. Anderson (Boogie Nights, Magnolia) is well in charge here. The pictures captures the life of the main characters; clear-cut, yet confused and claustrophobic. Notice the scene in the mall were Adam Sandler apparently is all alone surrounded by clear sharp ‘artificial' colours, shot with a fish eye lens so that the room sort of closes in on him. Then compare this to the scene in Hawaii were the two main characters meet again: They are completely alone, but the instant they meet, the place gets crowded and they blend in. The colours are natural and the space is open to the sea that can be seen in the background. When I saw that scene it reminded me of Sandler saying how he didn't like people starring at him, in the beginning of the film.

And while I go on and on about the beauty of this film, I tend to forget all the suspense and action that is actually here, and which underlines the point of the movie. The violence is here for a reason, not purely aesthetics. (But notice this: This is not an action movie - is a poetic dream with humour and lots of patience, mixed well with suspense!)

And it's nice for once to see a movie not afraid of lasting only 1½hours. Not a minute to long, not a minute to short. A perfect film from P.T. Anderson. 9/10

Avarys attempt to put The Rules of Attraction into film is a daring one: Ellis' realm does not easily adapt itself to the screen, which is most likely known by Ellis' fans. American Psycho portraits a sick man in a sick society. To do this on the screen the satire / comedy genre was and is the best choice.

In Rules Avarys has taken the book almost to its word. In order to do this the technique of rewinding etc. is brilliantly chosen and well carried out. However it's to excessive! One ends up being annoyed and not entertained!

The irony and humor in this film is the kind that are suited well for one liners - that does not changed the fact that the protaganists appear cool - their misfortunes asside. This was not the case for American Psycho, and for this reason the latter worked well.

That Avary did not contribute to the story or structure of Ellis' book makes me wonder who really did the biggest part of Pulp Fiction, Tarantino or Avary - my bet is Tarantino.

For technique fans and the movie craving people I give this 8, however - rated overall it cant be given more then 6.

This movie is very explicit, and definitely not for the faint hearted - if you have a problem with nudity etc. you should stay away (unless off course you want and eye opener)

The idiots was the second film made under the influential "dogma" rules (E.g. Spielberg (and others) has taken it up) and just as nr. 1 (T. Vinterberg's "Festen") and nr. 3 (S. Kragh Jakobsen's "Mifunes sang") the acting is superb, and almost too realistic. The shaking camera and the documentary feel really hits the viewer right in solar plexus. You want to cry, you want to scream!

In my opinion the theme is self realisation, modern man etc. If one wants to it can even bee seen as a comment to Hitler, manipulation, group thinking, the power of the mass etc.

It's not quite as tightly pulled of as "Festen", i.e. the idiots is maybe five or ten minutes to long. However: I claim that contrary to "festen" this movie is much more an art movie. It wants something more; it wants to constantly make the viewer aware of himself as a social individual with prejudice and more.

I wouldn't want to label this film social criticism, rather individual awareness.

As such it is the opposite of Von Triers "Breaking the waves" which was a very good movie as it made a very good impression of having a lot of depth that it just didn't. (which is a good achievement - I mean this)

(Breaking The waves and Mifunes sang: 8/10 Festen and Idiots: 10/10)

Signs is a good suspense movie. It works in a slow pace with the 'keep it simple stupid' motto. We hardly see the aliens, but they are constantly felt around the protagonist. It worked for Ridley Scott in `Aliens' and its working quite good for Shyamalan.

(small spoilers - coming up)

Mel Gibson's kids are scary as hell. They have lost their mother, and as the fargo-like policewoman says ` has gone through a lot'. Even considering that, they are still very `stiff' in their performance. However I think this was intended from the director's side, since it gives them an eerie radiance - almost as if them being kids makes them more susceptible to the alien's communication. Never the less - it doesn't seam realistic that kids should behave like that, not even if they were brought up the way they are (by a strict reverend).

(Big spoilers coming up)

Considering the genre, I very much like the idea that the aliens are not portrayed as the superior beings we are used to. Instead they are portrayed as being desperate and almost weak. That itself pulls my rating up, since it helps nuance the idea of extra terrestrial life.

Also the revenge motive attributed to the alien scout that Gibson mutilates, gives the visitors a more `human' touch.

However: The way that Gibsons character loses his belief doesn't convince me. And the whole idea about preordained destiny I loathe. The movie implies not only that Gibson lost his wife so that he later would save his son, but also that Phoenix baseball career had the same purpose (cf. scene in military office).

The way the ending plays out shows such hesitation from all involved that one doubts it's realistic. However - considering that the alien most likely was left behind, and the terror the humans are in - maybe.

That the alien has poison coming out of its arms, does not imply hunting (as for instance a snake) but rather some form of bio-bodyarmour, which we cannot see.

All these weaknesses can however also be attributed to the high amount of water in the atmosphere that maybe weakens them.

The way human fear is portrayed is humorous, and a good reminder of our irrational approach to things. On the same account it gives the audiance a needed breather from the heavy / horror stuff.

Because of the less than creditable account of a reverends faith and the fate/destiny theme, I was constantly annoyed. From that I give 6/10.

However - If you are willing to buy that stuff, its at least 7, maybe 8/10.

To pull the movie down because of unrealistic aliens, is to speculate about things we can't speculate about. We don't know were they came from or why, and we don't know how our atmosphere affects them. I think this is one of Shyamalans points, and also one of the prerequisites for watching any movie.

So it all comes down to belief - not aliens!

I saw this movie at the Zimbabwe International Film Festival 2001, where it won the audience favorite prize. Its competitors where among other excellent films "Love is a bitch", "Girl on the bridge", "Girl of your dreams", "Her eyes", "Mifunes song".

The movie is a sort of feel-good road movie through the Balkans. There is lots of action, flirting with fate, and going through hell to find the one you love.

It's cinematography is beautiful, and this is truly a very good movie!

8/10

(pls if you know how I can get this movie, please mail me)