The movie may very well be cute, adorable, feel-good and all other similar adjectives. But I couldn't get past the first ten minutes of it due to the fact that, yet again (as french movies - or french men - do seem to prefer), I'm forced to face the hard-to-believe relationship between a pretty young woman and a fifty not-so-bright, poor and socially retarded man. Or french man, to be accurate. The age difference per se is not the issue, but the context and the lack of justification thereof.
I've had my share of good french movies, and I shall not stand for any bullshit, little as it may seem.
I have to make a comment for zvesda and its followers (do read his other review and please get that he is a pro-socialism pro-imperialism creature who could theoretically almost justify to the ignorant the enormously tragical mass murders of the Soviet Union). The most unbelievable thing is, though, that some would buy his strange endeavor - could be because of lack of knowledge.
Please also get that Russia has no enemies, as zvesda imperiously sustains, and that the theory of "hatred" is extremely dangerous and entails the majority of the citizens of a nation to incredible crimes justified by noble ideas such as "patriotism" and "defense from the enemy of the state". The documentary shows us the atrocities carried out by some dictators, and is not a personal attack to you, zvesda, or to the citizens of Russia, whether old or young (not to mention those crimes were against the Soviet Union's own citizens!). But stating expressions such as "the Jewish fascism" in today's Russia is mind-blowing (of course, the 20.000.000 killings in the Soviet Union, solely in terms of number, is quite mind-blowing too...).
Those atrocities did exist, whether you acknowledge it or not, and everyone should be reminded of the possible crimes of any dictatorship through fear, censorship, craziness, torture and murder. Whatever dictatorship that might be, at the shadow of whatever ideology.
It's hard to see the harsh images of afflicted children, women and men; but ignorance is never an excuse, and this documentary will definitely wake you up, if only to make you read a bit more about our recent and insane history.
No one in their right mind would ever go through the first 10 minutes of this movie not wondering w-t-f...nothing works, the plot is thin, the cast is having a junk-night-out instead of a great-steak-night, the effects are funny at best and the referential - a joke.
Yet, it's entertainment. the same way a stupid reality-show is. Only for me it wasn't, but I hate reality-shows. And so do the people I tried (real hard) to see the movie with.
Maybe in a 3D version. Again, not for me. But I'm European...and so are my friends.
If you think the word "awesome"! is virtually needed at every 2 minutes,I'm sure you'll find this very attractive. Because it is. It is AWESOME! the same way green nail polish is. On a first date, on toenails, with obsessive pink lollipop cravings.
Many old cinematographers say nowadays cinema is dead; I have no doubt that is precisely how they feel, how they think; and it is obviously part of their being old, grumpy, and having nothing left to be said. Yes, the world is coming to an end, we're dealing with an imminent Apocalypse, global warming and asteroids heading straight to the Earth. Not to mention the many political and economical conspiracy theories, always involving Jews, Mafia and some other people speaking Russian in strange accents.
I want to remember Godard as the creator of "À bout de soufflé" and "Pierrot le fou", not as the senile man with nothing left to be said. It is insulting and disappointing to the big world of fine cinema today. Because indeed there are fine young cinematographers out there who need respect and support. At least from those who don't organize their lives on account of the imminent Apocalypse, anyway.
It is obvious people do enjoy psychological thrillers, virtual reality, and Leonardo DiCaprio. Inception, having it all, will astonish and marvel crowds of cinema goers into thinking they are smart and profound just for getting or liking the movie. I have to say, I admire the movie's performance into tricking its viewers like that; because that's what it is, a trick. A dream within a dream, and doesn't that sound attractive...
It is the kind of movie that gets nominated for Oscar just for its crowd pleasing abilities, and Oscars are born within the capitalist world and needs all the capital it can get. Just like Avatar got nominated in the "best movie" category... I've read some review saying Inception could be the movie of the decade; obviously, the guy didn't see that many movies in the last ten years; there are better movies in 2010 only, and a bunch of them.
I'm not saying the movie is bad; it's a good movie for its genre; what I didn't like about it is the fuss it created (and that fuss will disappear like it disappeared before for other crowd adored films), but mostly its lack of authenticity, therefore its PRETENTIOUSNESS.
This is not a gem - it is a pile of dust in the eyes.
This is the core of the European movie, in its most refined and poetic substance, where everything comes together and combines into perfect cinematography, the kind that sticks with you for a while...
I find it disgraceful and ignorant how anyone could make this into an excuse for advertisement to Bing; maybe Bing guys paid for a part of the movie - so? the director didn't compromise in any way its beautiful cinema. Or if it did, it also compromised for the Cupid, the Ancient Greek and Ancient Rome paintings he used to make such creative and persistent analogies.
The use of light is magnificent; the use of bodies dynamics, their entanglement in intense yet unexpected love, the obsessive music, the ardent construction of every single moment - and of atmosphere, like we're in Rome and there's nothing else to do but to dwell in deeper and deeper - all these and more make a movie that's simply Beautiful.
This movie is part of the "nouvelle vague" in cinema, a more evolved and profound cinema, with deep undergrounds of humanity and courage, with tranquility of sharing and understanding. The analogy with the Wizard of Oz is obvious, since that is where this movie got its roots: three people experiencing different kinds of losses, two of them from Kansas, on a trip to discover the answers they long for - answers they will eventually find in themselves.
The director does some terrific job, no matter what they say; he takes all kinds of risks, uses unconventional tools up to the point where a less circumspect and more neophyte viewer would lose track, leaning on extraordinary performances from all actors. The characters are simple, yet sophisticated.
For the simple-minded, this movie does not mean much - it's just a road movie with sparkles of unconscious and sentimental movements. Those movements though are instruments of one's true self, as authentic and pathetic and sparkling as any true self is.
This movie has it all revealed in the title; we have the typical road movie, the open situations that need closure, the family gathering when almost-tragedy might happen, the girl that almost got away, the father-son estranged yet reliable liaison, the change in the hero's mind along the way.
And above that, it has the sparkling dialog, Jeff Bridges (I just love how he cries in most of his roles, because he can and he's so damn good), the wise replies that might (or not) mean something to you at some point. The open spaces, and a feel-good impression that will make it perfect for a late evening when you just don't feel like sleeping. Or you would feel like taking a long walk somewhere, only it would be wiser not to in the middle of the night.
I probably shouldn't give it a ten, but grades "don't mean nothing" to me, it's all about whether I liked it or not, and I sure did like it.
This movies seems to me approved by Putin: simple-minded, patriotic, a complete non-thinker. Not that we don't need non-thinkers from time to time, but this movie doesn't even give its actors a chance to act: the best attitude for the man is the heroic brave grin, and for the woman - the pretentious yet vulnerable smile of adoration or resignation.
I get that that time was a time of war and the appraisal of war; but I'm sure Russians are not as conventional and simple-minded as this (they have great writers to prove it - and some directors, too).
Although, I'm sure someone like Putin would prefer them this way. This dough is easier to mold.
Unbelievably or not, people are still trying to motivate this movie's awards by politically correctness. As hard as it is for some to recognize, this movie is remarkable. Remarkable in its subtleties, in its strong directing, in its surgically precise emotions. An authentic and poignant sense of reality and nuances comes out every scene.
I use the preference for this movie as an IQ meter; never seen a real intelligent person disliking it, but seen many plain people hating its guts. I can see why: plain versus subtle, plain always wins more votes. Historically speaking, majority was never of real intelligence. I guess I'll put it like this: if you think Godfather is the best movie of all times, then don't watch this. It's not for you.
I was expecting something at least decent. Because you know, Aaron Exckhart was in cool movies like Thank you for smoking, or Dark Knight; and also because lately we got a taste of the more mature, evolved Jennifer Aniston. Boy, did they choose wrong this time! I won't mention Martin Sheen, who, like other senior actors nowadays (yes, I mean Michael Douglas) don't care what they appear in, as long as they get to act.
We all know the old pattern of Hollywood scripts, but do they really need to throw it in our faces like some dried-out bad-tailored rag? I cannot empathize with acting like an oriental fakir when dealing with the loss of a dear one, or with other likewise cheap, absurd and lame resolutions. Freeing an exotic bird into the woods...really? Is this movie intended to be screened at Retarded Camp?
At least I learned some new words; which I'll never use.
This is one of the most accurate representations of what a comedy/drama should be; if you cannot apprehend that conjunction, you should stay away from this movie. The screenplay is mature and insightful, like one of those scripts constantly written throughout 10 or 20 years of career in the movie business, from rookie-time to almost-dead, comprising bad choices, regrets, enlightenments and second chances. It is naive to call this movie uneven, simply because it prepares you for laughs and coolness and then overturns into steady, real-life drama. In fact, this is a very brave twist for Judd Appatow and not only he gets away with it, but also he manages to keep the viewer alert for 2 and a half hours. Well, an unconventional, non-judge mental viewer, anyway. This is not a sophisticated movie, but a generous one; it shares a lot, as long as you have room enough for it.
Someone wondered why this show has such low ratings; if you look at the demographics, you'll see that it gets the lowest ranking from over 45 year old males, which is no surprise since they have been educated in a more traditional environment and are usually very keen on their puritan values; and also, from adolescent males, which is also of no surprise, since their manhood is still fragile.
This show is witty and almost addictive, not to mention the obvious comedic talent of Julia Louis Dreyfuss and the can't-do-without artistic responsiveness of Hamish Linklater.
Treating this as a niche would be a mistake. Anyway, if the show gets canceled in US, I'd sincerely advise Julia Louis Dreyfuss to visit Europe.