eldino33

CAROL'S JOURNEY is a pleasure to watch for so many reasons. The acting of Clara Lago is simply amazing for someone so young, and she is one of those special actors who can say say much with facial expressions. Director Imanol Urbibe presents a tight and controlled film with no break in continuity, thereby propelling the plot at a steady pace with just enough suspense to keep one wondering what the nest scene will bring. The screenplay of Angel Garcia Roldan is story telling at its best, which, it seems, if the major purpose for films after all. The plot is unpredictable, yet the events as they unravel are completely logical. Perhaps the best feature of this film if to tell a story of the Spanish Civil War as it affected the people. It was a major event of the 20th century, yet hardly any Americans know of it. In fact, in 40 years of university teaching, I averaged about one student a semester who had even heard of it, much less any who could say anything comprehensive about it--and the overwhelming number of students were merit scholars, all of which speaks to the enormous amount of censorship in American education. So, in one way, this film is a good way to begin a study of that event, keeping in mind that when one thread is pulled a great deal of history is unraveled. The appreciation of this film is, therefore, in direct relation to the amount of one's knowledge. To view this film as another coming of age movie is the miss the movie completely. The Left Elbow Index considers seven aspects of film-- acting, production sets, character development, plot, dialogue, film continuity, and artistry--on a scale for 10 for very good, 5 for average, and 1 for needs help. CAROL'S JOURNEY is above average on all counts, excepting dialogue which is rated as average. The LEI average for this film is 9.3, raised to a 10 when equated to the IMDb scale. I highly recommend this film for all ages.

This film seems to meet with some success, but a first time film about Africa made by a New Yorker who was born in Korea, lived in rural Arkansas, and dropped his plans for Yale medical school appears an ambitious challenge. As it is, Lee Isaac Chung does a remarkable job with two inexperienced actors, who are also in their first feature film. It seems, however, that films should be a combination of structure and theme. The theme relating to long term emotional damage resulting from genocide is froth with emotion and confusion, not unusual for civil strife of such magnitude. One is left feeling that the struggle between the Hutus and Tutsis is far from over and that Rwanda is someday due for more of the same. Yet, it seems that once one accepts the emotional aspects, the film offers little. As a debut, the film appears passable and should stand on its own merits. The Left Elbow Index considers seven aspects of film--acting, plot, character development, artistry, film continuity, production sets, and dialogue--on a scale of 10 for very good, 5 for average, and 1 for needs help. The acting appears uneven at best, with some bright moments. The plot seems uneven probably caused by a lack of focus as to what the purpose of the visit might be. Walking in and out of scenes seems to provide little basis for this. There appears to be little character development, and the role of the poet seems a misfit. The artistry is average with good use of color and camera angles. Film continuity appears challenged by the seeming lack of a coherent plot. The production sets and the dialogue look to be average, with mostly outdoor scenes and local language. The Left Elbow Index average for this film is 2.1, raised to a 4.0 when equated to the IMDb rating system. The film is worth seeing since it does attempt to put a human face on the Rwandan genocide, and it gives an alternative to international media reports. I believe that Lee Chung has great potential for future films, films with professional actors, tighter structures, and clearer themes. I recommend this film, keeping in mind that it is a debut.

Simply put, THE CAVE OF THE YELLOW DOG is a beautifully made movie by Byamsuren Davaa. Unlike her previous film, THE STORY OF THE WEEPING CAMEL, which was also a very good movie, THE CAVE OF THE YELLOW DOG is polished and professional. And, most importantly, it tells a story in a compact and focused manner. It is a tale of a bucolic nomadic lifestyle in Mongolia during a time of change. This idyllic live is challenged by neighbors moving to cities, windmill power, plastic bowls, a motorcycle, photographs, and other trappings of the industrial world. They are confronted by the borders of modern nations which have little tolerance for nomads who cross borders where once there were none. They are even prompted to vote by an impersonal loudspeaker mounted on a speeding jeep. The irony is that nation building is a constant threat to nomads around the globe. The family is well aware of the benefits of civilization. Their oldest daughter goes to school, and their youngest daughter would like to live in the city because "People can pee inside their houses there." Byamsuren Davaa says that one purpose of the film is to present a way of life on film. She certainly does this, and in a rather objective manner, mostly because industrial film making does not fit the agrarian schedule of daily reincarnation. Best line from the film: "You're not supposed to play with Buddha." The Left Elbow Index considers seven variables in film--acting, production sets, artistry, plot, film continuity, dialogue, and character development--on a scale of 10 for very good, 5 for average, and 1 for needs help. The artistry, plot, and film continuity are above average, with good use of color, scenes balancing nature, and change over time, and the seamless use of animals. Dried dung, sheep, and survival skills are part and parcel of agrarian wealth--are are so presented. Lighting and camera angles are excellent. Acting is average (the family is a real family, not professionals), as are the production sets, most of which are exterior. The dialogue is functional, keeping in mind that the wind and the music are part of the dialogue. Character development is not a factor, except that the audience gets to know each character better as the film progresses. The characters, however, do not change. The LEI average rating for this film is 7.14, raised to 9.0 when equated with the IMDb scale. While watching THE STORY OF THE WEEPING CAMEL, one wonders how things would work out for the the little camel, one is not part of the action. However, with THE CAVE OF THE YELLOW DOG, Byambasuren Daava seduces one into wanting to be more than a dispassionate observer. Perhaps an old poem by Ogden Nash explains: "In Tibet there lives a llama/Has no papa, had no mama/ Has no wife and had not chillen'/ Has not use for penicillin/If you watch the Philco, mama/ I think I'll go and join that llama." I don't think I want to go to Tibet, but Mongolia would sure be a nice change. I highly recommend this film.

KATYN is a film about a crime and a lie. The crime is the slaughter of over 21,000 Polish officers in Stalin's attempt to liquidate the corps in 1940. The lie is the Soviet attempt to place responsibility for this horror on German troops that had supposedly captured the officers. That Stalin would have thousands of officers killed is no surprised, for a few years earlier he had decimated his own officer corps, including a large number of his own generals. Dircetor Andrzej Wajda's father was one of the victims in the forest of Katyn, and he claims he felt compelled to make a film of the incident for any number of reasons. In 1943, the Germans claimed the Russians were responsible, and after the liberation of Poland the Soviets claimed the Germans were. Wajda indicates that he was unable to begin making this film until 1989, although there had been literature on the slaughter for decades. The problem, he indicates, is that the logistics of film making is far more complicated than writing a book and hiding it for decades. Even then, it took over a decade to solidify a screenplay, mostly because younger writer's cultural frame is so unlike that of those living during World War II. Wajda also avoided a documentary format in consideration for the descendants of the slain officers. I need to point out that this is simply one story in a mass of similar actual events that occurred during the war. And, also it need be noted that many Polish officers escaped to other countries in order to fight against the Axis. Most notably were the pilots who made their way to England and managed to compile an outstanding record with the RAF. Note also that Wajda's belief that the chaos in the Polish government before, during, and after the war greased the skids for the atrocities to occur and for the later cover-up. The government before the war seemed inept, that during the was was Nazi, and that after the war was Communist. There were plenty of opportunities for crimes and lies. To paraphrase Wajda, "Those who preach patriotism are least able to handle it." The Left Elbow Index considers seven variables in film making--acting, film continuity, plot, character development, artistry, dialogue, and production sets--on a scale of 10 for very good, 5 for average, and 1 for needs help. The acting in KATYN is above average on all counts. So is the film continuity, which seamlessly weaves the stories of the families of four of the slain officers into an organic whole. The plot has few distractions, and plods on toward the inevitable climax. Character development is way above average with characters being forced to meet ever changing threats during and after the war. The artistry is above average with good camera angles and good use of color. Dialogue is average and appropriate, with the most ironic line delivered by a party member who says "There will never be a Free Poland." The production sets are spectacular, both indoors and out. The LEI average rating for this film is 9.23, which equates to the IMDb rating of 10, or excellent. I strongly recommend this film, especially to those who believe incidents like this can never happen again. KATYN resurrects the crime and the lie, but who will resurrect the dead?

"Kohayagawa-ke no aki" reveals a spectacular display of color and form that only a true master of art can achieve. Yasujiro Ozu has outdone even himself in this regard. One can easily get lost in one scene after another and forget that a film is playing. It is a though one is in an art gallery of cultural art which happens of be that of Japan. Monet attempted to imitate the impressionistic art of Japan during his lifetime in the 19th century, as can be seen in his own collection. The trend seems reversed in the 20th century, with Ozu using the techniques of American and European hard-edge expressionist. The results are stunning, infinity better than his earlier works. The same scenes in black and white in 1956 are presented in 1963 with vivid complementary and contrasting color. Barrels against a wall are no longer just gray shades but brown tubs with white rims and adjacent white umbrellas and buildings. There are dozens of other equally impressive combinations. The most spectacular scenes are those without actors or minimal acting. But after all, this is a movie so one has acting and dialogue. Moving hand fans dominate many scenes to an almost hypnotic end. The striking neon sign of the NEW JAPAN presages the future. The Left Elbow Index considers film from seven perspectives--acting, production sets, artistry, character development, film continuity, plot and dialogue--with a rating of 10 for very good, 5 for average, and 1 for needs help. The sets, the artistry, and the plot are rated very good. The plots are intriguing: to marry or not, East vs West, and cultural change. The acting is average due to the fixed photo technique and the talking head approach. Dialogue is appropriate. However, character development and film continuity seem submerged in the attention to color and form. The LEI average rating is 6.0, with a full point more given for Ozu's quantum leap into a new world of color, resulting in a 7.0, or above average, equal to an 8 on the IMDb scale. If one is serious about film history, this movie is essential to understanding trends. I strongly recommend this film. Just sit back and enjoy one tableau after another. You may find your jaw dropping in wonder and awe.

Seeing this film is more like looking at a photo album than watching a movie. Characters seem to walk in and out of set scenes, speaking while in the set, and then it is on to the next photo. Some concession need be made for a black and white film from 1956 and for the style of Yasujiro Ozo, yet this approach to film making seems to destroy the continuity of the film. For example, one jumps from tones of Japanese industrial society (340,000 office workers in one city) to hiking on a highway to sitting and drinking tea. This may in fact be the thread of industrial postWWII Japan, but it seems not the fabric. The result appears to be a lack of a coherent Japanese identity, for costumes and jobs appear not to be enough to transcend the disruptive nature of the editing. Ozu is the master of the set scene, but the editing appears disjointed rather than cohesive. There also seems to be a dependence on American stage production rather than Japanese movie making. One cannot help be see a relation between this film and the stage plays of Tennessee Williams and of Arthur Miller. I seem to get the feeling I am watching a Japanese docu-melodrama in Italian neo-realism. I half expect to see Burt Lancaster leap into one of the scenes. The Left Elbow Index considers seven variables of film--acting, film continuity, character development, dialogue, production sets, and plot. The acting is average since there seems to be little more to do than sit and talk. The film continuity is also rated as average, despite the what seems to be disjointed action and time. The character development and plot need help. There is little verbo-robots can become, and the plot of infidelity in marriage seems always to follow the same course, with minor personal variations. The production sets are rated average since in black and white most sets are simply degrees of gray. Average is the rating given to the dialogue. It is functional but appears to lack insight. The best line is "Babies come quicker than raises." The artistry rates average, again color would help, as it does in Ozu's THE END OF SUMMER. The overall LEI average is 3.83, raised to 4 in tribute to Ozu's reputation, which equates to a 6 on the IMDb scale. I recommend the film, it is worth watching as an integral part of film history, keeping in mind that the best of Japanese films have not yet arrived in 1956.

In this film, Giulietta Masina is a better female comic than Lucille Ball, a more pathetic character than Charlie Chaplin's Poor Soul, and a more bemused individual than Stan Laurel. As Gelsomina Di Constanzo she is simply spectacular. Her eye movements and facial expressions lead the viewer to laughter one moment and pathos the next. In keeping with the classical tradition of comedy, she starts out with romantic idealism only to continually flop into morose realism as she tries to experience life on the road. She is forced to deal with a vindictive Zampano (Anthony Quinn)and a malicious Fool (Richard Basehart), armed only with the inexperience granted a poor girl sold by her mother. She wants to fit in, yet can she ever? This is all foreshadowed in the opening scene on the beach constructed much like Picasso's Expressionistic "Tragedy." The Left Elbow Index consider seven elements of film--acting, plot, production sets, dialogue, artistry, film continuity, and character development--on a scale of 10 for very good, 5 for average, and 1 for it needs help. Without question, Masina's acting is superb, which towers over a cast of excellent actors acting excellently. More of the same in other films would have been an special theatrical gift. The plot is also above average, most likely because it incorporates a good story, but also because it contains a never ending element of suspense. What indeed will happen to Gelsomina? The production sets are average. One can only do so much with the outdoors in post-war Italy. So with the artistry in the film, although the camera angles are helpful. Film continuity suffers from the confusing relation of action and scene in places, but the attentive viewer can work around this. The dialogue is above average, even the shouting scenes are not too disruptive. That of the haggling scene is good, and The Fool recalls Shakespeare. Character development is far above average with recognition occurring as Gelsomnia has one experience after another. She tries to fit in, and succeeds to one degree or another. The LEI average is 7.85, raised to an 8 (which equates to a 10 on the IMDb scale)based solely on the toothpick scene. This film is extraordinary for 1954, and one would think that it marked a beginning of good film making. There is a bushel of very good films since, but the trend is away from such excellence resulting in a trainload of much, much poorer movies. Unfortunately, it seems, all art is not evolutionary. I strongly recommend this film. It is mandatory to see the Italian version, for even with subtitles it is far superior to the dubbed English cuts.

Napolean claimed that armies fought on their stomachs. He even plied his forces with wine the night before a battle to insure maximum energy. If NOBI does nothing else it demonstrates that the horrors of war, and the horrors of the horrors of war, are in large part a direct result of political and military miscalculation. During World War Two, the Allies were most likely the best fed and best equipped armies up until that time in history. Conversly, the Axis were generally poorly equipped and poorly fed, and this is especially true of the Japanese troops in the South Pacific and South East Asia venues. For example, the Japanese troops in Burma were given a bag of rice and expected to live off the land--beg, steal, or kill. NOBI, in essence, is a micro-view of a macro-problem. Tamura is a symbol of the result of military strategies and tactics that fail--the common man as victim. He cannot concern himself with grand events, he must survive on the most basic of levels. Yet, in all the misery and rapid decay of the Japanese war effort, Tamura tries to hold on to some semblance of human dignity in the most unthinkable situations. In Freudian terms, he has to satisfy his Ego (the self), by appealing to his Super-ego (institutionalized ethics), while satisfying the Id (hunger). Transposed to the film, he can only remain human by deciding not to eat human flesh although he is starving. In this he may succeed, although he may meet an unpleasant end. The Left Elbow Index considers seven aspects of film--acting, production sets, dialogue, artistry, character development, plot, and film continuity--on a scale of 10 for excellent, 5 for average, and 1 for it needs help. The acting, production sets, artistry, plot, and film continuity are rated average. There seems not much acting to be done, most of it consists of walking, sitting, or looking for food, with only occasional minor drama. The sets are outdoor scenes in which little can be done to change things, although the part were the Japanese soldiers cross the river is very good. The best of the artistry seems to be the good use of light and dark in a black and white film. The plot is well driven by two questions: Will Tamura die? Will he eat human flesh? And film continuity is not violated by extreme variations in the trappings that hold the movie together. There seems little character development to deal with since one seems to know pretty much how Tamura will behave from the beginning of the film, thereby rating a 1. Above average is the dialogue, most likely due to the talents of Natto Wada (screen name). I also sense that the music plays a role in the dialogue, much like a Greek chorus. The overall rating according to LEI is 5.14. Two more points need be made. In 2006, one film historian suggests the director Kon Ichiwawa implies that this 1959 film would never be allowed in 2006. If so, in my view, this brings up images of pre-WWII Japan, a not particularly pleasant prospect. And, secondly, A Japanese scholar, who happen to be a woman, told me that "Rumor has it that the Japanese lost World War Two. This is not so. Japanese men lost World War Two!" Military and political mismanagement? Or, perhaps, just the evils of war. This film is well worth seeing, and only seems to get better as time passes.

I am a great fan of Kurosawa's movies, yet I find this film a weak shadow of his usual work. I think this comes in large measure from his own statement that this film is a combination of a horror movie combined with a crime movie and the original 1960s story. It seems just too convoluted to succeed. On top of that, he claims that there were numerous rewritings of the 1960s story to fit it into the real world, whatever that means. The Left Elbow Index considers seven elements in film--acting, production sets, dialogue, plot, film continuity, character development, and artistry--on a scale from 10 for very good to 5 for average and to 1 for it needs some help. The acting, production sets, and dialogue are all rated average. The acting seems stilted and seems better timed to fit a soap. The production sets appear to be little more than what one sees in one's daily environs. And the dialogue seems to fit modern life, no great philosophies and no great blunders. The plot is rated weak since it appears difficult to sort out important elements of plot from trivial events in the film. The elements of plot and the emotional level of the film seem not to fit together well, even the suspense scenes appear hollow. The film continuity appears upset by the episodic TV nature of the juxtaposition of scenes, which seems to present too much clutter. I wonder why film makers tend towards putting characters in autos and driving them in and out of scenes, like Roy Rogers cowboy movies. We know how Roy got to and from where ever he was going, must he always be seen jumping on and off Trigger? There seems little character development to speak of, probably because the characters do not appear to be in a suspense, a horror story, or the real world. The artistry is rated as average, keeping in mind that average for Kurosawa is excellent for others. The close-ups are good and there are some interesting camera angles. The Left Elbow Index average is 3.3, up to a 5.0 when equated with the IMDb scale. The film is worth seeing, as any of Kurosawa's work is, but don't expect the master at his best.

This film promises much but delivers little. The basic problem has to do with the inclusion of Charlotte Gainsbourg's character in this film. Immigrants from Sicily did not need a redheaded Anglo in any way--the movie may have needed her, but new citizens certainly did not. In my opinion,the decision to include her destroys the continuity of the film. This is particularly troubling since it seems to demean not only the characters in the movie, but also the history of immigration itself. Immigrants themselves were heroic figures, fully capable of getting along without having to satisfied what I believer to be a veiled image of "the white man's burden." I wonder if someone will make a movie of Irish immigrants which will include a Sicilian woman as a major character. The Left Elbow Index considers seven aspects of film--acting, production sets, dialogue, artistry, film continuity, plot, and character development--on a scale from high of 10 for excellent, 5 for average, and 1 for needs help. Both film continuity and plot rate a low of 1. The continuity as discussed above is further degraded by the surrealistic ending. Does not a film of such important historical significance deserve more than a conclusion which reminds one of Marc Chagall? The plot is simple enough, until it seems to become entangled with too much time in the old country, too little time on the ship, and too much emphasis on the ending. The acting and character development is average since all the characters are fixed throughout the film, and the inclusion of the Anglo-Saxon speaking perfect English almost turns the movie into a satire. Where's Groucho when you need him? The production sets, the dialogue and the artistry are very good, each rating a 10. The sets in Sicily, on the ship, and on Ellis Island are as good as one can find. The dialogue is marvelous, and the ethic singing is superb. I agree with Scorsese that listening to the Sicilian dialect is a pleasure. Note that the immigrants speak of "America", not the "United States"--the ideal vs. the political reality. The are many good artistic scenes, with dreams of America, gold coins raining, and giant veggies among the best. The average Left Elbow Index is 5.25, raised to a 7.0 when equated with the IMDb scale. One other notion seems to run through Ellis Island experience: the tribulations of pass immigrants was grueling, later, in 2006, one only had to pay a coyote or boat owner and sneak into the county under the darkness of night, no questions asked! The movie is worth seeing, but it appears that what one sees is problematical.

THE SEAGULL'S LAUGHTER does one thing that international films rarely achieve: It transfers humor from one culture to another without exaggeration or silliness. The ironic nature of its black humor permeates each scene, resulting in a truly delightful film. The Left Elbow Index consider seven aspects of film--acting, plot, character, dialogue, production sets, artistry and film continuity--on a scale of 10 for excellent, 5 for average, and 1 for weak. First off, there are no weak areas in this film. The acting is very good by all the characters, with Ugla Egilsdottir's a notch above the others. It is difficult to believe those who claim this is her first major acting job. She's great in this role. The plot is also very good, and the adherence to plot structure is superior to most other films. The characters are average, mostly comic stereotypes in the British manner. The dialogue is average, with a total absence of trite interjections that find their way into some many Hollywood and Ballywood movies. No one has to make cute inane comments in this one. The production set are excellent, both indoors and outdoors, especially those which contrast the crowded living condition with the vast expanses of Iceland. The artistry is normal in the areas of costumes and music. The film continuity is very good in regard to tone and suspense. Just what will Agga do next? The Left Elbow Index average is 7.85, when equated to the IMDb scale it is a 9.0. Alas, this is a totally enjoyable movie, and I recommend it for some fun entertainment.

This film starts out strong and seems to disintegrate as it progresses, resulting in little more than an mediocre movie. The Left Elbow Index considers seven variables in film--acting, character development, plot, artistry, production sets, film continuity, and dialogue--rated on a scale 10 for excellent, 5 for average, and 1 for weak. The plot seems average with the mystery of discovery and fear propelling the story, but very soon the viewer may get lost in too many cross-currents of apparent unrelated subplots. Where this film is going becomes somewhat of a mystery itself. The characters are average, none great and none terrible, and most are simply functional. This seems to lead to average acting with a well-rehearsed cast lacking emotion. The artistry is good in terms of superior cinematics, effective use of color, good camera angles, and exceptional scene balance. All production sets--indoors, outdoors, and in the "hole" are above average. Film continuity is maintained throughout with the relation of the children to the parents constant. The emotional continuity is even since the emotions are never overcooked. The dialogue is as it should be: necessary and appropriate. The colloquialisms help maintain a constant tone. The Left Elbow Index average is 7.85, not including minor deduction to a 7 because of the ever wandering theme, probably due to the constant biking from place to place in the movie. After all, this is not THE BICYCLE THIEF nor THE ICECYCLE THIEF, so why all the peddling? The movie is okay, but high expectations may not be satisfied..

Usually, the index deals only with feature length films; however, HEIMAT is an exception, since it is structurally a very long full length movie. The index considers seven variables--acting, plot, production sets,dialogue, artistry, character development, and film continuity--on a scale from 10 as high, 5 as average, and 1 as weak. On all counts, HEIMAT rates a 10. The acting is simply outstanding on every level, from major to minor characters to atmospheres. Even so, two performances are superior: Marita Breuer as Maria and Rudiger Weigang as Eduard. Breuer's facial expressions and eye movements speak volumes. In this case, less is indeed more. Weigang's acting is worthy of the highest one would find on the Shakespearian stage, a Polonius with precise body movement. It is a pleasure to watch both performers. Attention to plot is paramount in a long production, and there are no unnecessary scenes or fill-ins. Both the chronicles of the Simon family and that of Germany are effectively interwoven. One is never bored watching this marathon. The dialogue is appropriate, and the artistry exceptional--especially if the fair scene near the conclusion. Character development is reflected in a natural development over the time of the movie. Suffice it to say that everyone changes to one degree or another. The film continuity is special, held together with change and the changes change brings. There seem to be two minor flaws in the film's continuity: the plane which Ernst flys over the town and the Army MPs who appear in 1944. The plane looks more like a pre-WW II US trainer used by the Canadians who joined the RAF. It certainly is not the Focke-Wulf 190 which Eduard suggests it is. And, secondly, the two American MPs who appear at the Simons' front door in 1944 seem miscast ed. It is not likely that two moustached black MPs from a yet not officially integrated US Army would appear in a small farming community in Germany in 1944. It seems that they better fit MPs from a much later occupying force. I always wonder why these apparent flaws happen. Overall, this mini-series is excellent. I highly recommend you put aside some time and watch it all, which is inevitable once you have seen Part I.

It is disappointing to see as talented an actor as Amitabh Bachchan in such a weak role, especially when he was beyond sensational in BLACK (which I highly recommend). One line in the film states: "Sakar is not a mere man, he is a thought and a philosophy." Director Ram Gopal Varma credits THE GODFATHER as an inspiration for this movie, and perhaps that is the problem. It seems like a badly mangled American movie set in India. The Left Elbow Index considers seven elements of film-making--acting, continuity, plot, character development, dialogue, artistry, and production sets--on a scale from a high of 10 to a low of 1, with 5 given as a average score. The film continuity seems high, an 8, by maintaining a violent tone infused with drama in places, and using justice outside the legal system as motivation. However, there seems to be a lack of emotion connected with the evil of organized crime. The acting rates a 4, it appears too weak, even when someone is being beaten or murdered, it seems hoohum. For example, when one character is shot in the forehead, I found myself wondering if, or when, he was going to fall. He does not, and ala Ronald Reagan he is placed in an automobile, with his bleeding face cradled ala John F. Kennedy. The plot rates a 5 as an example of American-style gangsterism, with a family oriented Robinhood at its head. Character development appears static, and the characters seem like chess pieces on an abandoned chess board, thereby earning a rank of 3. The dialogue seems stilted, and appears to be forced to fit some Bowery pattern of speech--a 4 for dialogue. Production sets look to be below average--a 4. And, artistry is puzzling, with far too many close-ups, too rapid panning, and too many group scenes where the actors seem over rehearsed--a 3. To me, too much camera movement is disruptive. The average of the Left Elbow Index is 4.4, and with a slight deduction based on poor derivatism it moves down to a 4. Two questions continually arise in the film: one, why are so many people eating so often: and, two, does not India have its own brand of organized crime? Do films like this have to be so dependent on Western cultural examples? As much as I like Amitabh Bachchan, I cannot recommend this film.

This film is not technically a war movie, it is about soldiers at war and the effects of war on soldiers. In a way, it is the same type of movie as A WALK IN THE SUN, THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES, and FULL METAL JACKET. It is not a movie about great wars, great battles or massive invasions, but one where there are long periods of inactivity punctuated with short periods of incomprehensible frenzy. The Left Elbow Index considers seven elements of film--acting, production sets, plot, character, character development, continuity, artistry, and dialogue--on a scale from a high of 10 to a low of 1, with an average movie rating a 5. It attempts to avoid emotional judgment based on the political elements of films such BEAUFORT, which like almost all Mideast films related to longstanding tensions tend to affect one's judgment of a film depending on which side of the conflict one finds oneself. The acting in this film looks reasonably good,it is measured, it is controlled, and the characters seem "real." The acting rates a 7. The production sets seem carefully constructed and authentic looking, there rating another 7. The plot seems average, a 5, with the main emphasis being on what will happen to the fort, and when. Another 5 for character development. The are some high points, but soldier's development can only go so far due to the implicit restraints of military service. Film continuity appears good, a 7, since the dramatic tone is constant. The use of high-tech equipment, the futility of war, and the eternal questions of war never leave the film. The artistry rate highest of all, an 8, due to the quality imagery and good cinematography. Also, Joseph Cedar's direction tends to focus directly on the main idea of each scene. In fact, in places, it causes the viewer to be as restless as the characters since one is unable to escape the tone of the moment. Dialogue is clever in spots, yet average overall--a 5. In a film where characters are ruled by a sense of duty, there is not much to say. The Left Elbow Index rating results in a 6.28, somewhat better than average. There are three concepts is this film which may drive you mad: duty has its price, our's not to question why, and military life amid changing orders. The film is well worth seeing, and I recommend it.

The Left Elbow Index considers film in terms of seven variables--acting, production sets, plot, character development, artistry, character development, and film continuity--on a scale from a high of 10 to a low of 1, with a 5 for an average film. Films like CUP FINAL draw all types of commentary related to the continual struggles in the Middle East, and agenda based evaluations are avoided by the Index. The first of the considerations of the index is acting, which in this film rates a 3, mostly because the level of acting seems to be somewhere between television mini-series quality and spaghetti western. This appears to result from the nature of the film and not on the ability of the cast. The production sets rate a 4 with too many outdoor scenes to merit much developmental opportunities. The plot merits a 2 based on the episodic nature of the film and a seeming lack of development. The characters appear mostly stereotypical, therefore a 3. One gets the feeling one has met them all before. The seems to be little artistry, except for some interesting camera angles--therefore, a 1. The dialogue is adequate, if sometimes a little quirky--a 5. It might be better if the characters said less, avoiding the seemingly forced dialogue in places. The film continuity seems puzzling. Is the film about the war, the World Cup, the soldiers, the terrorist, or all of the above. And why the wedding scene? It appears that the film wobbles too much from one idea to another--a 3 seems an appropriate ranking. The index average is 3.14, raised to a 5 when equated to the IMDb ratings,low but not hopeless. If one wants to see a movie of Middle East conflict and bathe in ideological elements of those many years of struggle, it is worth seeing.

Again, The Left Elbow Index is overpowered by a spectacular film simply because BLACK exceeds the highest ratings the index can provide. In every area of film making considered--acting, plot, production sets, character development, artistry, dialogue, and continuity--this film receives a 10. The acting is intense, dramatic, and emotional. As Sahai, Amitabh Bachchan is extraordinary. His character never wavers from its intended goal to teach Michelle, so much so that a whole new definition of reacher is created. Rani Mukherjee, as Michelle, redefines tragedy as triumph with a spellbinding performance. As young Michelle, Ayesha Kapoor is so convincing that the viewer is unable to turn from the screen during her scenes. One is amazed at how so young an actress can act so well. And, as the long suffering Catherine, Shernaz Patel can bring tears to your eyes whether she is unhappy or elated. Like the main characters, the minor ones also perform on a high level. Attention to the plot never waivers, with the only question being how far the teacher can lead his student out of the blackness. The production sets are breathtaking, whether green-screen or otherwise. They are accurate and precise, and they set the tone in every instance. Character development is essential to good drama, and the dramatic element of recognition (change over time) is abundant. In a word, Michelle not only changes, she changes all with whom she contacts. Only in Shakespeare does one find the like. The artistry is simply overpowering, not only in the sets but what is included therein. For example, early in the film lines from Robert Frost's "Stopping by the Wood on a Snowy Evening" appear on Sahai's wall. He indeed has miles to go before he sleeps. And, Catherine's emotional morass is well expressed by a Russian iconic altarpiece of the "Pieta." As director, Sanjay Leela Bhansali weaves light and darkness, snow and rain, indoors and outdoors into a grand scheme of existence. Dialogue is exceptional, and many lines are profound and prophetic, such as "Children loved playing pranks on me, so did God" (Michelle), "She is suffocating in her darkness." (Catherine), or Sahai's " Life is like ice cream, enjoy it before it melts." Continuity is enforced not only with the visual elements in the film, but also with the Music, which is sophisticated and well-positioned. Keep in mind that a rating of 10 on The Left Flbow Index is very high, with 5 as average, and 1 as very poor, thereby judging films on a somewhat normal distribution curve. BLACK is truly in a class by itself. This film is very strongly recommended.

Alas, The Left Index has met its match. Usually, the index concerns seven variables when considering a film--acting, production scenes, dialogue, plot, character development, artistry, and continuity--on a scale ranging from a high of 10 to a low of 1. Generally, a mix of rating results in some score which demonstrates the strong and weak points in a film. With this film, every variable is ranked a 10, simply because the film is sensational in all areas. The film is powerful, intense and spellbinding. Everything is related to everything else, which, in effect, results in an organic whole which is seldom achieved in film. The acting is connected with the decisions the two children make as the travel to Germany, even not knowing where it is or what it is. They constantly have to decide whom to trust, how to avoid dangers, or which way is north. The production scenes are unparalleled, especially the snow scene at the police station, the horse and wedding in the town square, and the motorcycle rally. There are dozens of others just as good. The plot is propelled by constant dramatic action, which gradually intensifies towards the conclusion. Not matter what the viewer is prepared for, there are continual unexpected events which reinforce the plot. Character development is superb, as the children become both wiser and more experienced as they near their goal. Dialogue is sparse, words are spoken only when necessary, and some scenes are wordless. After all, film is a medium where one sees things happen. The films strongest point is in the combination of continuity and artistry. In a word, it is surreal in the classical manner of Salvadore Dali and Pablo Picasso. One is especially cognizant of Dali's "Persistance of Memory" in terms of the wide expanses of space. In fact, Theo Angelopoulos employs the three element of 20th century surrealism--land, sky, and water--very effectively. There are obvious allusions to Picasso's "Saltimbasques" with the traveling theater. Angelopoulos' illusion to the hand of God from the Sistine Chapel is unmistakable, especially with the missing finger which symbolizes human contact with salvation. All in all, The Left Elbow Index rates the film a 10-plus. I strongly recommend this film. Aristotle would have loved it. I think you will, too.

The Left Elbow Index considers seven elements in judging films--acting, production sets, plot, character, dialogue, artistry, and continuity--on a scale of a high of 10 to a low of 1. Concerning acting, one finds it steady and slightly above average. The seem to be no substantial dramatic high points, although there is opportunity for some. Then again, there are no troubling low points either. Probably "even" would best describe, resulting in a rating of 7. The production sets rate an 8, mostly due to the nature of the school building and the isolated town on the Austria-Hungarian border. The indoor sets, with the exception of the gym, appear mundane and just sort of there. Costumes are not really a factor since school uniforms are the order of the day. The plot is a typical coming of age one, with the positive added ingredient of morality, thereby resulting in a 6 rating. Character suffers (a rating of 5) seeming because the personalities of the principles are fixed when they arrive at the school, with the minor exception of Torless who challenges recognition, but retreats. The dialogue seems uninspiring, although appropriate and controlled. It rates a 5, but that may be too high. The artistry is good (an 8). Great camera angles, the elements of the New German Cinema, and the implied preface to Hitlerism, all in black and white, have merit. The continuity is also good (another 8). The film maintains a tone of terror, in which, as writer-director Schlondorff claims, evil becomes natural. There is a minor problem with films of this type in that it is not difficult to predict the rise of National Socialism after it has already come. The film time is 1910, the movie was made in 1966, and Hitler's time is sandwiched in between. Fortunatly, this is not a history movie, it is a philosophical one which implies that the roots of National Socialism were in place in Germany decades before the rise of Hitler, who, ironically, was Austrian. The film is in some ways prophetic in that cultural terror seems always an undercurrent. The film is well worth seeing, even if the Left Elbow Index rank is 6.71, overall.

The Left Elboe Index considers seven variables--acting, production sets, plot, character development, dialogue, artistry, and continuity--- to measure a film on a scale of 10 (high) to 1 (low). As far as acting goes, there seem to be too many clichés and exaggerations to contribute drama to a historically dramatic event. If anything, it appears that weak acting makes the history less dramatic, thereby earning a rating of 2. Except for the "staight-line" scenes, there seems to be little upon which to measure the production sets, probably because many of the scenes are period newsreels, even to the extent of employing what appears to be something akin to an autobahn promo (another rating of 2). The plot rates a 1, mostly because the end is known and not much else can be done. Character development appears weakened by the stereotypical characters, some of whom seem exaggerated beyond reason. With so many forgettable characters, a rating of 2 seems fair. Artistry gets the highest rank of 4, based almost entirely on the ironic use of music. Continuity also rates a 4 since the docudrama tone is maintained, with occasional weak spots like the soldiers singing on a supply train as it speed through a crossing. This movie was produced in 1961, in the same period as very good films DR. STRANGELOVE and THE LORD OF THE FLIES, two movies that stunned audiences with their powerful drama. In my opinion this film does not measure up to those. In fact, it seems much like the last feature of a three movie night at the local drive-in. Just turn off the sound, cuddle up, and have a real excuse for getting home late. The best the Left Elbow Index can give is a 3.14. Pass the popcorn.

The Left Elbow Index considers seven elements of movie-making to help one decide if a film is worthwhile, measured on a scale form a high of 10 to a low of 1. The elements are acting, production sets, plot, character, dialogue, artistry, and continuity. The acting is excellent, a 10, on all counts, with minor characters as well as with supporting and major characters. David Bennent's portrayal of Oskar is so convincing that Oskar's absurdity very quickly becomes normal. The production sets are extraordinary period scenes, from the 1880's to 1945 in movie time, therefore rating a 10. This includes costumes as well. The plot rates an 8, mostly because little makes sense unless one has read the novel. As a university literature professor of forty years experience, I recognize the enormous amount of scholarship on the novel; and, generally, if the viewer is not aware that Oskar is a symbol of Germany for sixty-five years of so, the plot and story line can be confusing. It seems to me that the movie makers have to provide the viewer with some indication of this early in the film. Character development is complete and avoids any unnecessary additions to those in the novel, thereby earning another 10. A 10 for dialogue, it is appropriate to each scene. Very effective is the dialogue of Oskar as a limited omniscient narrator, resulting in a storyteller who lets the viewer in on some of Oskar's viewpoints. The artistry is a little puzzling (rates a 9). The camera angles are very good. Yet, it seems that more of Germany's Age of Decadence could be portrayed, as CABERET does so well. The film is very strong on continuity (a 10). Oskar is a rebel at just before the time of his birth, and he stays so. There is excellent continuity between the events in Germany and those of Oskar's life, even going back to why his grandfather liked vanilla. Suffice it to say that because of his powers, Oskar is an observer, a participant, and a symbol in the confusing period in Germany between 1918 and 1945. Of course, the novel is in large measure responsible for the continuity and Gunther Grass's collaboration helped greatly in this regard. This brings us to the main issue of derivative art---Is the film as good as the novel? Knowing both, I cannot decide. However, it seems to me that the film is as good a film as the novel is as good a novel. The Left Elbow rating is 9.28, and with a small bonus for ironic humor, it moves somewhat higher. I strongly recommend this film.

The Left Elbow Index considers seven specific elements of a film on a scale of 10 to 1, with 10 being highest, to help in deciding if a film is worth watching: acting, sets, dialogue, plot, character, continuity, and artistry. The acting in this film is superb and thereby rates a 10. Klaus Kinski is exceptional, so much so that it unlikely anyone else could do nearly as well in this role. He is simply stunning. In this regard, it is beyond Shakespearian. Werner Herzog, in his well publicized love-hate relation with Kinski, claims people like Brando are just kintergarten compared to Kinski--no faint praise, indeed. The sets is this film seem carefully planned and constructed. They are appropriate and uncontrived, whether indoors or out, therefore a 9. Dialogue rates a 10 in that it is at times appropriately ironic, profound, or normal. It all cases one listens to every word. The film is replete with dozens of unforgettable lines, like: "Death should be cheap but it should not be free" (by the pawnbroker selling the knife) and "When she got to the moon she found it was made of rotted wood" (by Marie). The Index believes that the plot is an 8, mostly because there seems to be some misleading action. Perhaps this is related to Woyzeck's mental state. It seems unlikely that a sane person could follow his trail. Character development rates a 10, whether related to major or to minor characters. Continuity (an 8) results in a consistent view of the action. For example, the role of the military, morality for the poor, the idea that the poor will work in heaven, and other ideas never escape the intellectual frame of the film. Consistent costuming lends to this. Herzog's background in history and the humanities certainly provides an easy 10 rating for artistry. His use of light and dark rivals that of the THE POTATO EATERS, the kitchen scene with Marie reminds one of GIRL SITTING BY THE WINDOW, and there are other traditional allusions. Herzog says he made the film in just eighteen days, and edited the cuts in just four days. He claims that is how it should be, that it was perfect. Perfect, of course, is an imperfect word. I'm not certain I would claim this film is perfect: however, it is exceptional enough for me to put it on my "see often" list. The Index gives it a 9.3---a bonus for dealing with the absurdity of human existence pushes it closer to a 10. I strongly recommend this film.

One way to judge if a movie is worth the time viewing is to examine it in terms of a consistent index which weighs the variables. On a scale of 1 to 10, we find the following. The acting rates a 6 simply because it is too uneven, and, at best, is television quality. The sets are nothing more than ordinary scenes, which, in some cases, appear to be things in the camera's view, meriting a 4. The dialog is actually quite good (an 8), and it is appropriate to the ordinariness of the characters. The plot seems disconnected (a 4), and it is difficult to get a good story from an episodic plot. The characters are very ordinary, causing one critic to see the film as a combination of THE BIG CHILL and SEX IN THE CITY. With this type of endorsement, it is difficult to give the characters more than a 6. The continuity in the film causes ups and downs from ordinary partying to philosophical proclamations which appear to have no relation (3 for continuity). Artistry, the final variable seems generally absent, probably because it is difficult to overcome the ordinary facets of the film, thereby meriting no more than a 3. In the final analysis, it is the very ordinary elements which make this an ordinary film. It is indeed difficult to make a silk purse from a sow's ear. Left Elbow Average: just below 5.

Mark Twain once said that anyone who picked a cat up by the tail learns never to pick a cat up by the tail again. In this film, no one picks the cat up by the tail, therefore no one seems to learn much. It is painful to see an actress of Deneuve's quality going from scene to scene without intensity. Most the time she is either walking, walking, walking or drinking, drinking, drinking. To me, she is simply unconvincing as lover in this film. Except for the first few scenes, one feels one is looking through a photo album haplessly put together. There seems to be very little passion in Lucille falling out of love for Charles, into love for Antione, and out of love for Antione. Consider this: Perhaps the film is a victim of the times. The intellectualism of the Beatniks of the 1950s and the rebellion of the hippies of the early 1960s was morphing into the leisure suits of the 1970s. And the logic of the film seems askew. Can an expensively kept partner of a very wealthy member of the upper class find love and happiness with a poor immature writer living in a one-room apartment in the projects? It all seems too unlikely. All film fans have to suspend a certain amount of disbelief, but you'd have to live on another planet to accept the plot of this film. I can't recommend this movie.

In my opinion, "Nue propriete" contains universal images which create a dramatic tension that is never absent from the film. There is, thank goodness, no comic relief to detract from the dire positions of the characters. Also, there are no mindless subplots which cause the characters to wander off in aimless directions. The most obvious classical theme, some would say biblical theme, is that of Cain and Abel, with Thierry as Cain. A modern reflection of OEDIPIUS REX is very obvious. Alas, poor Thierry is also somewhat like Hamlet, especially with Hamlet's insult of Gertrude in Shakespeare's bedroom scene, where the female parent is accosted by a barrage of language befitting a brothel. The Thierry-Hamlet image is manifest in the relation between Thierry and his girl friend, as with Hamlet and Ophelia. Thierry's hatred is also aimed toward Jan, his mother's new partner, much like Hamlet's dislike for his new father Claudius. Pascale, the mother in the film, reminds one of Nora in Ibsen's A DOLL HOUSE. Both women want out. The acting in "Nue propriete" is very good, the direction is a above average. This film is well worth seeing.