savitri

I must admit this - the movie is beautifully made and the chosen locations look really wonderful. That's all. The story is ridiculous and cheap, rather 'soapy'. But what angered me the most was changing the facts. At that time Estonia had already been annexed to SU and Konstantin Päts was no longer a president (because that guy in the car couldn't have been Vares-Barbarus). The tricolor flags were no longer in use. The German army came only later, during the war. etc, etc, etc People might say that this movie at least lets the world know about Estonia, but I don't really see the need for telling pseudo historic lies. Estonia's real history is so much more exciting and touching than that, and as for soapy stories, well, you can fit them in practically anywhere. I gave it 1, but I could have given it a -1 if it had been possible.

'Prince Gabriel or the Last Days of Pirita Convent' is a book Estonian children read in school. It is a classic, yet not a very good book in my opinion. Yet the movie based on it is superb. Everything about it is great: the story, the acting, the scenery (really, you should watch it simply because it's so beautiful), the dialogues etc. It is a movie that Estonians won't stop remembering or quoting. This is irrelevant, yet, in my opinion, it is sad that Ivo Schenkenberg is known as a 'bad guy' and villain, while in reality he was quite an interesting historical figure, called 'the Hannibal of Estonia', who fought in the Livonian war at the end of the 15th century. I say it again: the movie is wonderful and you won't regret it if you watch it.

This is one of the 'perfect girl has a perfect life, loses it all, then learns it was not so perfect after all, and begins a new life' kind of films. Satyrical comedies, that can rather evilly make of fun of one group of people, showing how shallow they can be, and smiling upon another group. Films that do not really try to be serious about anything. And, at the same time, sweet stories that can make you cry.

The plot is predictable: girl meets a boy, they fall in love, yet there are many obstacles which they overcome. A classical love-story formula. Although this particular story brought more obstacles than I expected, making me even doubt if a happy ending was really possible.

The characters are lovely stereotypes: an overcaring mother, rivalling student girls, who are only interested in winning and keeping their good looks, another type of mother who knows that her daughter will be happy if she follows the rules and doesn't go out with someone from another race, the curious neighbours, the absurdly prejudiced people etc.

The beautiful unseriousness of the story: a grasshopper crawling through a salad in a luxurious restaurant, the grotesque despair of the sorority girls, the revelations of the heroine after she understands that life isn't as perfect as she thought, a car bursting in flames in mid-air and its driver somehow not dying (although human organism is something rather mysterious and people can sometimes survive dangers that are believed to be lethal). Carolyne's boyfriend accuses her of 'eating yoghurt'(I might have misheard, of course, but I loved it). Carolyne storms off from the beach, talks to her boyfriend, finds out about the sorority's 'tragedy', talks to a teacher and then remembers that Pumpkin is still on the beach, in the company of a lonely sea-gull (the gull is not a major character, more of an extra actually, but I developed a theory about it tying the food and the sun-shade nicely together and carrying it away).

And another component: the story is touching. Carolyne and Pumpkin really love each other. I watched this at home, so I cheered when they were doing fine and almost cried when it seemed that they would never be together again.

I bought this movie out of sheer curiosity, and I can't say it was needless. I think this is something everyone who has seen Peter Jackson's LotR movies and didn't like them should see.

I have read some of the other comments and it seems that no-one liked the way they just used real people instead of drawing them. I on the other hand would have preferred them to make all the characters like that, instead of using that stupid style on the most important ones. It looks like a blend of Disney and avantgarde now! Very awkward.

I suspect that Peter Jackson went through this movie very carefully before making his own, because there are certain things, that are very familiar - the way Hobbits hide from the Nazgul, Eomer's banishing, etc.

I liked Frodo's hallucination when he was chased by the Nazgul, I liked the orcs and the Nazgul, but only as long as they stayed in the saddle. When they got off and started limping, I felt I was going to die laughing. Maybe the filmmakers understood the idea of Nazgul being undead too literally and turned them into zombies?

The main characters all look horrible. Merry an Pippin are 10-year old children, Frodo has got a horrifying smile which I suppose was meant to show his unquenchable spirit. Sam is even shorter than all the other Hobbits and more than anything reminds a pear. Gandalf should get some serious therapy, because he seems to suffer from a grave psychosomatic problem. Pointing fingers and grimacing can, of course, be also efficient in fighting against Sauron - taking up a journey into the very heart of the evil realm seems like an escape from the maniac. Elrond looks like Julius Caesar, his appearance in the movie is rather symbolical, as he doesn't in fact do anything important. Humans wear short tunics - not the costume to survive in the wild. Aragorn is an Indian and Boromir a Viking. Gimli is somehow as tall as the humans and Legolas looks like a standard fairy-tale prince. Arwen seems never to have existed, which makes Aragorn's story of Luthien and Beren rather pointless. Theodred is also gone, instead Eomer and Eowyn are Theoden's children. Oh yeah, one more thing: Saruman, though still called the White, is in fact Red. Was that a hint aimed at the URSS?

The Beatles had, of course, played in films before, but this one was their first experience of making one all by themselves. I know that there's plenty of people who would disagree with me, but I think they succeeded. I don't think anyone ever wanted this movie to be simply a comedy, and so it would be wrong to criticize it for the lack of things a usual movie should have. No plot? There is one - a busload of people riding somewhere and having fun on the way. No good acting? What about Ivor Cutler as Mr Bloodvessel then? What is he doing if not acting? And anyway, everyone knows that limited means are the best inspiration. The movie is rather surreal and avantgarde, as it is also funny: phrases like "I am concerned for you to enjoy yourselves in the limits of british decency" and Aunt Jessy's dream with people suddenly starting to sing "Ei uhnem" will make you laugh, provided you get the joke. And the most important thing: while being adorable in "Help!" the Beatles left the impression of not fully understanding what was going on or what they should be doing. Here, in Magical Mystery Tour, they're confident and certain, and that alone is already a quality. Of course, those who feel they like the more conservative and everyday side of Beatles and cinema, would find nothing worth liking here. Others, like me, should love it.

The movie tells us about Richard and Natalie, a brother and a sister, who are having what could be called an 'affair'. When Natalie tries to end this and proposes to stay friends, Richard becomes aggressive. At the same time there appears another character, Richard's boss who has got AIDs and spends most of the time in the hospital. We also see Natalie's husband Sinclair, the only attractive character in the whole movie. I find the movie ridiculous. There is no general idea, no real plot, most characters are badly played and impossible to like. We never really find out what was the point of bringing in some things. The camera-work is however rather good and so is the music. The only reason to watch the movie again would be Alan Rickman as Sinclair - his good acting is even more obvious as compared to everybody else.