It´s a shame that Nolan has ended up being carried away by Hollywwood's silly action films.
The script is at the service of the action scenes, (and not the other way around, as was the case in the excellent Memento), so what you can get is not more than the old same boring story: Good guys, bad guys. The good guys have to save the girl in the middle of many shots and explosions that shred your ears ..... as you can see, just another Hollywood action flick very similar to a video game.
The usual: very well done, very good special effects, the travelling of the trenches, the music, etc, etc ...
But then the movie is totally spoiled by the cheesy script, the intention to over-dramatize, and a lot of cliches ...
More examples from this era, when the spectacular is on the same level as the false, the cheesy, and the artificial: Hacksaw Ridge, Saving Private Ryan, Flags of Our Fathers, Dunkirk, Lone Survivor, Windtalkers, Crimnson Tide ... .
These directors should see again the great films of this genre, which seems to have been forgotten: Apocalypse Now, Paths of Glory, The Deer Hunter, Der Untergang, Das Boot, All Quiet on the Western Front ...
The movie it is well made, and in that sense it has seemed enjoyable, as well as it seems well documented with respect to the real event.
In my view, the film loses some credibility in one sense: it is very evident that they have tried to "add drama" where it was not necessary (since the situation is dramatic enough itself). For example the music, which is constant and very exaggerated (they play very emotional music in situations where there is no drama), or the performance of some actor too "emotional", which departs from the usual "russian coldness ", much more credible.
One of the things that attracts me to Russian cinema is precisely that: that it is aseptic. It is devoid of the excess of emotional charge that western cinema usually shows us. And I think Salyut-7 has tried to "look like" Hollywood movies in this regard: adding drama to drama. Although this may seem like a small detail, it is very important, since if there is equanimity in the script, actors, music ... they make me "believe the movie". On the contrary, an overacting actor (unfortunately increasingly common), or "exaggerated music" make me not get involved in the film in the same way (and I hardly believe it). And this is something that not even the best special effects can correct.
One more example of this, is the science fiction movie "Moon". The movie seems 7/10 to me, but it could have seemed 8.5 / 10 to me if it weren't for the egotism of the main actor (Sam Rockwell), who is "acting" as if he were on a reality show TV program (something that is habitual in him).
First of all, as climber I will say that I will not detract the climbing in itself, which would be remarkable. The same applies to photography and music which are at a good level.
When I see this documentary, instead of seeing a story about a more or less objective climbing, i find quite self-glorification:
"High mountaineering is very risky, it is the Most Dangerous professional sport". "Meru definitely had a reputation as impossible climb". "this is the mountain That everyone's tried and failed on". "This climb has seen more Attempts and more failures than any route of Himalaya" "some of the best climbers in the world Have tried and failed on" ...etc, etc....
It's a shame because the climbing is good by itself, and all the gimmicky stuff does anything but to take away the credibility.
i have the feeling that someone tries to sell me something, namely: "we are heroes", "Our families are suffering because of our climbing"... is this really necessary...?
It is clear that this movie is intended for the general public (who is not into climbing).
The plot and the script (which are at the service of the "twists") are not credible, so the movie provides the same features as the typical after-lunch entertainment TV movie.
It is a shame that a director such David Fincher could have plumbed such depths. Furthermore, it seems logical to satisfy both adapting to the times and practical needs. Even so, Fincher still remains one of my favorite live directors. But it's fairly common that early movies (in most cases), are the best. To maintain quality over time it's beyond the reach of most. Only directors as Peter Weir, Andrei Tarkovsky, Krzysztof Kieslowski, Joseph Losey...to name just a few, are able to keep with that level of excellence.
Two words it could describe this movie: "Beautifully Shocking".
The film is constantly moving between opposite poles, as is normal in youth, which is displayed as it is: tough, wild, contradictory ..... and beautiful.
The events occurred in the Paris of 1968, where glamor and intellectualism went hand in hand. That was a time of change in which culture was still strong enough to get people out to the streets to demonstrate.
Beyond all this, Bertolucci focuses on how young people are discovering each other, with a capacity of wonder, freshness, intelligence, ingenuity, sensuality that adults usually do not have.
The movie has that unmistakable flavor of the experience of youth which leaves its mark and is never forget.
I give a 4/10 because J.K. Simmons performance and good music.
Otherwise, it's a film that is neither realistic nor credible.
It is obvious that that has been written and directed by a young director, as consistency conspicuous by its absence: since the dramatic and exaggerated concept has been put ahead to good sense and tact.
All the drumming-bleeding scenes are misplaced (nobody bleeds as a result of playing drums), as well as the attitude of students to a teacher who is totally unbearable: chairs crashing against the wall, insulting and disrespecting them constantly .... which students replies with an incredible: "yes, sir!" as if they were in the Army ... Today, i think anyone can't put up with that kind of attitude unless you have a very low self esteem.
Usually, some films tends to create drama, and through the script and the music is enhanced and magnified. In this movie, is exactly the opposite: a story that could have been a far-fetched drama, becomes as if by magic, in something light, and stripped of the the tragic and calamitous burden.
In some characters can be seen a decrease of identification with their own feelings, which is transformed into understanding, acceptance, forgiveness. This attitude is so rare in real life, that the movie takes on a surreal tinge.
In the end, as in some other (few) movies, there is no good and bad .... just humans.
A beautiful and unusual view of human relationships, in which everything could be simpler.
Back in 1986, this film is ahead of his time .... and still is.
It's a different and realistic look to relationships. Adrian Lyne's expertise is revealed in every shot. Sensual and full of detail, the film goes beyond the eroticism, or whether if it is about domination or not.
Apart from persistent sexual references, the film centers (in a subliminal way) into the inner world of Liz. It is easy to identify with her, thanks to the importance given to gestures, looks, emotional reactions, her private life when she is alone, ... all this (and more) makes the movie has an introspective approach.
Adrian Lyne has the ability to turn a banal situation into something beautiful and interesting
It is a portrait of a woman wanting to experience and let herself go, but also very sensitive and able to empathize. This can be seen in her interaction with the painter, who is an artist largely disconnected from the world, living in his house in the country. When she goes to visit him to remind him his appointment with the exhibition of his paintings, she sees and understands that it is a man who lives in another reality.
This is confirmed and creates a parallel in the painting exhibition, when Liz is already broken because of her relationship with John, she sees and empathizes with the painter who is totally lost and baffled at the art gallery exhibition.
I do not want to get into analyze what happens to the relationship between main characters (although actually it's quite simple) because like many of the films in which there is shown or suggested sex, we should try to see a little further.
Interesting approach on the lives of some American families in early 70s.
In fact, you could say that is a study on how it affects the socio- political situation of a country to its citizens.
As we all know, and as has been written, the disappointing American political situation in the late 60s and early 70s led to weariness and distrust. This is brilliantly reflected in the movie. Lee's approach is intimate and personal and plunges into the depths of the psyche and human behavior. Moreover, not only adults are depicted in the story but also their children. Displays the sexual awakening of young people in an open and realistic way. However, parent's feedback before this awakening, gives rise to questions. It is easy to realize the amount of prejudice and confusion of adults: so apparently responsible externally, and erratically behaving internally.
Storm visuals are amazing along with the music. Particularly striking is the little attention adults give to the storm, even as phenomenon of nature .They are so immersed in their own personal problems that can not see beyond. As in other films (Picnic at Hanging Rock, 1975) there is a force of nature, which is silent witness of everything that happens, and ultimately, ends up bringing the situation to a climax.
To begin with, I will say that Adrian Lyne's one of my favorite directors. Whatever he does, he adds his unmistakable personal stamp on filming. The depth and detail are overwhelming. Each frame is a picture by itself. He is a master at creating atmospheres along with music and photography.
He is also a provocateur, and he likes to be considered as such. One of the recurring subjects is the attraction between men and women, which can also be seen in "Unfaithful (2002)," "Indecent Proposal (1997)," "Fatal Attraction (1987)," "Nine 1/2 Weeks (1986) "" Flashdance (1983) "and" Foxes (1980) ".
On "Lolita" The film seemed intense and intimate in equal measure. And even could say that is extremely private, as depicts personal feelings and sensations that could cause rejection or criticism.
For me, there is nothing to criticize.
The question of our capacity to empathize with Jeremy Irons role, arises.
The psychological game between the two protagonists is as intense as unstable, and the roles of dominator and dominated are exchanged. We finally have a dramatic situation in which nobody wins, so it is as real as life itself.
We stand before a, deeply and brutally honest movie.
Realistic and honest, this film deserves much more recognition.
Film making and music stands out in quality. But above all, the screenplay is superb and effective.
The film may seem a typical dramatic real-life story of any of us, if it were not for the fact that in the film, the context is seen from outside, and in life we see it from the inside, from a limited view.
The lives of three very different people are joined together, each of them with their own personal problems, in which Jeff Bridges portrays a man disgusted with his life, and he is carried away by a passive attitude. When a ray of light suddenly appears in his life (Michelle Pfeiffer), he keeps standing on his ground. He also has problems with his brother, who is opposed to him in every possible way.
The movie presents this situations and characters with an objective view, since no one seems to be portrayed as good or bad.
To make the long story short, in this movie is shown the cycle of life: youth, maturity, old age, and how interact between them, with its ups and downs. Family, love, agreements, disagreements, relationships, friendship, birth and death.
Despite the generational gaps, there is a common ground: the art of cooking, which appears as the silent and dispassionate observer which brings people and families together, and around which the life cycle unfolds.
Quite apart from this, i am an Asian food lover and this movie was a torture since i saw it with my empty stomach. Cooked meals depicted in the film are the epitome of culinary delight. One can do nothing but feeling irresistibly tempted by this festival of colors and flavors.
Probably they had hired traditional Chinese/Taiwanese food professional cooks.
Having said that, I turn off my computer, and go to dinner to a Korean restaurant next door to my place. : )
Sometimes it happens that couples, when the relationship does not work, decide to make a trip as last resort, to see if it can be fixed or to make a decision. However, what happens on the trip becomes unexpected.
The role played by Miranda Richardson and Rupert Everett is a modern, relatively intellectual couple, but within normal range. So far so good. The turning point comes when they meet a weird and unreliable Christopher Walken, and unexpectedly they are influenced by his gloomy talks. Here, as in other Harold Pinter's scripts, lies a subliminal psychological manipulation. The reason why an adult and responsible couple is mysteriously tricked, remains unknown. But the fact is that it seems to be a release of repressed behaviors when in contact with Walken/Mirren.
They enter into a state of unconcern and greater sense of freedom. Still, they try to avoid the presence of Walken, but seems to be a higher power, and inevitably, end up being his guests.
The nightly, intriguing romantic, yet eerie atmosphere is masterfully portrayed by Dante Spinotti's cinematography. This, along The mystery and beauty of Venice will help to generate uncertainty and disturbance about their fate.
I find it captivating, charming and yet intriguing and uncertain. And most of all: very intimate.
There are many non-spoken scenes in which, subtlety, through camera position, Truffaut makes us identify with Lachenay's role. By this means, unveils the feelings of the two main characters.
In some situations, i believe it is fair to say that words sometimes obscure and distort, so images can express by itself clearly in order to get an effective impact on the viewer.
I would have liked to know which was Truffaut's intention about Lachenay's character. I found him undecided, erratic, inconclusive and ultimately weak, behind a successful and intellectual masquerade, which in turn it could be probably a widespread attitude in such situations. As a consequence, it takes place some brilliant and suspenseful scenes in which two lovers are involved, but but only one is displayed on the screen, due to Lachenay's unwillingness to be together.
The rising tension is due to the director creates a situation in which, in the end, turns out to be unattainable.
With a clear Hitchcock's influence, it is (since my point of view), the best film of Franciose Truffaut.
Poetic and influenced by Buddhist thought, this movie is a work of art in every way.
It is obviously not for everyone, as his pace, almost without spoken script, and inherent philosophy, requires open minded and introspective viewers.
Filming is in line with the script. Everything happens in due time. Neither before nor after. The life cycle is shown with detachment and objectivity. The destination which has come into existence on the first day of birthing is unfolding, and it will determine our lives until we begin to be aware of our actions.
Actually, the film is similar to a Buddhist story.
As the Old Zen Masters said: "Do not despise the story. A lost gold coin is found by means of a penny candle; the deepest truth is found by means of a simple story."
I find very interesting point of view Medem's films.
It is different in the sense that gives importance to the subtle perceptions such as intuition, premonition ... and above all the unusual fact of being irrational, following this signals. Having the ability to listen to oneself and (more difficult) let go with that call.
The film may have depth, both in form and content. And the story may seem simple, but the effect it have had on me is the excessive attention we give to events that seem very obvious, and the little attention we give to events that seem random or without a logical explanation.
It seems to be filmed from the corners of the subconscious, where the intuitive qualities lies.
Music, camera work and film-making intensify this dreamlike atmosphere, yet realistic.
This six stories into a film are clever, daring, and something wild.
The point here is to put people in extreme situations in which revenge is often the triggering factor. Anyway there is more content. It also raise questions as the use of violence, exploitation between the citizen and the State, corruption on a personal level, emotional reactions and jealousy .... all this taken to the extreme and seasoned with black humor.
It seems that everything is exaggerated with the aim of look at ourselves in the mirror. Eventually, humans may not be so different from what is portrayed in the movie.
Smart and honest self-criticism through a great musical
I remember watching the movie back in 1982, and what stuck most in my mind was the recurring scene of Roy Scheider facing the mirror with the eye drops and dexedrine tablets saying:
"It's showtime folks!"
Bob Fosse made a overview about his life, in which recognizes that he is not taking the right path. Even so, he is still being able to succumb to the stream of indolence. It is as if he had no choice but to surrender to his self-destructive attitude.
The film also has a transcendental view: he knows he is going to die soon. The role of "Angel of Death" is played by Jessica Lange, who listen his final statement. Despite of his misbehaviour, she does not judge him. This causes a strange feeling in the viewer: empathize with him notwithstanding what we have said.
Anyway, what we have is an honest, well-directed and gripping musical autobiography.
Here i will talk about the whole movie (Volume I & II Extended 5½ hour Director's Cut version)
I find very funny (and naive) that some people, relate this movie with porn.
Such an approach would be both short-sighted and counterproductive, especially if we are talking about Lars Von Trier.
It is common, reading reviews of movies in which there are sex or nudity, and are mentioned as if it deserve to be highlighted, when in fact, it's only part of the background
Today sex is still a taboo, which is nothing more than a prohibition of doing or saying something imposed by certain respects or prejudices of social or psychological nature.
This movie had nothing to do with porn. Not at all.
The movie is about the story of a woman with a psychological-sexual disease, and the aftermath that this disease has had on her personal life.
LVT has been one of the directors of which more deeply researched the phenomenon of human behavior and all its ramifications. But it does so from a very negative view. As a good existentialist, he examines the human condition, freedom, individual responsibility, emotions, morality, sex and meaning of life.
Franz Kafka, Hermann Hesse, Friedrich Nietzsche, Albert Camus, Jean Paul Sartre, Stanislav Lem, Andrey Tarkovski, Ingmar Bergman...... they also knew how to define -very precisely- the moods of existential emptiness and meaningless of life. Many of us have identified with these feelings they describe so well.
However, most of them have one thing in common: They do not offer solutions. They merely regret about the situation and describe it, but do not go beyond. This fact of "not going further" is the result of a lack of research in other fields, and as the main problem, leaves the viewer in a situation without options.
This is precisely what happens in Nymphomaniac, and all movies of LVT. The dialogues between the two main characters analyze the subsequent moral implications of the actions dictated by a psychological disease. Seligman provides a theological point of view, which does not seem to help much to Joe. However, despite of her behavior, Seligman try not to judge her, which I consider an essential attitude for most aspects of life.
Finally, all the analysis and situations will not lead me anywhere, but to life and its afflictions. Once they have been analyzed, we remain where we were.
About the ending,there is a clear lack of trust in humans, as beings who ultimately could transcend their wrongdoing.
Even better than the first one, which is very difficult to overcome.
I 'll begin to highlight two little flaws (if we can call it that way):
1- Some of the philosophical quotes in the movie could be a bit misplaced. The characters seems to be compelled to quote in an almost steady manner. Anyway, we have to keep in mind this is a very philosophical film in many ways, with a remarkable psychological burden.
2- Being a masterpiece, the movie is too short. Just 100mn. is not enough to recreate oneself with that beautiful imagery and thorough substance.
Having said that, this movie goes beyond perfection. And i'm not talking about the amazing music or the astonishing visuals. I'm talking about the serious, accurate, transcendent, intelligent plot/script.
In some way is like a mind-blowing trip with many different layers of reality. At a certain point, the viewer does not know in which of them he is. The question has therefore arisen, as to whether we really know where are we heading to, about computer applications in the internet world.
This is a simple but well-told story about some strange phenomena.
From the start, everything in the movie is surrounded by an aura of mystery.
I find particularly interesting, in creating a narrative structure which starts with different stories with no apparent connection between them. This scheme provides a greater feeling of uncertainty to the viewer, who will discover the key plot as the movie progresses.
One of the features of Spielberg's early films (like ET, CEO3K) and other 80s productions, is the nightly atmosphere in which a large part of the movie takes place. If we add an intriguing soundtrack and a fitting photography, we immerse into the unknown world of UFO sighting.
There may be many approaches when choosing film as a medium of communication.
The concept of music and images without the contribution of a spoken script, leaves the viewer with a much greater possibilities of interpretation. We have to keep in mind that it is almost mandatory to plunge in the movie through these two unique means in order to let go. Then the experience should be more direct and pure.
The result is a highly sensory and spiritual cinematic experience. The approach is totally unbiased. Do not judge or criticize anything. Only presents the images as they are, without the intervention of the spoken or written.
I've read some reviews that the film has a message (enviromental, etc...).
The movie has no message.
No message at all.
My view: As a result, IMHO the movie makes us see the world, not as a small part of the picture, (in fact, is what we see in all the movies), but as the the whole picture. Also, being a broader perspective on the human condition, it becomes easier to see ourselves not as individuals, but as a small part of a huge and complex mechanism which is Planet Earth.
This approach would also apply to the chaos and randomness which are our lives seems to be tied. The movie makes us aware of the ephemeral nature of each situation, which is due to the impermanence of all forms, good or bad, life and death. Ultimately, all this might suggest the existence of a deployment of a higher order and purpose.