I hate period piece movies, so while sitting into my place I implored the Gods for a merciful and quick death, since They hadn't (evidently) been able to spare me the whole experience...
And you can imagine how surprised I was when I realised that the movie was made with absolute good taste, excellent actors and perfect direction: I couldn't take my eyes from the gowns (and the suites), the houses, the lawns, the landscapes... an uncommon and really impressive care for details.
And music definitely contributed to give a joyful and playful vibe to the movie, which I found more than appropriate: a divertissement, as they say in France.
Best line? ' If I loved you less (then) I might be able to talk about it more...': According to me one the finest accounts for men shyness ever written (and one of Jane Austen's best lines...).
One last thought: why the dot? (Emma.) Is it because this is meant to be the ultimate version of the Novel? Well, it would be fine for me...
The movie is based on an previous play, Filumena Marturano (1946), written by the talented Italian playwright Eduardo de Filippo and features some among the finest Italian artists from that period.
Not only the great Sophia Loren and Marcello Mastroianni but also an impressive team of co-writers (among them Tonino Guerra, nominated for 3 Oscars as best writer), a great director (Vittorio de Sica: Ladri di Biciclette 1948, La Ciociara 1956...) a great musician (Armando Trovajoli) and some very good actors in supporting roles such as Aldo Puglisi (Alfredo) or Marilù Tolo (the beautiful Diana).
Both the Loren and the film were nominated for an Academy Award and both did not win: 1965 Oscar for best actress went to Julie Andrews for Mary Poppins and 1966 Oscar for best foreign film went to 'The Shop on Main Street'.
Anyway this title is highly recommended: the cinematographic version of the play is slightly different from the original but it's faithful to its spirit. Which is: 'who could possibly do not want to marry Filumena Marturano?'
It's a very pleasant film and the Author (Mark Raso, a very talented young filmmaker: this is his first / debut feature film...) seems perfectly aware that the best thing you can do, as an artist, is to entertain.
The movie is an hour and a half of youthful wandering through Denmark, without any dull or dead moments, filmed with very good taste (and very good acting).
Of course I noticed that (as stated in the synopsis) the girl is younger than the boy. But this is hardly the main theme.
Actually you can find many things in the movie, from sex addiction to finding-your-roots, but these (on my opinion) are just as the canvas on which the writer made his characters act.
This is Bill Kiely's and David Harris' first feature film and I have been very well impressed by them. Because writing something fresh and entertaining over such an exploited material (first Summer, first Kiss, coming of Age...) requests talent.
The movie is perfectly shot and very pleasant to watch. Characters are catching and the story unfolds nicely: I'm going to save it in my Film's Vault under the 'Comedy' and 'Romance' tags but with a purple dot, which is reserved to movies that I could possibly re-watch.
First Man: Space Travel is mainly about surviving it.
A tragic and beautiful movie about Space Race in the 60s and the conquer of the Moon. Nothing new for a Spaceflight Nerd but a remainder, for those who are not really into it, of how hard Space is (and how demanding it will be to navigate it...).
I see the duo Chazelle - Hurwitz (Music composer) did not meet greater audience expectations but on my opinion they both confirmed their undisputed talent and everything in this production was high profile, from the cast to the last detail.
Sooner or later, I'm sure, everybody will surrender to the idea that Space Travel is mainly about surviving it, and the present title will gain greater consideration.
I read 'Papillon' when I was a kid and I was very much impressed: Papi (Henri Charrière) was a spirited man and his book is full of life: both the interior and the mundane.
But I didn't like the movie that came shortly after (Papillon, 1973), even if it was written by the great Dalton Trumbo, whose work I idolise.
The present version of the story, on the contrary, touched me much more deeply, even though it cuts short through a lot of events that I enjoyed very much reading (even though I wondered if they were true), while lingers on Papi's first solitary detention, that I found at least depressing at the time I read the book.
Anyway I have to admit that Guzikowsky (current version's screenwriter) was right and the result is a much more interesting (and catching) movie than the previous one, at least for me: full of rhythm and suspence. And I can only re-state my admiration for him.
Sharks and boats, and water, and swimming, and dives, and action, and adventure, and bravery, and (handsome) men and (attractive) women and (endearing) kids... what's there not to like?
The Megalodon really existed (while watching I was wondering whether a Livyathan would rise from the deep to save the day...) and I think that it's good to give our kids a chance to know it. As good as it is seeing Sanya Bay and being brought closer to the part of mankind living in Asia.
The plot is predictable? Yes it is. The characters are less deep than the ocean? You bet. But this is, as Howard Dietz said, Entertainment. And both the fish and the movie are as stupid as they are great.
I won't judge how the Authors represented upper Paleolithic: this was a movie after all, not a documentary.
And I welcomed the idea of watching a romantic version of how men met dogs but unfortunately the present title didn't meet my standards: it's not that I have discriminating tastes but human and canine feelings are so heavily stereotyped in this film that they completely lost their charm (for me).
So I hope I will be excused if I say that the overall creative effort (plot, characters, motives... even the music to be sincere) looked a little bit too modest to me.
Ben Foster and Mark Dennis: I never heard about them before but after watching this movie I felt that in a few years many of us will know who they are. Because they have talent and in the present title there is a good display of it.
The movie is entertaining and visually surprising: well shot, well acted, well edited... much better than what you would expect from a common indie flick. Really a good movie.
A honest artistic work: well acted, well shot, well edited. And middle east is always an interesting location. The plot is not the most brilliant ever written but I bet that most of us will not foresee the ending.
I don't understand why exceeding in negative reviews: not every film can be worth an Academy Award. But if you love cinema there is a good chance that you'll enjoy the flick.
Wow, what a wonderful movie! The present title has been made with greatest art and would deserve rivers of words to praise every fantastic detail the Authors put in there just to entertain and show us. But this isn't the place: simply put, user's reviews exist just to help others to decide whether or not to watch the flick. And my answer is 'yes, definitely'.
Just one word for Anatolia: the story is catching, the characters are interesting, the words are more than appropriate but the scenery steals the eye. Probably none wants to live there but Anatolia is full of life. Real, poor, human life.
Do you remember old war movies? Entire movies without a women? This is the opposite: girls, girls, girls... girls everywhere, only girls. A movie made of girls: young girls, adult girls, healthy girls, sick girls, nice girls, not-so-nice girls, brave girls, good girls... it was easy for me to like it, given how much I'm fond of girls.
Men? Not more relevant to the story than drones to the beehive. Including Covelesky.
It's nice, well done, full of fantasy and interesting details. I guess most people will like it: enjoy.
I watched this movie despite the negative reviews and I did it mainly because Alexander Skarsgård is one of my favorite actors. I was so conditioned by what I read that I didn't expect anything good. And I postponed watching for so long that when I finally came to see this I had even forgotten who was the Author.
So, if you already watched this, you can imagine how surprised I was: I feared to have condemned my self to watch something lame, built on a low (economic and creative) budget, with some kind of stupid plot bugged by annoying logical holes and so on... but this film isn't anything like that.
It's a good movie (Duncan Jones is the Author) set in a visually interesting future and built on a good story. Not a masterpiece but far from being the trash here described. Its righteous rate, on my opinion, could be somewhere between 6.5 and 7.
I don't know what to think about my fellow reviewers.
I'm always watching out for newness, for originality, for something I've never seen before: the more it strikes me (because I never thought it could be done), the most I'm interested, dragged to it. And on the other hand I look down (I know I shouldn't but I do) on everything that looks old fashioned or sounds dated. Which is peculiar, being myself an old man.
This is just to say that I hesitated a lot before going to watch this movie and if you understand what I just said and feel the same way I do, you'll surely know why.
But this was a beautiful movie that will make you relive old times as if they were new and will recall you of an other marvellous French 1969 movie (if you have seen it) that I won't name, afraid as I am of spoiling.
As its illustrious predecessor, the present movie simply celebrates love which, as known, is timeless. Or, as a Poet said, '...no season knows nor clime. Nor hours, days, months, which are the rags of time'.
Downsizing: not a Comedy but a (good) Sci Fi Movie.
It seems to me that whenever mankind reaches a satisfactory but stagnant condition, people start to worry about how this could come to an end. Or, in other words, to fear that we all are doomed to die soon.
Fears are fuelled by the available knowledge at that time: today it is the environment or the asteroids but I guess that the feelings were the same when the threat was Gods' wrath.
Alexander Payne is a great artist and in this movie he addresses this matter in a most interesting way: don't expect a comedy, it's a Sci Fi flick by all means. A good one.
Coffee with Ana: nice flick, don't let the amateurish acting scare you.
Let's be clear: this is a very very Indie Movie... and to be completely honest, it could compete in a Local Championship of Bad Acting.
But it's not pretentious and watching was absolutely pleasant for me: images are cool, camera is steady, shots are perfectly centered, the story flows with ease and follows a logical theme. Dialogue is actually good.
Everything revolves around Camila Jurado (who really is an actress, and a very good one too) who graciously carries the entire thing on her shoulders. Anyway... I feel like recommending it and I send my compliments to the Kings (father and son) together with my best wishes for the future.
A fine romance (as Dorothy Field would have said)...