niutta-enrico

I don't know how far in the world an Italian production can go these days but if you like watching movies from abroad (as I do), there is a good chance that you'd like this title, no matter where you are from.

It's the 2nd feature film from Pietro Castellitto (both author and main character) and the richness of witty details (most of them nice) he included in the flick seems to speak of a long period spent stockpiling ideas before starting to shoot. Which is good.

In any case the movie is indisputably entertaining, built around a well organised plot that even though (alas...) doesn't escape the Italian cliché of considering mob an irreplaceable narrative element, shows originality in other ways such as nice dialogues and a pleasant general candour.

Acting is very good: the two main characters above all but I'm sure that Benedetta Porcaroli won't go unnoticed as well. A mention for Author's father, who is a very famous Italian actor and plays his son's father in the movie: you can notice him stealing the scene even when he listens, completely still, to his wife (the talented Chiara Noschese).

Frames are good and the ending, although metaphysical (another unfortunate Italian cliché...) however brings the story to a coherent end (which is always nice).

There is more in the movie, such as several nods and hints to other movies or to other Authors, and I'm sure you'll notice them as I did.

Enjoy.

A good movie, on a really peculiar man: Adam Driver (I know it's stupid but I cannot wrap my head around the fact that the the surname of the actor chosen to interpret Enzo Ferrari had to be 'Driver'...) gives us a believable Ferrari: tall and charismatic as 'the Drake' was. Perhaps the only aspect of Ferrari's multifaceted personality that the movie fails to deliver is the explosive cheerfulness that sometimes overwhelmed him.

The movie narrates only few weeks in Enzo Ferrari's life. Several flashbacks help putting things into contest but many things that most people know are missing (e.g. Formula 1). This disappointed many reviewers but personally I don't feel like complaining: it's an artistic choice and surely I don't feel entitled to complain if James Joyce chose to describe only few hours (less than one day...) in his 'Ulysses'.

Anyway the story is extremely interesting and in the end you can easily feel like you wanted more. Or at least that's what happened to me... and that's why I think that the movie is good and characters are interesting.

That said, I won't add more, afraid as I am of spoiling a story that every Italian knows but perhaps it's not as famous among people from abroad.

Enjoy.

Action movie with average cast, good photography, great stunts, unusual location (Thessaloniki, Greece), good music and some nice dialogue (here and there).

Script, alas, had some really annoying aspects... for example: who would like to watch a man in his 50s, alone, defeating with his bare hands 30 thugs, most of them armed, one after the other, in a same scene?

Movie reality is cinematic, ok... but there are rules nonetheless: I'd say that 2 thugs should be the edge of 'realism', up to 5 you must be funny, plausible and it remains however debatable, 6 is reserved for James Bond and higher figures definitely require superheroes.

Another (violated) rule of mine says that a thug easily defeated in a previous scene cannot have such a come back and beat you to a pulp in a following sequence... anyway... that said, it was not boring: I reached the end titles in good spirits and it made me kill some time.

And I always liked Aaron Eckhart.

Enjoy.

Expectations can influence enormously our judgment: I say so because after reading so many (and so well motivated) negative reviews I thought there was no point in watching this title. And thus I was prepared for the worst when (as it often happens in life...) I ended watching it.

The opening, in any case, was not bad... not at all... a good scene by all means. Same as the following part: the battle for Toulon... quite a long, interesting and convincing sequence of events.

Then came one of the biggest things in Napoleon's life: the battle of Austerlitz. And I don't have the faintest idea about how historically accurate that was but what I watched was a hell of a battle! With things that I never saw on a screen before (despite being old and kind of a movie addict...): a terrific scene!!

At that point I started thinking that I could enjoy the movie... and it went that way: I appreciated the acting, the setting and the general idea behind the script: Napoleon is depicted as a nice and clever man who found himself in the position of saving his Country from the abyss of anarchy and unexpectedly made his Nation greater than it was before.

He raised himself to the highest imaginable honour and glory and yet he was a man: and as for all the men of this World, his life was dominated by love, marriage, ambition, health, offspring, work, fear, ageing... things like these.

Now... I don't know how accurate this portrait is but while watching I didn't find hard to believe that his thoughts were occupied by the woman he loved even while he was conquering Egypt. Or that her infidelity made him suffer more than the hardships of the battlefield.

I wonder if my opinion could have been different if I didn't read anything before watching the movie: it is possible, of course. And since the most recurrent word in negative reviews is 'disappointment' my suggestion is, in case you are interested, to watch the movie while keeping your expectations low... :)

Enjoy.

An intense thriller: well written, perfectly acted and with a sound background music (pun intended).

Plot isn't unpredictable but this is not surprising, given the number of movies we all watch these days. And in any case you won't see where it is going for a long, long time..

Everybody did well but Benicio del Toro not only stole the scene but also significantly contributed to the story, to the point they had to include him in the credits as a cowriter.

For director Grant Singer, who previously directed music videos only, this was a debut (a very good one, I'd say). And he also (together with Benjamin Brewer) wrote the story.

Everybody is entitled to his own opinion, of course, and the exact value of this artistic effort is open to discussion but ratings in the binary system are unjustified...

Enjoy.

Anders Thomas Jensen is an incredibly talented screenwriter: he already wrote more than 50 works (among short and featured movies) and if you go through his catalogue you'll find a huge variety of subjects, with very few or no repetitions at all... a kind of genius.

His movies are always catching and full of wonder: were he American, he would have probably already won a couple of oscars (as the greatest, such as Woody Allen or Billy Wilder did...) for Best Original Screenplay, instead of the lousy Academy Award for Best Live Action Short Film he got 25 years ago.

Despite my evident admiration, the present title was not one of his best: the story is terrific (as always) but somehow sweetened and although the characters are (as always) interesting and endearing, they lack their usual proper substance. And the ending was a missed opportunity for such a talented writer. In other words: a very good movie but not a masterpiece. At least on my humble opinion.

That said.. let's be clear: my rating is 9. Most writers can only dream of writing a movie like this and if this is your first Anders Thomas Jensen film, I think you'll love it.

Enjoy.

I really can't believe I'm the first (and only) reviewing this movie...

Anyway... it's another Kar-Wai Wong interesting movie about love, shot entirely in putonghua (Standard Mandarin) despite being located in Hong Kong, that appeared as a segment in an Anthology film called Eros, 2004 (which had a very modest success at the box office...).

For those who aren't familiar with Kar-Wai Wong works, he is the Author of 'In the Mood for Love, 2000', one of the greatest (one of the most beautiful...) Asian movies ever. And (among other titles...) of Chungking Express, which could easily became your favourite movie (or at least one of them...), should you ever decide to watch it.

The present title is a short film (about 50 minutes) and a comparison with the above mentioned masterpieces wouldn't be appropriate.

It's a catching (and somehow surprising) movie that shows how love can get hold of our hearts, fill our lives and determine our fate.

Enjoy.

I am a huge admirer of Winsor McCay (as I think anybody would be, the moment he gets to know his unbelievable art) and the first thing I noticed about the present film, is that the Authors didn't steal a single frame from his extraordinary imagery: no airships, no jungles, no giant flowers... just some flying geese and a short ride on a bed... whose legs however hardly reminded of the original.

The whole movie nonetheless is a tribute to 'Little Nemo in Slumberland' and to McCay's fantastic world.

Jason Momoa plays a great Flip and is by far the star of the movie: he has the best role, the best lines and even the best costume... Nemo is a girl (!) and thus his inborn gentleness seems even more appropriate...

The only questionable part are the Adults, that in McCay's comics play much less relevant roles: and for a good reason, apparently, since they end being the most predictable part of this nevertheless very entertaining movie.

Enjoy.

From the green of Iceland to the Classical Greek silhouettes duelling amongst the lava, the beautiful wooden doors, the steel of the swords or the grace of the ships, of the clothing and of every tiny detail... the movie is a feast for the eyes.

The story celebrates the myth of Amleth, in one of its thousand versions (but infinitely more Saxo's than Shakespeare's...) so you know what to expect.

But the reason why you'll like the movie is not even remotely its plot. You'll like it because it will bring you close to the Ancient Gods, in a world where mortal life counts nothing and the air around you is filled with mysteries and fate.

This, of course, if you will not mind a little blood...

Enjoy.

As you probably know, Diabolik was a successful comic book in Italy in the 70s. It celebrated a fascinating (albeit ruthless) criminal, whose passioned love for his beautiful partner (Eva Kant) redeemed himself in the eye of its affectionate readers.

Written by two sisters, was particularly popular amongst women who (I guess) enjoyed the romantic aspects, together with the prowess and the good look of the man.

The present title nicely recreates those times and that particular atmosphere, where Italian people and locations were renamed in order to make them sound 'Englishish'. And the love between the two main characters is perfectly conveyed, as well as the mutual respect among the two main adversaries: Ginko and Diabolik.

Actors play the part very, very well. Which was not easy because the original characters were quite monodimensional and naive... personally I would not pay too much attention to the negative reviews and (especially if you liked the comic book) I would give it a try.

Enjoy.

Story is nice, several shots are interesting / well done and music is good.

Besides that, however, acting is most often over the top: actors unnecessarily scream or tend to overdo... which of course is unfortunate.

Generally speaking, this is not a good time for Italian cinema...

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...

Well... I didn't like the movie and I had a hard time trying to keep my attention high. The movie is not badly done but isn't (even remotely) entertaining.

The script lacks any originality: Brad Ingelsby (who certainly is a good writer) must have been completely out of inspiration while writing this.

As a result the characters never really come alive and frankly, while watching, I wondered whether Ben Affleck chose this part because it suited a current overweight condition.

My expectations were not that high but the movie does not meet the usual standards for a drama or a sport movie.

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 but neither of them won: 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?'

Enjoy.

Copenhagen is a catching story.

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.

Enjoy.

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.

A great honour... enjoy.

Nice, funny, smart... dialogue was (really) good and the story was catching.

Well shot, (very) well acted... I think that most of us will love 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.

Till then... enjoy.

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.

Enjoy.

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.

Enjoy.

Simon Baker's first Direction for the big screen, Breath, is a very nice movie based on a very nice novel. And narrator's voice actually is novel's writer voice, which is a nice touch...

It's a very pleasant watching: characters are perfectly depicted, the story is catching and everything flows smoothly towards its logical conclusion.

But the real star, what really steals the eye, is water... seawater... the sea... do surfers fear the sea? Do you?

Surely I do.

Enjoy.

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.

I am old and I've seen much worse...

After 'The Disaster Artist' something might have changed. And maybe now, some amongst us, might feel inclined to give a second chance to things that once we should have simply called 'trash'.

In this view, and in this view only (and only if you think you might be one of these persons), I could recommend you to watch this film.