monimm18

All these good actors and expenses just to come up with such a crock... Was the screenplay written for twelve year olds, or by by a twelve year old, or both? Cause my intellect feels a bit insulted by it. Here's two hours I'll never get back, damn it. I could've watch paint dry, or bathe the cat, or something enjoyable like that...

I liked this film very much. Yes, it is far from your typical Hollywood murder mystery thriller. It's actually much better, in my opinion. An interesting psychological study of a skilled and astonishingly resourceful con artist (played with excellence by Mr. Waltz), depicting a multifaceted man who spent his life constructing a myriad of personae all feeding a pathological need to feel important and successful. There are little moments where I thought I saw a glimpse of a more vulnerable side of him, albeit still in the service of pretense. I very much enjoyed the complex portrayal of his wife (by the always brilliant Vanessa Redgrave), who is nonetheless a victim, adoring, helping, nagging, belittling and ultimately unwittingly goading him, by uncovering the truth about him and poking fun at it. No, I am not defending what he did and I do not blame her for his actions, but it was interesting to see the psychological details of how the dynamic in this couple's relationship escalated to murder.

I was told this was Christophe Waltz' directorial debut. I hope it's not a singular occurrence.

Yes, the last episode of season 5 was not easy to watch, at least until they finally got to Claire's rescue, but so masterfully constructed and played, with so many subtle rewarding moments in it. The depiction of Claire's ordeal seemed so realistic and brutally raw, and yet it didn't feel like it went too far, or that it had even a hint of gratuity in it. The fantasy world that she withdraws into, in order to dissociate from her ordeal and keep her sanity, was quite an artfully depicted concept, full of symbols and reminders of moments from the past. It seemed like the ideal life Claire might have longed for: safe in the XX century but in Jamie's arms and with all her family around her. Life on the Ridge, but in the 1960s - the best of both worlds. Recognizing and deciphering each memento placed in her fantasy world felt evocatively bittersweet. But that fantasy world had flaws and distorsions, maybe prompted by the undercurrent of her ongoing ordeal, like Jamie's clothing style that fit neither an 1700s nor a 1960s fashion, the blue vase from the first episode that was now speckled instead of solid blue, Jamie's quote about her shaking so hard that it made his teeth rattle not quite the same, the absence of Brianna, Jammy and Roger from the Thanksgiving table, young Ian's weird military uniform patch, the two policemen at the door that also turn out to be Lionel Brown and one of his men, the terrible news they bring, all little signs that Claire was not able to disconnect enough from reality and her escape was fragile. By the time Jamie and his men find and rescue her, Claire's fantasy world was crumbling, signaling she was about to break down and be lost.

The last 10 min of the episode were almost healing for both the characters and the viewer. From Claire and Jamie's talk on the veranda, Jamie not daring to touch her, although you knew he was dying to hold her, to Claire's reassuring "I love you", his mention of what his last words to her would ever be, the quote from Thucidides, the symbolic storm approaching, her wish to enjoy the peace and the beauty of life with her family before the storm awaiting in their future came. And finally, that last image of the two of them holding each other on the bed, after she defied and overcame her ordeal in every possible meaning to make sure their connection remains just as strong, or stronger, so much implied but not depicted, Jamie's astonished "Christ... You're a brave wee thing..." and Claire's answer to his question: "Safe" - restoring both of them with one word. The quintessential Claire and Jamie.

Am I in the minority in this? I find episode 503 - Free Will - to be one of my favorite of Season 5. To me, it's one of the most lyrical ones in the show. What it lacks in action it gains richly in symbols and layers of meanings in so many images and dialogues. It moved me, from the moment of Jamie's eager return at home in the night and his thanking god "for the sight of you, Sassenach", to the last breathtaking scene of millions of birds darkening the skies.

I loved how this episode analized the concept of choice, or free will, of when we truly have it and when we don't and how we handle all that.

So, a few thoughts on all that: Jamie is aware of the fact that whatever his plans and choices may be, it is also in the hands of fate, or god. Hence his "Deo gratias" when he makes it home to Claire. Later in the show, when Claire asks "what kind of world is this to bring a child into?" his answer is that of a man who has no options: "the only world". Claire's response seems that of someone who can choose: "no it's not". And yet, for her it's also the only world - her freedom of choosing is an illusion, because her choice was already made and it was final - she would never leave Jamie, which makes his world the only one for her as well. But not for Brianna, Roger and little Jemmy, as she points out.

Many people in this episode have no free will or only the illusion of it. The twins Josiah and Keziah, Fanny Beardsley, and, in a way, the men bound by the oath sworn to Jamie, and even Jamie himself, as he is being drawn into the conflict with the Regulators (and Murtagh) he cannot escape.

I particulatly appreciated the character of Fanny Beardsley, the ill-fated wife of a cruel and violent man. By the end, she finds some freedom, but she pays for it with her motherhood, as she leaves her baby girl behind, knowing that she had no options to protect or provide for her.

I found the part of Claire and Jamie at the house of Aaron Beardsley captivating. It's the darkest, saddest part, but it provided so much food for thought, and watching Claire and Jamie interacting as a couple and working things out together was a bit of a treat.

Of all the people in this show, the least deserving, Aaron Beardsley, is provided with free will. True to his character, Jamie takes it upon himself to offer Beardsley the choice to end his ordeal. Beardsley takes him on his offer, but in defiance, refuses to ask god's forgiveness.

The last scene in the episode was beautiful and a bit poignant and evocative, even ominous. The images of the passenger pigeons darkening the skies, while Jamie wonders if his father, who also died of a stroke, had the terrible slow ending that Aaron Beardsly had, and Claire promises him "I'll do what needs to be done" if he ends up having the same fate, wow... Quite compelling, and a reminder for us of his and Claire's inescapable mortality, perhaps? Later, when I found out that the show creators knew that the passenger pigeons depicted used to live by the billions in those times, but are now extinct, I found that last scene to be even more poignant.

Can I say how amazing I find "The Battle Joined", especially the scenes of the battle and the aftermath? So epic. The cinematography and the manner in which it depicts the field and the combat flashbacks are so captivating. The silence of the post-battle field, interrupted by the gasps of the Scottish wounded being bayonetted, felt as powerful as the sound of cannons, gunshots and screams of the battle.

I found the final battle between Jamie and BJR quite poignant. After longing for revenge all this time, Jamie finally gets to kill BJR, but his death seems to give him little of the satisfaction he anticipated once, it's almost meaningless, because it is drowned in all the death happening around them, but most of all, because Claire is not with him anymore and he has no more hopes for the future. By that point, Jamie has given up any thoughts for himself; he doesn't even seem to care when Randall, whose touch used to fill him with terror and revulsion, reaches pleadingly for him as he dies and they fall to the ground in a strange embrace. Did anyone notice Randall saying Claire's name? Maybe he remembered her prediction about his death? Or maybe, he was instinctively trying the trick he employed at Wentworth to elicit Jamie's participation in his embrace? Or both? Apparently, some of that scene was improvised by Tobias Menzies and Sam Hueghan during its filming, so who knows... Anyway, I am so impressed with Tobias Menzies' depiction of Black Jack Randall, in those last moments and throughout the show.

And yet, in the middle of that , Rupert's humor finds a way to work, in spite of the quiet tragedy of the executions. His phlegmatic, matter of fact "No, your grace. Traitors all" reply, knowing the admission erased any possibility of avoiding certain death, did me in.

Last, but not least, how amazing was Sam Heughan in that episode? He had few lines and a lot of his acting consisted of fighting scenes or lying on the ground and gasping for air, yet he conveyed so much in spite of the limitations. His face when he sees Randall on the battlefield, his eyes when he watches the wounded Scottish young soldier being stabbed with the bayonet by the English soldier, the way he said "let me be" when Rupert grabs him to safety, the look on his face when he listens to the sound of Rupert being executed, are some truly brilliant moments in his performance, in my opinion.

I think this episode deserved much more appreciation and accolades than it got, and the whole series too, for the same reasons. There's so much talent involved in creating this show that goes beyond Diana Gabaldon's very successful books.

Oh, what a pity... This could've been a really good film, actually. I thought it had some intereting ingredients: an intriguing story about love and loss, coping with the consequences of the choices we make, the price people pay to follow their calling or achieve success, handling regret, all charmingly sprinkled with a touch of existential pondering. Also, a great match for the lead role and good supporting role actors.

I don't know what else was wrong about making this film besides apparently very little funding. Poor directing, editing, camera work? A dire need for more close-ups? Different camera lenses? A little bit of everything?

Also, it was disappointing to see the lead actors' potential squandered in a chaotic feature, on roles that could've been much better.

Needless to say that the final product turned out pretty mangled and felt a bit dull. Too bad...

After watching the heartbreaking scene of Claire and Jamie's parting at the stones, the quietly devastating aftermath of the battle at Culloden, Jamie's desolate existence without Claire, and Claire's longing-filled life in the XXth century, I didn't think this show could tug any harder at my heartstrings.

All Debts Paid proved me wrong.

I know that depicting Claire and Frank's life together was essential to the story, and I truly appreciated Tobias Menzies' amazing acting skills in depicting Frank's tortured married life and giving him even more depth than originally constructed in the screenplay. However, the sorrow of watching Jamie's and Claire's separate lives that seemed to amount to bland existences steeped in longing, grieving and emotional numbness was almost unbearable.

I will not bore you with a review of this whole episode. Someone else has done it already and better than I could.

The point of my post is my wish to share this: There is a tiny scene in this episode that was to me particularly moving. Jamie talking to Murtagh and grabbing a bunch of milk thistle he picked, explaining how he plans to make medicine for him. As he smells the thistle his eyes gain a clouded, far away look and he says in a more quiet, resigned, almost strangled voice: "I learned the trick from... a lass... who knew a fair amount about healing...".

Just like the part where Jamie gifts Claire his mother's pearls on their wedding night, I found Sam Heughan's acting and the director's rendering of the scene particularly poignant and unforgettable.

A charming film. Kim Novak is truly spellbinding and a pleasure to watch, both because of her acting and her beauty. Every character was played by wonderful actors, but not every actor was meant for their role, in my opinion. I wish Jim Stewart's character were played by someone younger. The fact that he is twice Novak's age is ridiculously obvious in both his looks and his acting. His "fuddy daddy" style makes the romance unrealistic to the viewer (at least to me). Don't get me wrong, I love Jimmy Stewart, but I think he was really miscast. I can only imagine how amazing this film would've been with a better match, physically and style-wise, to Kim Novak.

The plots and subplots are great, the character development is great, the acting is great, the depiction of the periods are excellent, the social connotations spot on. Someone called this "a Swedish Downton Abbey". Pretty close. Totally worth the time. First season free with Amazon Prime. At the end of it I was more than willing to pay for a Sundance subscription just to keep watching, so beware :)

The story is ridiculous and contrived, and requires a lot of suspension of disbelief (lady goes blind and suddenly cannot recognize the voice of the man she loathes???). The acting is overly emphatic and melodramatic. Jane Wyman looks old, stiff and unemotional, and her character seems dumber than dirt. She's the only "girl" in the movie with the matronly looks and her hairdo, omygod!!! It looks positively hairspray matted grandma-style. She could be Rock Hudson's teacher or his stern mom. How are we to think a young playboy would fall madly in love with that dorky old stick-up-her ass, and carry a torch for her for years, I don't know. The whole movie is just a big load of unrealistic cheesy melodrama.

At first I thought this movie was a bit slow or contemplative. No such thing, actually. Every moment has its own precise purpose, depicting and, at the same time, uncovering the truth about the 45 year long marriage of Kate and Geoff. The film starts with the couple, or rather just Kate, planning their 45 year wedding anniversary. Geoff seems a bit of an aloof guy, disinterested and irritated about everything and everyone, but Kate has the quiet loving patience of a woman who learned to see the good man underneath the grumpy appearance. Geoff perks up significantly when he receives news of the recovery of the body of his former girlfriend, Katya, who died in a tragic accident in Switzerland before Geoff ever met his wife. The news seems to agitate him to the point of arousing Kate's suspicions. As the film progresses Kate's fearful investigations reveal that Katya was also pregnant with Geoff's child when she died, and she begins to understand how much Geoff loved her. We realize that he told her very little about Katya, hiding from her how important Katya was to him and how completely shattered he was by her death. But most of all, that he selfishly spent 45 years married to a woman he took for granted and didn't allow himself to truly love or even enjoy life because he was emotionally stuck in his past tragic experience that he subconsciously grieved about for the rest of his life. In a poignant moment, Kate tells him what she learned and how hurt and confused she was about being married to a man who, she feared, might have been dishonest and not loved her as much as she thought. Her words seem to have a catalytic effect on Geoff, who maybe realizes he has had 45 years with a wonderful woman that deserved much more. As if truly seeing her for the first time he offers her heartfelt reassuring words and from that moment he behaves cheerfully and attentively towards her, including holding a speech filled with loving gratitude at their anniversary party. Kate seems willing to believe him, until the coup de grace - the dance. While planning the anniversary party Kate chose "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes", as the opening dance song, because it was what Geoff chose as their wedding song 45 years ago. As the couple danced, we hear the lyrics and we see Kate paying attention to them too, as if for the first time. They're the words of someone grieving for their lost love, and in the context of what she learned about Katya, Kate finally faces the cruel and irreparable truth: her husband's choice for their wedding song was about his grieving for another woman, and the 45 years of her marriage were spent with a man who longed for someone else.

Good grief, not another comic strip/graphic novel based production. I am sick and tired of this proliferation of all these superhero/vigilante/saviors from the apocalypse movies. They used to invade the theaters and TV programming during the summer break, now they're everywhere all the time. It's the infantilization of America. All this talent and effort just to spice up an adolescent fantasy story, give it a grown up shine and shove it down the adults' throat. Grow up, people.

This movie is a hidden gem. The plot is great, with interesting twists, the acting is definitely great, it's thrilling and suspenseful without the use of any explosions or bloody scenes, it has a sex scene that manages to be spectacular without any loud sexual vocalizations or nudity display, and it ends up tugging at your heart quite a bit in the end. Also, I never thought Jean Dujardin to be sexy. Well, he is in this movie. There are some people claiming the plot is confusing, but I think it's the fact that there's a lot going on and the subtitles might make it hard to follow. You might have to rewind certain scenes or rewatch it to get some key details. Or maybe not. I learned enough French to be able to understand most of the dialogue and the subtitles helped too, so I didn't have any problems, but non-French speakers might. Either way, trust me, it's a very entertaining flick.

Then years ago I made the mistake of reading the negative comments from viewers and (some) critics and, adding my pigheaded aversion to musicals, I decided not to watch this film. I finally saw it today and ended up in awe of it. What a beautiful homage to Italian neorealism and the art of cinema! Every song, every frame carefully created, and the acting, oh my. It seemed like every actor and actress were at their peak performances. I credit that to the director's skill. This is definitely not a film for the prosaic minds or those who need a clear story to follow. Like the genre it celebrates, it holds subtleties and lyrical moments that might seem dull or pointless, but once you "get" them, they feel poignant and rewarding. I just wish I saw this brilliant film in its intented display - on the big screen in the movie theater.

I thought "Vengo" was the best movie about Gypsy people I ever saw. Until I saw "Gadjo Dilo".

At first, this film seems to be a story about a French guy (Stephane) who travels to Romania in search of an old Gypsy (the better term is Roma - not to be confused with Romanian) singer his dad used to like. Turns out this is a complex film about the life and culture of a group of Roma people who lived on the outskirts of a Romanian village, and their rocky relationship with the Romanians.

Being ignorant of the past history between the Roma and the Romanians and the prejudices that have stemmed from it, Stephane approaches the Roma people with his seemingly unassuming, trusting attitude, which eventually earns him their trust and affection.

I particularly loved Sabina's character, her sometimes outrageous irreverence and and her passionate nature. The scene where she cannot stand still and quiet while Stephane tries to record a singer in a pub says a lot.

The more Stephane learns about the people who allowed him to live in their midst, sees them as they are, listens to their music, watches their customs, the more bewitched he becomes. The scene at the end, when he burries the tapes with the music recordings, pours the liquor on top and dances around them the way he saw the Roma do it when they pay their respects at a deceased's grave, speaks volumes. He knows now that his recordings could not encompass who these people were and what their music meant, plus, he had no need for any recordings anymore because he was no longer an outsider looking in. You can see it in Sabina's eyes, as she watches him, smiling, that she knew he now saw her and her people not just with his eyes, but his heart too, and his little dance was an homage to them.

It's pretty obvious that an enormous amount of work went into making this film (just considering how looooong it is and how many well made-up life stages its title character covers). However, Art is not judged by quantity, but by quality. To me, this film felt dull and pointless. OK, so Benjamin ages in reverse with all the complications such a phenomenon would generate, and travels a lot. So? What exactly is the film supposed to tell us besides this particular thing? There's a lot of attention to detail, but it feels so minutious that the film appears rigid and uptight, like a soft fabric stitched too tight. It seems to me this film was supposed to bee a bit deeper, maybe a bit whimsical with a touch of wonder, or SOMETHING that would make it more than a pointless story, and would get us ponder for a while afterward. Maybe if Mr. Fincher would have remembered this was not a "who done it" movie and it requires a softer touch and a more relaxed approach, and mostly, more freedom in its creation, the film would've had that airy quality that makes us smile with our hearts and truly remember it for a while.

I was very excited about seeing this film. I like Woody Allen's films (well, some more than others), and the trailer looked very promising. I am sad to say that by the time I reached the end of the movie I was a bit disappointed. The story was interesting - a nice touch of character study in the mix, the acting was great, the music, images, etc., were wonderful, but the narrator killed me. Why do we need a voice over to describe the characters' mentality, when we can figure them out by simply by listening to the dialogue and watching their actions, body language, etc.? I'm sure everyone could have figured out that Vicky prefers the rigidity of an organized and regulated existence while Christina wants to be a "free spirit", without any additional "book on tape" style explanations. Why did we need a voice over to tell us things like "Christina, Juan Antonio and Maria Elena decided to go on a bicycle trip in the country" when we can clearly see them on bikes on a country road? I suspect Allen was aiming for a whimsically ironic/sarcastic commentary to complement and lighten up the film into a comedy, but, if that's the case, I think the sarcasm was way too light, the comments were merely stating the obvious in boringly constructed phrases. In my opinion, the narrator was a very weak point in the film, it seemed to be there to make up for any shortcomings in the direction, just in case the film was unable to depict things in a truly cinematic and comedic manner.

I gave the film 8 stars because of the interesting story line and, most of all, for the acting. Had it not been for the terrific performances of Penelope Cruz (give that woman an Oscar, please) and Javier Bardem, and the refreshing presence of Scarlett Johansson and Rebcca Hall (loved her), I don't think this film would have done well at all.

Some people compared this film with Pedro Almodovar's. Ha. NO. WAY.

I can't say that Atonement swept me off my feet, but I do believe it managed to do something increasingly harder in a world with a less sentimental, or more cynical mentality: sell us a tragic love story without seeming too melodramatic or sappy.

I avoided going to see this film in the theater because I was convinced it will be a bit boring - I find sentimental melodrama for the sake of sentimentalism a bit passe, and I am not a big Keira Knightley fan. After seeing all the nominations and awards the movie got, I decided to give the DVD a try. Gotta say, this story of ill fated love (which is such common subject dontchathink?) could have resulted in a mediocre movie, had it nor been for the way the film was structured and directed, and the talent of Mr. McAvoy, Saorise Ronan and all others. Funny how talented filmmakers can turn even a common themed story into a great film.

I like Michael Moore. I liked him since I saw "Roger and Me", many years ago. I admire his compassion for the less fortunate and his tenacity in going after the big sharks and exposing the rotten parts (and people) in our country's system. What I don't like is feeling manipulated. Moore's intentions are the best, his points are always good, but the execution is not that great, mostly in this film. He takes too many things out of context or exaggerates them, and in the end he overshoots the whole thing. Which reduces the impact of the film for viewers on both sides of the issue, in my opinion.

***SPOILERS***

For ex. the Havana hospital scene: a bit of a sham, in my opinion - maybe an involuntary one, but Moore should have gathered more facts before he decided to believe the fairy tale he and his companions lived in Havana. I grew up in a communist country. Had a group of American patients with cameras shown up at the best hospital in my country's capital city - like the one Moore went to - the best possible care (reserved only for the high rank Party officials and NEVER available to the general population) would have been given them, if only to keep appearances and show to the world, specifically the US, that the communist system "works".

This would have been a better documentary, with a stronger impact, had Moore relied more on statistics and scientific data, and less on emotional individual stories. Still, it's worth seeing - it has many eye-opening moments...

They say the best way to make people care about an issue is not reporting it in the news, but, sadly, by making a movie about it, with big name stars. However, I found this film a bit too slick and entertaining for its apparent noble intentions. In the end, I couldn't figure if the purpose was to make a film about conflict diamonds in war torn African countries and the plight of the people caught in the middle, in order to raise awareness about the issue, or an entertaining action flick that happens to use the subject of conflict diamonds to seem original and pretend it has a higher standard.

The plot was good and the acting was too (mostly Di Caprio's, who was excellent as the white African rogue mercenary, accent and all, and he sure managed the physical presence necessary for his role - first time I perceived him as a man and not a boy), but the film felt very formulaic and preachy - some of Jennifer Connely's morally superior lines, however true, were mere stereotypes and delivered with such self-righteousness that they sounded downright arrogant.

The characters seemed developed by using "by the book" methods that almost destroyed the viewer's chance to bond with them and give a damn about them and their circumstances, had it not been for some really good acting moments. The film was riddled with obvious CGI imagery, mostly in the scenes of violent attacks, which took away from the sense of true drama - the film went for quantity instead of quality, IMO, by cheapening the dramatic artistry into mere dramatic kitsch and ruining the emotional charge of the scene. I think it would have been more effective to resort to less grandiose images of violence, brutal death and destruction, and opt for a smaller scale depiction, by using real acting instead of CGI.

I'd say the intention was good, maybe the director and the screenwriters had a better film in mind, but somewhere, possibly in the producers' offices, someone screwed up what could have been an important film and a good cinematic feature, by turning it into a half-baked schizoid mix between a complex socio-political statement and the typical money-making Hollywood feature. Apparently, Hollywood gives a damn as long as it means making a profit.

After seeing Daniel Craig in other films I figured he has enough talent to pull a very credible and cool Bond, but I didn't expect this type of film. So far, most of the Bond films focused on the superficial: outlandish plots and gadgets, and objectifying women (some border lining the misogynous), at the film's expense of having any character depth, or a meaningful story. OK, that isn't necessarily a problem, since none of the Bond the films ever claimed to be more than what they were, so if you didn't like the genre you knew to avoid it. Anyway, the 2006 "Casino Royale" seems to have turned around the fate of a character and a franchise that were on their way to becoming irrelevant due to increasingly anachronistic characters and outlandish story lines, and too many clichés. It's not just a reboot of the series, it's a total transfusion that completely revives the Bond concept of the series. It's smart, gritty, with a sharper and more profound main character than any other Bond film I've seen. In my opinion, this film, although not perfect, is the best Bond film made to date. It has what most Bond films seemed to lack: class, depth and a touch of subtlety, thanks to a less shallow screenplay, good direction, and Daniel Craig's skills to depict a very believable character, not just with talent, but a smoking physique too, and whoa! finally, a Bond actor fit enough to do a lot of his stunts, some of which are quite spectacular. For once we see a Bond film where the main male character is, among other things, the eye candy, and the main female character, although beautiful, charms us with class instead of mindlessly sexed up skin. In my opinion, Daniel Craig is the next Bond, maybe the best one yet, and his presence and involvement raised the level of the film. I hope we get to see him as 007 in many more films of this caliber.

This film did something no Bond film ever did so far: earned my respect for the character and the franchise. It's very entertaining, yet intelligent enough to make us feel it values the viewers' intellect and not just their pockets.

When I saw this pilot episode of what was supposed to be a TV series, I was quite excited about it. The story was daring and original, considering the usual high-tech kitsch that usually air on broadcast TV ("24", "CSI" and the likes). This show felt different - in a way it felt real, like it had meat on its bones. It was more than just stories of people and the outlandish things that happen to them - it dealt with ideas and got one thinking. War Stories talked about the grittiest, truest and maybe noblest side of journalism: war correspondents. This was a show that seemed to chose story lines mirroring reality, even if that reality felt a bit uncomfortable to acknowledge. Finally, I thought, a series that tries to be more than pointless thrills and suspense. The series was even mentioned by Newsweek magazine for its originality and provocative subject. Unfortunately, by next week the show was cancelled. I guess, since the show was too daring, didn't fit a "format", and mostly considering the political climate and the attitude towards war at the time, someone threw their weight around, and instead of more episodes of War Stories we got more mind-numbing sitcoms, reality shows, and cheesy thrillers. Heaven forbid we see something controversial that expresses a different point of view, or gets us thinking. Still, I am hoping the producers haven't given up on this one yet...

On the surface, Colonel Serghei Petrovich Kotov seems quite a likable guy: gregarious, kind, dignified, a war hero, an affectionate father, a devoted husband, he loves people, hard work, his family, his country. He believes he is participating to the building of a great new Russia, by actively supporting a new regime: communism. Like many of the original idealists who believed communism was the answer to a society plagued by severe income disparity, a large impoverished population, and a decaying aristocracy, he turned a blind eye when injustice and cruelty became the tools for building the great motherland, and people were abused and killed in the name of The People. In his blind credulity, he thinks he has achieved the position and power he holds through good, honest work, and he actually believes the patriotic slogans and mantras used by Stalin's regime to pummel the population into communist indoctrination. Since his life is good, he has no reason to think the regime is wrong.

Enter Dimitri, a self-loathing informer. His work gets other people killed, or destroys their lives. He does it to avoid death, life in a Siberian gulag, or some other horrible fate. What he does goes against everything he stands for, but, as we learn, he believed that by cooperating he would redeem himself in the eyes of the authorities (as an aristocrat he was automatically considered an enemy, guilty of existing) and would be allowed to go back to his life and the woman he loved. Once he realizes there is no way out, and that his sweetheart (Marusia) abandoned him by marrying Kotov, the man whom he holds responsible for his miserable fate, he loses hope. His psychological death complete, all he has left is to commit his physical one. Yet, there's one more thing keeping Dimitri alive: his quest for revenge. He wanted to show Marusia how wrong she was to give up on him, and to destroy Kotov and force him to face himself and the monstrous world he helped build. Dimitri's position as a highly regarded informer provided him with the chance of giving Kotov (a man who once was friends with Stalin himself and unaware that he was now quickly falling out of grace with the fickle leader) the final blow. Dimitri's quest for revenge allows him no scruples about what his actions would do to others, like little Nadya, or her mother Marusia whom he loved and who was only a victim of Kotov's deceit. In the end, Dimitri's suffering turned him from victim into monster: this time he doesn't do the job only because he has to, but because he wants to do it, and, in the process, he is willing to hurt innocent people.

Besides the artistic excellence of this film, what is amazing is its capability of presenting the multifaceted aspects of human nature, good and bad intertwined with all the gray areas, and how blind faith and deep suffering can destroy someone and ruin a world. Among many other things, this film is a great character study; it depicts two "could have been decent" men who became monsters, one blinded by his beliefs, the other tortured into it. They are both victims of the world they were a part of, both "burnt by the sun of the revolution".

As the conflict between Kotov, Dimitri and Marusia develops, we watch it intertwined with regular life - people working, loving, playing, believing in ethics, morals, truth, the future. I think this is a film that talks about how a totalitarian regime is built not only through lies, terror and coercion, but also by silence, half truths, compromise and complacency. It is a memento for any society, communist or otherwise.

There is a moment in the film, after Kotov is arrested by the NKVD, as a result of Dimitri's informing, when Kotov is convinced that once his detainers realize who he was they would release him with apologies, but he soon discovers how wrong he was. As he endures the humiliation and beating in the car, he slowly understands the reality of the world he helped building. He begins to weep, then sob, and one can almost see what goes through his mind: shock, regret, shame, despair.

My comments only scratch the surface of this piece of great cinema. It would take many pages to do this film justice. The screenplay, the acting, the incredible cinematography, the masterful directing of every frame, all crafted this film into a masterpiece.

I saw this film in 2004, but after re-watching it the other day, I felt compelled to add my two-cents on IMDb, because it saddened me to see how many people bashed this film for not being what they expected from a Bill Murray performance. I blame the trailer for the misinformation - it makes the film seem like some crowd-pleaser comedy.

I say, kudos to Bill Murray for his performance in such a subtle film.

A friend asked me what this movie was about and, as I tried to tell her I realized how dull it might appear. This movie is very contemplative, it relies a lot on the spectator bonding with the characters and on creating a specific mood, things that take time to achieve. It was a good thing I saw it for the first time in the theatre, as opposed to DVD/VHS; some parts might tempt one to hit fast-forward. Don't. They are as essential as any other part in this movie; they create the mood and help the viewer relate to the characters on an emotional level; and all that makes the film so incredibly rewarding in the end. I would say that as the two characters develop their bond, so does the viewer's with them and ultimately with the film; in the end you might find yourself completely enamored with it.

I think this is a movie about many things: interpersonal communication, the feeling of alienation or the need to belong, the relativity of an individual's perceived value according to the circumstances. Had the characters met in LA, maybe none would have paid attention to the other, but their loneliness in Tokio, a culture so different from their own, brought them closer, made them enjoy each other's company as mere human contact, and value each other as people.

In my opinion, "Lost in Translation" analyzes the most precious type of relationship: simple human affection based on honest communication, no other instincts, biases or interests attached. The story is told in the most delicate, subtle way, the precious style of true cinema.

What a shallow copy of the '72 blockbuster... The new "Poseidon" has less meaningful dialogue, poorer character development and definition, less believable stunts than the original (although much more outlandish and numerous), and lottsa formulaic plot themes (presented in elementary school level manner): lonely guy finds love, perfect hero father saves his offspring and the day, disillusioned man ready to give up on life finds new meaning to live, grotesquely bad guy is punished for his lack of character - usually by dying right after he said/did something despicable, so his death would feel gratifying and wouldn't spoil the entertainment. The human aspect of the story is so sketchy and superficially presented that I found it impossible to give a damn about the characters and root for them; that would have made the film a bit more compelling and exciting to watch. We might as well watch a bunch of mice finding their way through a maze (although I think even that might have been more compelling). The only decent (not great) things in this film are the special effects and the attention to technical detail. Also, what's up with the music? I could swear it was a version of the score of "The Day after Tomorrow" - another brilliantly formulaic Hollywood burp. At least that one had a message and some spectacular special effects...