finebeanies

I enjoyed seeing how today"s miners work in the mines, where and how they spend time between their shifts and how they relate to each others. The story is centered around Maxime's relationships. I found myself cheering for him where he attempts to help his handicapped buddy but disappointed where he lashes out with seemingly uncaring acts against others, especially where it is endangering them. His character seemed a bit incongruent but it did not diminish my interest in watching as the story unfolded. Acting is great and the realistic environment drew me in even if the behaviour was sometimes out of character.

This a real story of a strong woman, a skilled bee-keeper, living in a remote location of Macedonia. There is no acting involved in this intimately filmed documentary. It depicts how she understands the balance of nature and how her life is shaped by traditions and respecting that balance. The interactions with her neighbours are so real that you feel like you are intruding. When their greed and disrespect causes irreparable damage to her bees, she responds with dignity and perseverance. Incredible film-making that left me enriched by such powerful message. This is a microcosm of how important it is to protect the balance in nature.

Even if the acting and cinematography deserve some credit, that does not mean that a movie without a story is worth watching. The scenes are disjointed, the characters not likeable, their interactions don't make any sense and I was not sure what is real and what is imagined. I guess that is how the the filmmakers portrayed this descend into madness. I was bored and uninterested to continue watching unlike many other reviewers who rave about the artistic value of this movie. I found it weird and uncomfortable to watch and even painful to listen to. The constant foghorn sound was maddening. The dialog was maddening. I watched hoping for some deep meaning but did not find it. I was thankful when it was over.

This movie really touched me. I was sceptical about a satirical treatment of such a serious topic as Nazism and the treatment of Jews. The story gripped me from the start with the unusual concept of having Hitler as an imaginary friend of a coming-of-age boy. But the moral dilemma he faces is supported with great performances, weight and emotions, funny dialog and decisive moral choices. This is not a light movie but one that reaffirms the power of humanity.

I had high expectations based on the positive reviews but was quite disappointed.

The story had a good potential to explore a relationship between a sophisticated black pianist who employs a white working class driver as they travel through the US south in the sixties. They have seemingly nothing in common, from the way they were brought up, the way they speak and eat, their family backgrounds and financial situations, their way of treating other people. As they spend time together on the road trip, they start to appreciate each other and learn from each other.

What bothered me was that the characters ended up being caricatures instead of being believable. The film tries to depict their differences to the point that it did not make sense. For example, we are supposed to believe that a black musical genius pianist never heard of Aretha Franklin or Little Richard? Or that he never tried fried chicken? I also thought that Viggo Mortensen was slightly over-acting.... The racial problems were not depicted in an authentic way.

The movie just received an Oscar nomination for Best Picture, likely because of the social commentary and not because of great film-making.

I felt empathy and fear with a sense of unavoidable collisions as the film follows the lives of two brothers in the Czech Republic. The adult siblings carry the scars of their upbringing by a mother who gave up on providing any emotional support.

The story unfolds in a mid size Czech town where the brothers are well known in the working class community as they drift aimlessly. The younger brother suffers from a mental illness, moving from one theft to another to feed his drug addiction. His older brother usually bails him out but there is a fine line between unconditional love and loathing. They make instinctive choices and you just have the feeling that they are heading towards trouble. When confronted with a calamity, you don't know if they will affirm the principles of a family sticking together.

The gritty acting is excellent, with a realistic dialog and subtle touches that really convey the atmosphere. It is a comedy, a love story, a social drama that exposes many emotions, moral dilemmas and provokes many questions.

Well worth watching.

If you like to be immersed in what it was like living under the communist regime of Czechoslovakia, then this movie offers an excellent view into a life of one family.

A boy whose father was executed for spying is brought up by his grandfather. He faces ostracism by those around him who are worried about their association with the family. The grandfather never wavers from his moral principles and his values become firmly implanted in the grandson. He also faces adversity with courage of a person who will not bend for the ones in power to get ahead.

There are many comic scenes where the ridiculous contrasts of characters serving the regime are exposed. The movie is well done, great acting and a thoughtful treatment of the atmosphere in the dark days of communism.

Highly recommend.

A historic fiction placed in the 18th century Denmark deals with the power struggles in the royal circle.

It is the time when the church has a firm grip on the society, serving the nobility to maintain the laws of serfdom. But progressive thinkers are starting to publish their enlightened ideas and use science to question the church's doctrine. The king of Denmark is mentally ill and those around him recognize that gaining his trust could lead to advancing their agenda. When a German doctor finds a way to gain king's trust and friendship, he enacts many progressive laws to improve the lives of the people. Progress is short-lived because the opposition, assisted by the church, plots to gain their power back.

A romance between the doctor and the queen starts when they share similar liberal ideas. A conflict between duty, exploitation and pursuit of personal happiness is portrayed in the formal manner of nobility.

Filmed at the Prague Castle and in Denmark, the movie is well acted and the story is compelling. The message of enlightenment and using the voice of science and reason to defeat church's oppressive ideas is still very valid today in the 21st century.

I give it 9 out of 10.

A bleak story that depicts how the repressive regime enforces its will on the Czech people and how the enforcer's psyche becomes empty and destructive.

Pouta (Binding ties) centers around a writer and a team of secret police who follow him. The chief of the secret police team is a righteous man with an empty life who has an unlimited license to inflict damage on the people he follows. He becomes obsessed with the girlfriend of his subject and starts plotting how to achieve his increasingly disturbing goals, without regard for his superiors, colleagues and collaborators.

Unfortunately the script has several holes, the characters are not fully developed and at times the movie drags. The soundtrack and sound editing are downright distracting.

But overall it is a dark view into the world under the communist regime, with its twisted logic and uncontrolled power of those in power. You can spot some dark humour. Surreal with unpredictable results. Nothing happy can come out of these circumstances. It's not a light entertainment, more of a history lesson.

Right from the first scene you feel the tension that develops between a young student entering a top music school in New York and his teacher who stops at nothing to push his students beyond their limits.

Andrew is a talented 19-year old drummer with a drive to be the best in the world. Fletcher is jazz music teacher whose teaching style is geared towards finding the next great jazz performer. He will stop at nothing - his methods use a brutal manipulation, put-downs with the most refined language, emotional and physical abuse and a total disregard for any common decency.

Andrew's ambition takes over his whole life as he drives all of his friends and colleagues away from himself in the blind pursuit of his dream. Only his father remains by his side as his constant support. Fletcher never doubts that he has a right to push his students by any means. His arrogance has no end. Just as you hope that maybe there is a human being behind the cruel persona, he proves you wrong again. To him, the worst two words in English language are "good job" as they are only for those who aspire to mediocrity. He wants his students to aspire to nothing but greatness.

An emotional drama builds up and never lets go. Who will break first? The balance between the teacher and the student shifted several times and stayed unpredictable till the end. The drumming and jazz music was telling the story alongside the excellent performances of Miles Teller and J K Simmons.

Achieving greatness has a cost and this film lets you think about the balance between the two.

I give it 8 out of 10.

This movie is not about physics or mathematics but a love story of a brilliant physicist and his first wife. Adapted from a book written by Dr. Stephen Hawking's wife, it is a heart-wrenching account of their life together.

Eddie Redmayne's portrayal of the advancing disease is simply dazzling. The young actor takes us through the transformation from a quirky student before he had any signs of the illness to a world renowned scientist living in the physical confines of his deteriorating disease. Even though the movie skims over some of the events and motivations of the central characters, it has told the story in a touching way. Stephen Hawking's accomplishments are not as much the focus of the story as is his humour, his stubbornness and his continued exploration of the larger questions, mixing science with philosophy. He is portrayed in a sympathetic light, perhaps at odds with the accounts of others who know him.

Even if the film skews from reality, it is worth seeing. The acting deserves an Oscar for a male actor in a leading role.

I give it 7 out of 10.

Survival of the human spirit over unspeakable hardship and brutality could be very uplifting and inspiring. Unfortunately the viewer is not really given much to understand the thoughts that take Louie through his horrific journey. From his young days when he is heading for a life of crime until his older brother encourages him on the path of an Olympic runner we are not really given any insight into his thinking and motivation. We get glimpses of his determination but it is disconnected from his inner struggles. Patriotism is prominent on both sides but almost as a caricature, it does not feel real.

The movie spends inordinate time depicting the sadistic treatment in the prisoners of war camp and not enough on developing any of the relationships, either between the prisoners or with the guards, no view of how the prisoners help each other to keep their resolve. I found a couple of things quite distracting: throughout his ordeal one thing stays constant - Louie's shiny hair and a stylish haircut. And there are many cheesy moments, like when the whole camp comes to a long standstill watching Louie lift the log or when Louie rises to complete the race around the camp.

A pointless show of cruelty without character development. A story told in a Hollywood fashion, missing the heart and soul and filling it with corny moments.

There is not much talking but this disturbing story based on real events is told in a very compelling way.

The central characters are two brothers who won Olympic gold medals in wrestling and a multi-millionaire heir to the Du Pont empire, portrayed brilliantly by Channing Tatum, Mark Ruffalo and Steve Carell. The younger brother is fully focused on his training for the next Olympics, 1988 Seoul, and is excited to accept an offer of the eccentric philanthropist to train at his state-of-the-art facility. It is an opportunity for him to get out of the shadow of his older brother who was always in charge. The motives of John Du Pont are slowly coming into focus through his increasingly disturbing behaviour conveyed by Steve Carell in a haunting fashion.

This is not an action-packed movie but the storytelling is real, with just a glimpse into the world of wrestlers. Superb acting by Channing Tatum in a very different role than his usual. He does not have much dialog but he makes up for it in a lot of blank stares. And it took me a while to even recognize Steve Carell as he flawlessly portrayed the slimy and cold narcissist. A very comical scene when Du Pont coaches his protégé to pronounce an introduction of his benefactor as "Ornithologist, philatelist, philanthropist".

The tension builds up and soon you come to expect that it would blow up. In the end there is a climax (I will not reveal it in case you don't know the story).

I give it 9 out of 10.

The story had all the elements that could be made into a great movie: an inspiring journey of a woman dealing with a loss, a long walk through the wilderness to seek a fresh start, adventures on the way, encounters with different characters and the beginning of a new chapter in her life. I was interested in seeing how this story translates into a movie.

Unfortunately the movie did not connect with me. The storytelling was done through flashbacks with insufficient background that would explain the motives or develop the characters. As the story unfolds, tidbits of events from the past that drove Cheryl Strayed to embark on this journey stay unexplained, such as her relationships with her brother and with her husband and how she came to the decision to get off heroin and to prepare for this trek. Also her internal struggles are not quite clear. Moments of strength are followed with moments of weakness, such as when she asks a farmer to drive her for a hot meal and a shower. And some moments simply make no sense, such as when she is on a snowy mountain with skiers zipping by her and she is yelling "Where am I?"

Reese Witherspoon's acting was excellent but that could only carry the movie so far when the characters lack substance and the dialog feels contrived. I much preferred the movie "Into the Wild" which was portraying a similar journey.

The landscape of the trek is beautiful and the experience of a solo walk is worth seeing. But don't expect a rich story of self-discovery and redemption.

This film will become a classic for future generations. Many touching moments in this glimpse into what feels like real life.

It spans 12 years in life of a contemporary American family through the ups and downs of bringing up children, broken relationships, struggles about jobs, education, digital world and coming of age. There are many references to culture, music, politics and events that are fresh in our memory so the movie immediately connected with me.

We first meet Mason when he is 6 years old. He literally grows in front of our eyes until the film ends when he is 18. Superb acting from Ellar Coltrane is accompanied by great performances of Patricia Arquette, Ethan Hawke and Lorelei Linklater.

There is really no big plot or climax, just a series of moments throughout the years, that shape Mason's life. He watches his single mother's choices and listens to his father's wisdom while he faces the typical challenges of adolescent life. The dialog with Ethan Hawke is excellent.

I hope that Richard Linklater will do a sequel at a future date, just like the three "Before" movies which I also considered brilliant. The story of Boyhood was well told and deserves a continuation.

A French movie about a friendship that develops between two characters that came from the opposite sides of the society: a middle aged aristocrat Paul confined to a wheelchair after a paragliding accident and a young Senegalese man (Driss) with a criminal past, no job and limited prospects in the projects where he lives.

The rich surroundings of Paul's mansion are a stark contrast to the environment that Driss knows. It is not important to question why Paul took an immediate liking to Driss, perhaps it was the unpretentious humour and his obvious unfamiliarity with the protocols in Paul's world. Against the advice of his caretakers he hires Driss for a trial period. The ensuing "training" provides funny moments and both men benefit in their own ways.

Maybe one could question the risk that Paul takes in trusting such an unknown but he goes on his instincts and lets Driss take him in directions where he would not dare go himself. Both men enjoy the journey and develop along the way. I have some criticism of the unnecessary exaggerations in the script, such as pouring hot water on paraplegic's legs just to emphasize the point or what is the likelihood of a happy end in the final scenes or the interactions with Paul's daughter and her boyfriend but it is not relevant.

The movie portrays tolerance, disability and friendship in a humorous way and with great acting. Worth seeing.

Four adult siblings and their mother gather in a family home to come to grips with the passing of their father. This occasion serves as a backdrop to working out their differences, past relationships, their hopes and aspirations and the next steps they must take on their way to happiness.

The dialog is funny and provides many comical moments when family secrets are revealed and reasons for dysfunction are understood. There is much truth in the realistic portrayal of life's twists and turns. Some of the moments are somewhat exaggerated but the underlying melodrama is bittersweet and reflects each character's unique personality.

Love permeates throughout the movie as each person strives to achieve happiness in a different way. The openness of discussion and lack of diplomacy is comical and leads to ridiculous situations. The script is supported by good acting by the main characters.

A funny and entertaining drama with much wisdom and realism in the relationships of this family.

I did not find this "comedy" to be funny. Awful from the start to the bitter end.

People will go and see it and it is a shame that for such a large audience the film delivers only juvenile humour, bad acting, stupidity at every turn and no intelligent message. Tasteless and violent sequences serve no purpose. The movie will make money and unfortunately more movies like this will be made by Hollywood.

I understand and support why the movie had to be shown but unfortunately it is an opportunity missed to treat the topic with some intelligence.

A dark psycho drama with good acting and some good dialog.

As the story unfolds, the clues point to a well planned and well executed plot. The viewer is led to believe that Ben Affleck is facing an uphill battle when all the prepared pieces fall in place. However, when the plan unravels due to an unexpected incident, a new plan must be hatched and that is where the movie starts unraveling as well.

The cover-up plan and its execution left me almost insulted with many inconsistencies and unrealistic portrayal of characters that just did not fit. The ending left me asking many questions. This may have been the intent but it really did not work for me. The cover-up scheme was so flawed that any detective would have easily noted the clues. And I am not even speaking of the psychology of Ben Affleck's character - his final act goes against everything the movie was building up to.

Too bad, the movie certainly had the potential.

A powerful story about the events surrounding the self-immolation of a Czech student Jan Palach. He protested against the invasion of Czechoslovakia by setting himself on fire and his single act became a timeless rallying symbol against the Soviet invasion and the subsequent oppression by the communist establishment.

The film is exquisite in how it combines historic events, inner struggles of the main characters, courtroom drama, investigative techniques and deep divisions in the society. Realistic acting and the portrayal of Prague and Czech villages, domestic and institutional scenes deserve much of the credit for keeping you interested through the three main stories interwoven with many characters.

Bravery and activism are contrasted with lethargy, deceit and self-preserving acts of betrayal that each citizen faced in their own way. The choices that the characters had to make had implications on their families, colleagues and on their conscience. The young lawyer who makes a decision for a moral stand that will affect the well being of her family. The brave students who look for ways to honour Palach's sacrifice at a great risk to themselves. The policeman who enforces the will of the regime while struggling with his own integrity until he can no longer take it and defects. The journalist, the nurse, the teacher and many others who face such pressure to side with the regime that they choose a betrayal over telling the truth.

All the elements of this movie work well together - the dialog, acting, screen writing and cinematography.

A history lesson well worth the 4+ hours of running time of this 3-part movie.