rbbdagge

There are two stars in this film - Marilia Pera and a totally run-down Third World New York. In the film, Marilia comes from the favela in Rio but I imagine it looks a lot better than this torn-down American city. Much of the acting in the film is abysmal however, given this is Paul Morrissey coming out of his Andy Warhol days, you have to wonder if this is on purchase. Thiago sounds like an untrained and unintelligent brute but plays an eh, untrained and unintelligent brute. Carol gives a totally flat delivery of everything she says, but plays a VERY bored rich upper class girl mingling with low class rough trade for kicks. Her final words after being shot in the head (....) are "I must look a mess" - hard to think that was written with a straight face.

If you take the film as it is - an 80's period piece set in the slums of Alphabet City before it was torn down to make apartments, and starring people with mostly limited acting experience (Ms Pera excepted) - it's an enjoyable late night film that will keep you interested. What would Andy call it? Probably, Trash.

A major component of any film is atmosphere, and this has bucket-loads. Despite the background story, not much actually happens - Charlotte Rampling moves her eyes a bit and. Dirk Bogarde shouts a lot - so what we are left with is a bunch of ex (?) Nazi psychopaths trying to get Dirk Bogarde to attend his cleansing trial, while he rekindles his obsession with as ex-prisoner from the concentration camp he used work at. The star of the film is really a depressingly bleak hotel in a depressingly bleak post-war Vienna (actually shot in the Cinecitta studio, I believe). Pointless to expect a logical story or sensible dialogue, so its best to suspend belief and inhale a bunch of totally insane people in their totally bleak world. And thats not even referring to the concentration camp.

The film has minimal plot as it simply follows a Platoon of soldiers fighting their way through the jungle, alternatively engaging or avoiding the enemy. Yet despite the lack of dramatics (apart from being shot at, of course.....) and story of any great significance, it is entirely engaging and retains the viewer's interest to be finish. As a non-combatant, I am not in a position to say how realistic it might be as compared to actual conflict but it certainly seems to mirror what trekking through the jungle while carrying wounded colleagues and being shot at is like.

The film was shot in Cambodia and gives fascinating glimpses of tribes people living in the country at the time. The endless thick jungle is breathtaking and sadly shows what a mess the government there has make of its natural resources (Cambodia is now one of the most deforested countries in the world due to relentless logging and has little dense jungle remaining). The film is of course set during the French Indochine conflict of the '50s, but could just as readily be viewed as an event occurring in the later Vietnam War of the 60s and 70s - and as such, will be greatly appreciated by fans of Platoon, Hamburger Hill, Apocalypse Now etc.

One word of warning - the end of the film is abrupt. It ends 'just like that' and is over, but this fits in with the pseudo-realistic feel of what has gone beforehand.

This is a potentially interesting film with a solid story that allows the viewer a glimpse of Korean culture - South Korea being a country that not many foreigners are familiar with. However, you have to wonder why the director makes the main character SO unlikable? Facially, she pouts, grimaces and sneers her way through the films as she insults, ridicules and mocks people who are going out of their way to assist her. For example, one evening, she is told by her new Korean friends that a certain action is insulting to Koreans - so she spends the rest of the evening repeating that same action!!! As an adopted child, she has internal issues but this should not mean that she can disregard others, and act both irresponsibly and without accountability.

As it is a reasonably long film that does not always follow a logical path (she does and says many things that seem pointless), viewers need to at least sympathize with the main character in order to retain interest. If they find her selfish and immature, they lose that interest and may well get annoyed by her often stupid behaviour (which presumably is supposed to make her appear 'spontaneous' and 'free-spirited' as compared to the 'culturally repressed' Koreans).

On a positive side, the film is well shot and does allow us to see Korea and Korean culture (even if it is 'oppressive' to someone from the West), while the story of a woman sent abroad for adoption at a young age and now trying to find her natural parents in a country she knows nothing about intrinsically holds the viewer's attention. It's just a pity she is such a mean-spirited and disagreeable person that, in the end, you don't really care what she does or finds.

Woman of Kolor is a victim to White Male Oppressors. Turns into MMA fighter at the end (in an evening gown, no less), beats up and/or sets fire to a few beings and escapes into the distance free from tyranny. The ending scene - her with a baseball bat - is completely ridiculous. I presume is is going to smash the head of the White Male looking for her, not on her way to an evening game of baseball. But who knows? The rest (vampires, bloodlines, marriage) is tedious detail.

Netflix, I presume?

Really, who comes up with these colour and gender assigned plots? The only surprise is that the butler is not an organ-removed man wearing a skirt. Perhaps that is reserved for the sequel.

On the positive side, the settings are sumptuous, the film looks nice and some camera angles are good.

Despite some jarring sentiments ("Why marry, if women just end up changing a man's diapers?"- I know 100's of married women and I don't think any change their husbands' diapers. Of course I could be wrong....), this is an excellent film for the first 95%. However then things fall apart and the plot becomes the tired story we see so often - men are violent psychopaths and women are "victims" (even the "bad" women). But, of course, the victim somehow over comes the oppressor. The only difference here is that the victims are Western and oppressor Asian but, still - the song remains the same. A shame - as up to then, the film was atmospheric and intriguing.

Alicia - I thought you knew better!!!!

O dear - I thought I was going to watch a film about high-stakes poker and instead sat through yet another film about the victimization of Strong Capable women at the hands of rich, foolish but powerful men. Even Sigmund Freud is called a misogynistic oaf. Molly talks like a machine gun and seemingly knows EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING. And every man adores her and wants to date her, despite the fact she is unpleasant and ill-humoured throughout the entire film.

Anyway, the film should have spent more time on poker and less on Molly being victimized (she was, after all, the person who actually initialed these games). A successful film generally requires the viewer to sympathise with some party, but since just about everyone in Molly's Game is unpleasant and/or foolish, that is rather difficult. The one exception is her lawyer who seems a decent chap, and he should certainly be given sympathy because he appears to be doing all his work for free. For this, he gets hours of abuse from Molly. The film is based on Molly's own book, which I suspect is a bit of a white-wash and somewhat overdoes her own saintliness - I doubt that a woman who can mingle with such high-powered people, organize such poker games and earn such sums of money is really so clueless about whom she invites to games and so utterly selfless in her protection of others (especially given she clearly believes that they are all a bunch of rich arrogant scumbags). Mother Theresa of Calcutta move over - Saint Molly of New York is on the way......

This film is about, by and for CT. It's like a more violent Mission Impossible (about, by and for TC) but without the humour, and with a lead character who is far more petulant and far less likeable (but then, I suppose spies are not suppose to be likeable....) . If you like Ms CT you will like this: if you don't, you won't.

I didn't. However I did like Stalker, which gets a brief plug. Should have watched that instead.

I am definitely NOT a fan of horror, but thought this a well-made film and am very surprised at its low rating. Usual story - women stuck unable to move in nightmare hospital with strange goings on, but effectively presented and acted. Some have quibbled about the medical details, but this is a horror film not a documentary. Granted, the ending is brief but the film plays on atmosphere leading up to that moment. Does not have Spider man, Wonder Woman or Iron man, but if these are your requirements for a good film (as implied by the very low ranking), this is probably not for you.

This is an interesting and well made film but does not really catch the complexities of its subject. Lumumba was a great speaker and a firebrand, but he had a contrary and illogical personality that somehow managed to alienate the man from EVERY major player in this complex tale - all the important Congolese politicians, the UN, the Americans and of course the Belgians. All these parties ended up exasperated with the man and finally intensely disliking him, often for wrong reasons (contrary to what the Americans thought, he was not a communist....). So, in this respect, the film eulogizes its subject by presenting his good, but not bad, traits (he hardly endeared himself further to the Americans by requesting the authorities to furnish him with prostitutes while on an official visit to the US.....). Apart from that, the film is reasonably evenly-handed and allocates blame for his death where it should lie. I thought the portrait of Mobutu was effective..

.....is nothing in TH's life her own fault? Her mother is a demon - but as a young girl she says she loves her mother and not her father (who appears to be quite decent). Her husband beat her - but in the film we repeatedly see her knee him in the testicles (ouch...). Her trainer is useless - so TH's best solution is to chuck her skating boot at the woman's head. The judges are all continually biased against her - but she does actually appear in the Olympics. And when, at one stage, she does not perform a triple axle it is only because people set her blade wrongly. The truth, I suspect, lies somewhere in-between.

As a film, it plays between dark comedy and tragedy. But surely TH herself must be responsible for some part of that tragedy? Nope - according to the film she was always a victim, albeit talented and spirited. And, for good measure, Nancy Kerrigan was an ungrateful cow. Oh dear.

I am glad I watched this film alone on DVD because I would have been embarrassed sitting in a cinema with other people. The acting is both artificial and appalling, and the script (?) risible. There simply is no meaning or sense to most (any?) of what is said (or done). Yeah, I get the mental breakdown bit bla bla bla, but even so..... If you love that type of thing, great - go, see it and inject your own meaning to a very blank canvas; if not, stay well away. And no, I am not a fan of Star Wars-type films.

The film jumps between time-lines and characters in a somewhat confusing manner with dead figures re-appearing throughout the film, so trying to give a detailed story-line is somewhat pointless. The dialogue is extreme and sometimes absurd, but that only adds to the atmosphere of a character being eaten by lice and perhaps in a fever. The lice thing is based on fact - Polish resistance fighters were happy to put themselves forward for scientific experimentation with lice (in an effort to eradicate typhoid), as no German soldiers would go near them if their cards said that they were involved in the programme. The lice in any case are a symbol of war - people sucking the blood out of each other etc. A chaotic and incoherent film, but amazing first-time direction from Zuwavski. It is all filmed in hand-held camera (usual stuff now, but extremely unusual back in the early 70's), so there is a lot of movement. The film was made in Krakow and the city looks nothing like is now - an empty desolate filthy city of dilapidated grey building. Very Kafka-esque indeed, with stark bleak colours. I liked the film for atmosphere and cinematics, but many will not if they concentrate on the story and often somewhat obscure dialogue.The film was a big thing when it came out in Poland with huge queues to see it by the public - it has lost its relevance today and looks VERY dated (ie. as does all Polish 1970s cinema), but is still an interesting view.

I think people expect too much of this film, thanks to the slew of Oscars it has won. I see it as a well-made and expertly-shot musical with great songs and many, many references to films of a prior age. Emma Stone is a much better singer than Ryan Gosling and his dancing is somewhat stiff, but they are actors not professional musicians - I wasn't expecting perfection from the man (or a Fred Astaire impersonation). And to his credit, he nails the piano (not so easy - I know from experience). If you want a good and very colourful film with excellent music and reasonable dancing, this is it - if you want an OK film with some REALLY excellent music and dancing, watch Chicago.

Personal choice is sometimes hard to explain, but I have probably watched this film more times over the years than any other (and I've seen a LOT of films). It's certainly not Great Art but it is Great Fun, and it includes some dynamic music from Pepe Kalle and one of the best singers to come out of Congo, if not Africa, Papa Wemba. The story-line is simple - confused identities / poor boy who wants to be rich musician / rich man who wants beautiful girl, who in turn wants the poor man (thinking him to be rich...) etc etc.- but it is told with fluidity and humour, and it offers a great insight to Mobutu's Kinshasa when it was still a functioning and vibrant city. The film is African to the core (despite being co-directed by a Belgian), but its story and humour are universal. Years after initially seeing La Vie Est Belle, I went to live in Kinshasa and one of the first things I did was to seek out the identifiable landmarks shown therein (OK - so there isn't much to do in Kinshasa....). Pride was place was my actually eating in the (now almost derelict) restaurant where Papa Wemba takes Kabibi for a meal - called Lola La Crevette in the Kinshasa suburb of MaCompagne (also now largely derelict). Is the film really worth the 9 out of 10 I have awarded it??? Given the number of times I have watched it with immense pleasure I would say yes, but I imagine 99% of mankind might say no.....

This is a film with great visuals, some surprisingly humorous dialogue (given the circumstances) and some even more surprisingly unusual music (you will need to see it to understand...). Matt Damon is perfect for his role and yes, it does seem odd to have a man of Nigerian background play an Indian (no matter how mixed his parents are) - but then, didn't Mickey Rooney once play an Japanese man and Marlon Brando a Mexican? Admittedly it's only a film, but plausibility is stretched to the limit plot-wise and the total package would be so much better if, at the end, he simply floated off into space.... But unfortunately such endings are not generally permitted in Hollywood these days - its a pity Mr Scott had not watched the ending of, say, Dennis Hopper's Out of the Blue (with Linda Manz) before making this film, in order to gauge the power of a negative close to a film.

The failings of the film have been noted elsewhere - flat photography, poor lighting, some wooden acting (mainly Iman, but its her first role I believe and her poor acting skills did not bother me) and a general lack of raw emotion or activity. However if you are in the mood for a slow-paced spy talkie (with appalling 70's decor and some amazingly bad wallpaper), this is one for you. As usual, Robert Morley runs away with the film in its most colourful role - no matter how much you admire Nicol Willianson as the lead actor, the whole point of his character is that he appears restrained, bloodless and essentially dull. As with any GG novel, the morality is ambiguous with audience sympathies not lying where one would usually expect. And best of all, there is no happy ending. Much like with On the Waterfront for Elia Kazan, this film is probably an attempt to explain how sometimes people (with particular reference here presumably to Kim Philby, who was GG's friend and pro-Soviet double agent) undertake activities that others find difficult to understand.