lilievitra

To start this, i cant believe this film thinks it is okay "for an eight year old girl to be sent with a perfect stranger in the middle of nowhere? And to think this would be a good subject as a xmas movie?

Not only does her father agree to abandon his child to a perfect stranger (to the child), but her mother too! And both think nothing of it!

And the poor girl has to travel at night in the snow with this man?

What a terrifying idea for any kids to see and watch this!

And once she arrives there, the next morning, the grandfather has to go and leave his granddaughter alone in the wilderness in a place she doesnt even know?

And this is still meant to be a happy cheerful movie??

And oh yeah this man has to help his drunk friend in the city? And within seconds, another man comes and is just as grumpy as the first man she met.

And this is meant to be all good messages?

No near enough parents or grandparents would ever behave this way.

And i dont find this movie of appropriate message to children nor for xmas.

I re-visited watching Superman as a grown up and what a surprise and delight it was to watch it again!! What touched me the most in Superman/Clark Kent this time around was his Gentleness, his Great Respect for mankind, his Softness, his Great Attention for others, his Great Patience, his Vulnerability!! Where do you see in films nowadays men and superheros even more with that level of true consideration for others without looking "unmanly"- "Soapy" or a "Looser"??? I think Christopher Reeves managed exactly that. That ability to bring strenght, gentleness and forgiveness in others. It is like Christopher Reeves finds a way to infuse that ability that Superman has to "forgive" mankind all the time for being imperfect. He plays this underlining act with Lois Lane that says:"i will make you believe i am a fool to you and the rest of the world. And boy aren't i having fun making you believe i am goofy and foolish." Like it is almost a relief for him to be that goofy at times. I hadn't noticed that as a kid. Despite looking "perfect" as a goody two shoes, in his eyes and his manner I now see that Christopher Reeves has infused the persona of Superman with intelligence, great humility and adoration for any kind of life. If you hear him in interviews, you can hear the type of real person he was. A very humble person. i can now tell that Christopher Reeves took to heart to bring this character to a place where very little superheroe goes...which is showing a sort of unconditional love to others. I must say that Lois Lane is quite annoying as a character. Not very professional or kind, very cold hearted. It makes the film less appealing. Margot Kidder acting doesn't come across as she really wants to be in the set. I didn't feel she was very invested in the role. Yes, the plot is a little all over the place. But I must say that i was amazed by the Krypton scenes at the beginning. All krypton settings have been beautifully done. Very imaginatively done and impressive for 1978. And of course the sountrack! Genius when you think about it! how mythical now!

I found this movie very deep and also a bit disturbing because Josiane Balasko plays such a hard cold mother to her 2 daughters. It is not always something we see on TV. I found it is therefore Controverting and courageous of the director of Alexandra Leclère to choose to make a film about such topic. Society still expects all women to be good mothers. But this movie shows that it isn't an intuitive quality. The director could have gone deeper in the why Josiane Balasko is as she is. But without the why, we still can see what consequences the lack of love can have on people.

spoil alerts: I guess i must be the only one who saw this movie beyond the immigrate and social class issues that the film talks about. I am talking about the many psychological points that i thought the director covered here.

It felt to me that the director's intent was to to show how the children have tried to impress their dad all their lives so much that they are unable to know who they are and when a stranger comes to take that love from their dad, they feel cheated. It is very cleverly explaining that one must never try to be someone else for the sake of someone else's love. Or you will lose your own self.

As for the dad, he is perceived as someone selfless. Because he has been an activist all his life. But he has been a selfish parent all his life. And the director here i think wants to question the notion of selfishness and selflessness.

In psychology, we now start to realize that people who have been social activists for example but have often left their children on their own, were not really aware that they were subconsciously not willing to commit to a family of their own ( often due to their own unresolved childhood issues) and they tried to escape it by throwing themselves in their careers.

Finally i think it questioned the motive of the dad that throws himself in a relation with a person that has 3 times his age. A man who has it all intellectually but seemingly feels very poor in terms of love. The love that his children has for him, does not seem to be of value to him.

He only cares for this young person's love. And it asks the question has this man loved with his heart and flesh at all? or was it enough? The fact that he can't stop himself from throwing all he has for this young woman shows how desperate he is to be loved for being just a simple man with manhood needs.

It also explores the sexual needs of a man at a certain age and how it is viewed by his own children. I thought it has an excellent movie that had many depths and is extremely well thought out and put together, touching many sensitive subjects without judging them.

If i could give this a Zero, i would but i can't. I am so very appalled with the message behind this story. There will be spoilers here. So this is the story of a guy who says he is in love with his girlfriend. He so decides that he wants to marry her. Yet it is implied in the movie through his best friend's speech, that parts of him is interested by just more than his love for her. His new to be wife has grand parents who owns a very successful family restaurant. And by marrying her, he sees this as an opportunity to franchise the restaurant. At this point, the viewer has the feeling that the wife is going to be used. But it is mislead. Apparently his conversion to her religion is supposedly enough to make us believe that he loves her. Even though the director shows in a very light manner his conversion to Jewish as it was a bit of a joke to the hero. He can't even seem to remember the name of Jew documents. Nevertheless he signs a pre-nuptial agreement. without reading the content. Then the plot moves towards his ambition for his career. He has the plan to franchise the family restaurant but he needs to convince a potential buyer to invest in the franchise. Unfortunately this rich buyer is going on a golf holiday for 10 days so she can't sign the deal until she returns. The main character sees this as a challenge. He is certain that this buyer is giving him an implicit go. He just needs to join her in this golf holiday. So his 2 associates hesitate because he is so flicky but then finally agrees to let him go alone. Apparently his partners do not have much too lose. The dialogue is not very convincing at all around this point. As surprising as this sounds, his wife even agrees with it and gives her credit card. So out he goes to spend his wife's money to convince this buyer. This buyer happens to be very pretty. And his ex girlfriend. She still likes him, he still likes her. How very convenient. So he gets to have a luxurious time out and on top of it, sex with her on his wife's credit card. What starts to bother me is that this movie is sending the message that this is okay for a man to act like a kid on his wife money and partners trust. While his associates get none of this special holiday treatment. Then our "hero" realises he doesn't love his wife. So just like that, He decides to write her an email. Saying how sorry he is. And again, just like that, he wants a divorce. But his wife doesn't want a divorce. So he cries on the shoulder of his new girlfriend. Finally the cherry on the cake that really got my goat: The only way he can get the divorce in the pre nuptial agreement is by re-inviting all the people who were present at the wedding and explains why he wants a divorce. His new girlfriend is in the audience waiting for him to "be finally free". Through all this transition of getting all the invite, we see that she is there writing the invitation with her and on the very day that he is supposed to get his divorce, right in front of all the invites, without any respect for her, we got to hear that he has changed his "mind" yet again, like a kid and that he actually still loves his wife! And just like that, his new girlfriend is sent back to "being thrown away like an old tissue". In front of all the invitees, he re-affirms his vows to re-marry his wife. A whisper "i am sorry" across the room to his new girlfriend is all the poor woman gets. But She absolutely understands this and smiles her approval to his choice!! So again this man gets to get away with this "last minute change of heart". His new wife says yes. His old girlfriend sends him a kiss and this is meant to be a realistic story? The message this is sending is that clearly no matter how wrong a man does, he will get to have a wife or a girlfriend to support and trust him. and he never gets to feel the consequences of his actions. I find this ethically wrong on so many levels i can't hardly believe nothing has been mentioned as a thread. What a waste of my time that was!

I start watching the movie half way through, well at the passage where he speaks in front of the the Assembly and the speech written was very powerful. it reminded a lot about " Mr Smith goes to Washington" and how much Politician should be. full of ideals, beliefs and passion for humanity.

There are a few lines at the end that are quite good too. It is at the point when B Blier visits J Gabin at his place, a few years after his demission. He has some doubts about his capacity to run the government and is asking for J Gabin's opinion. He is even asking for his discreet help when he will run the government and you think Gabin is going to accept, feeling flattered ( he does feel flattered ) and jump on the occasion to say yes but he doesn't. And he has this great other speech about how should be the man who leads a nation, pretty good lines too.

I found myself thinking about this movie during my holiday a week after seeing it, meaning to remember something about it, but what was it about? Oh yes I know now...I found it quite revealing to understand how they did movies during world war 2. There are bits when they are making the films which I loved for the ironical aspect of it...Here is one of screenwriter who is wrting about a scene in a kitchen restaurant and all the plates are empty because there was no food at that time, so they have plastic food in the plates....or they have come up with ingenious way of pretending stuff....An actress is staying on the spot light because it is so warm there but really, this is not an heating machine...or they have to make the movies with bits/ends of cut films...and they can't afford actors to say their dialogs wrong twice...that must have put a great deal of pressure on the actors....

Also, what I found it interesting is learning about ordinary people living in extra-ordinary situations.

we all have very dull/rational/normal behaviours in our more or less secured life but what will become of us if we were becoming life threatened ? would we become heroes or cowards ? I found interesting how the two talented artists react differently to the war situation...I love this scene about Auranche stealing some document and somehow ending up arriving in England without wanted it....I can't believe it happened for real...I also found quite unbelievable he managed to cycle back the whole journey to his house while being sick ....( with pmeumonia, if I remember correctly)...or that one day, he went to get something to the Pharmacy and to see someone ( i can't quite remember ) and never come back to the Company he is working for....this is unreal....

I have just started watching this series for the last 4 or 5 weeks. I am not into following those Law series like "Law and order " or "Legal Boston" but I must say, I was hooked very quickly. The dialogs are cleverly written, the actors are playing very well, the story line is interesting every time. I like the fact that the characters have flaws and weaknesses and within a small company and nine main characters, there are turns and twists which makes the story within the company very appealing. You will grow attached to all of them. I must congratulate the screenwriter/producer/director on the quality of their work. Otherwise, I must admit the character of Laurent Zelder ( Frederic Gorny ) is difficult to make out. I mean definitely interesting. He is quite dark and secretive but you just don't know what's happening in his head. It is probably on purpose but Frederic plays this quite well.

I don't know why, I didn't except it to be so absurd. Somehow, I thought it will be a feel good movie, a romantic comedy, but with style and wit. Nothing ! Julie's character is pathetically down to earth and boring. Strangely enough, I don't know if it is because she is only offered that type of role and if she is willing to do those roles, but Julie Depardieu seems to be playing a lot of those dumb blonde characters, which is a bit boring after a while, like in " you and me ". To go back to the movie, even though the character of Pierre Francois is " nice enough", at least, his character deserves credit for thinking " outside the box " and be original. But the whole story line is just silly and full of clichés...really disappointing.

I found this 1963 comedy very refreshing ... It hasn't dated too much I think.... Usually comedy around those years are a bit too silly... Situations are exaggerated.... Characters are over the top or fall into caricature.... In this film, the characters do fall into unusual situations but it is funny ... Situation is still quite realistic and the character of Jane Fonda is interesting..... The production made her smart and questioning the world around her. I like the relationship between sister and brother...it is not always developed in films....the character of the boyfriend is a bit too much.....one day, he doesn't want her any more and the next, he cannot live without her.

not only the way this film has been realized is messy ...the battle scene in the lava has taken 70 000 hours, more than 700 people, for 1 minute length and for what ? a great amount of money has been spent or should have said, spoiled and it is not something that has a great impact on the viewers at the end....not to mention...the fact that Anakin suddenly get evil from one minute to the other...this is not credible in the least... How can he says and believes that a true Jedi should be selfless and care for others for more than half of the movie and want to spare the life of Windu ( Samuel Jackson ) and then Palpatin is taking this chance to kill him and ANAKIN, IS not being in the least surprised, shocked or feeling guilty from this treachery attitude ? Truly disappointed !

I think people and even critics are not doing justice to Saints and Soldiers, this film was truly impressive when you know the budget they were working with ... Of course, you can expect a lot from Batman Begins or Kingdom of Heaven when you have respectively 150 million dollar and 135 million dollar to spend...

People should be reminded that this film has been done with 780 000 dollars budget and the result is amazing.....no fuss with famous actors...the storyline is interesting, the actors are playing well, the filming is original and poetic at times, I am not a war film fan but you owe to care about every single character because they are so truly and humanly well portrayed. There is no good guys and no bad guys, there are just human being who are suffering equally, plus this is a true story....