A good eight episodes miniseries on a book by Stephen King. That's tells about everything on this show. In someway, ot is a contrafactual story based on the usual "what happened if...?" plot. The only thing on this, it's that is not a contrafactual story, but a time travel one. And as usual on this kind of stories, the plot holes are biggest than the "rabbit hole" at the beginning of the first episode.
I asked my self how people does't see it. I see the minute appear on second episode. I don't know if that hole receive better treatment on the book, but in here is an insult to the intelligence: HOW, IN WHAT MOMENT BILL TURCOTTE, IN SECOND EPISODE, GET ALL THE FILES AND THE BOOK OF SPORT RESULTS FROM JAKE EPPING, AND HOW IN THE HELL HE KNOWS THAT JAKE WILL STOP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT, IN THE MIDDEL OF THE ROAD, TO CLEAN THE BLOOD OUT OF HIS HANDS?
Think about it, he finds Jake outside Frank Dunning's house, prior Jake kill Frank. Once Jake has kill Frank, Jake see Bill at the star of the stairs that leads to the second floor. He leaves the house, bathed on blood, and goes to Enda Price's house. Here is the other plot hole. She finds him when he is about to take his car to leave the town. He never get close to the porch, he just take his car and leave the house. How Edna's know that Jake was about to came into her house? This maybe it's not a big one, but it's consequences feels right after. Jake leaves Edná's house, and he stops after that in order to clean his hands from the blood. And there you go!!!!! Bill appears with all the files that Al Templeton gives to Jake. I mean, JAKE LEAVES EDNA'S HOUSE WITH OUT CARRYING AL'S FILES? WHERE WERE THOSE FILES THAT BILL CAN EASILY TAKE THEM? IN EDNA'S HOUSE, IN THE CAR, JUST IN THE BACK SEAT AS IF THEY WEREN'T IMPORTANT? And suddenly Bill becomes Jake's sidekick!!!!! You need to write a better background story to make believable all this, because all this sounds like one of the biggest Deus ex machina ever written.
Since I saw Stana Katich on Castle (2009-2016), I remember think that she was a little under the top, but this is understandable because the star of the series was Nathan Fillion. At that time I think that she deserve a better character and a better plot. And then it appears Absentia (2017-2020), a very solid three season series on wich she shows all her skills as actress.
Basically is a little-over-the-top action-thriller series in wich Emily Byrne (Stana Katich), an FBI special agent suddenly re-appear after being kidnapped and declared dead in absentia; this triggers an elusive manhunt about who commited the kidnap that involves Boston PD detectives and FBI special agents alike in the search.
The themes of the series change in the first season from to solve the kidnap to a more spy genre in the second and a global conspiracy on Syrian refugees, human traffic, medical experiments, and economical lust, to the third. It's a good thematic arch wich leads the series from the US to Austria and Bulgary, and by the thir season, almost all the crew of the show is Syrian, or Arab, wich is a good thing considering the theme of the third season.
Her kidnapp affect her former family, whose husband, Nick Durand (Patrick Heusinger), married with dr. Alice Durand (Cara Theobold), is also an FBI special agent too, and involves another SA, Cal Isaac (Matthew Le Nevez) and SA Crown (Christopher Colquhoun).
Most of the series is a thriller with decent good fight action scenes, but maybe they abuse a little about twists and more twists in the plot, wich make from time to time hard to follow.
The cast is solid (even when I only know Katich) and they played their roles with efficacy and a very good performance, and for one time is good to see credible FBI agents on screen that are not telling ridiculous jokes or remarks, or making ridiculous smiling everytime, as if the feel like a Bruce Willis of petatiux.
One thing I love is that the series is not an eternal season after season. It has an end in the third season, a good end (although I think is a little rushed and shows some holes in the plot), and as an spectator you care about the characters. It has a lot of good suspense and action is not overused, as other series. But the most important thing is about the role of Stana Katich.
She delivers a solid performance, good at action scenes, better in the thriller scenes. Her character is a strong female leading character away form the pamphletarism of the contemporary feminism. Her agenda is personal, not a gender one, and that makes her character believable and lovable at once. She has a genuine feeling of revenge but also of justice, and even when she sometimes is over the top in some action scenes, is not driven too far in that sense. Her character is not flawless, and she doesn't blame men or male characters for what she has been pass through. She evolves, as character, from a defeated agent to a one who overcome her problems and emerge renewed and stronger. This means she travel the classic way of inner revelation that changes a character from weaknes to inner strong, even whe Katich character is not exactly a weak one from the beginning.
Most of the European values are the solid script, and not the action, wich makes the series maybe a little slow for American standards, and for that, is not for those who want to see actio, and destruction and killings and explosions by the minute as American films and series has (mis)educated most of today audiences. This is not a F&F spinoff.
A masterpiece that barely arises on the deeps of an illness mind
The father is a masterpiece. Period. If black comunity is angry because the Academy doesn't give the Oscar to Chadwick Boseman is because Antonhy Hopkins' performance on this film is just superb. Sorry. Boseman doesn't deserve an Oscar for a just right performance. If you can't deal with that, sorry. In a scale of 1 to 10, Boseman has a 6 or 6.5. Hopkins is beyond 10. This is the lifetime performance on which every actor would like to arrive in his silver years.
The film is about an old man who starts to lose control of his mind, and what mr. Hopkins delivers is just impressive. Not only the world of confussion, regression, and halucinations, but the very frailty of human condition are portrayed with supreme craftmanship, but with a big understanding of what all these means in the eyes of the surrounding familiars and the spectator. The most oustanding feature on Hopkins displayed is the absolute dignity and humanity of his character. The most impressive thing about the film is the slow crescendo on which Anthony (Anthony Hopkins) is involved, which ends with that astonishing monologue on which he claims for her mother. I can say that that is one of the most incredible scenes I have ever seen in my entire life. I almost burst in tears when look the absolute loniless and frailty of his character. I came back to this at the end of mi review.
Is an impreessive accomplishment from one of the most relevant actors of the last half century. Doesn't deserve that performance the highest acknowledge from the Academy? That's what what's happened in the 2021 Academy ceremony. Few awards reward such oustanding performance, and that's hasn't to be with racial issues but with a supreme actoral craftmanship.
Nevertheless, I have to say that The Father barely rose the real ordeal on which patient and family members have to get through on this illness. BTW, senil dementia is not anymore an accepted term in psychiatry, because normalize something that is not normal. Instead, modern psychatry suggest Brain damage with 3 levels: minimun, medium and great or severe brain damage, since not all the ancients suffer from this. Other thing on which the film fails is in the treatment to release the patient from this condition on hallucinations, confusion and mental regressions. That's not cure or relief with pills but with haloperidol, wich stabilizes the brain and help the patient to avoid suffer from this symptoms. It's so obvious that the film doesn't want to deeper on this condition, instead it suggest the part on wich all involved in this condition suffers. In that, Anthony Hopkin's performance is absolute devastating. The film accomplish in show us how frailty is our humanity and the suffering both the patient and the family, portraying both with such respect and human dignity that very few films attempt.
By personal experience, my mother recently has that kind of episodes, everyone is a truly nightmare with a length from ten to 16 hours on wich my mother and us, her family, were driven, I can say that the film doesn't explore that nightmerish experience. The final scene on which Hopkins cry for her mommy is an exactly portrarit of the ordeal on which my mother was driven by this illness, and is absolutely devastanting, one of the most impressive and painfully scenes I have ever watched.
Never an actor has deserved more an award that the 2021 Oscar for mr. Anthony Hopkins. There is no point of comparison between his performance and that of the late mr. Chadwick Boseman. Just can't be compared. It's not a racial issue, but an artistic all in all, and in that field, mr. Hopkings delivers his most impressive performance. A masterclass in acting. Best male (or female) acting of the XXI century by far. Period.
Someone says that if you reunite some old actors to make a comedy you will find with a piece of crap, a bad movie with tons of bad jokes, bad lines and lousy performances. This is not the case. If you avoid fart and sexual jokes, that's a point to count it, since almost every Hollywood comedy from the last decade just repeat that formula. This days it's hard to find in a comedy a masterpiece, and this is not one of that category, but is a pretty decent one, and is genuine funny and worth to watch.
Robert De Niro make a good old failure Hollywood B class movie producer in search of a last great movie, as those criminals the look for a great last job, and that comparison is good enough to make you laugh. His character is ridiculous enough, without exagerate the tone. Morgan Freeman make a great mafioso type of bad guy, even when his character is secondary. Tommy Lee Jones is great as an almost retired old western actor. Zach Braff is just hilarious as De Niro's character nephew's.
All in all, is not a bad movie. Is a good and decent comedy that just make you laugh and forget your problems for a while, make you have a good time. And that is more than many other comedies can do this days. It's a comedy, for Christ sake!
This is not a film for people immerse on today's pop culture
This is a beautiful film about music, classical music, in a world on wich pop culture reigns like there will be no tomorrow. Of course, Nieztsche is present since the beginning, without being a philosophical film. German culture is all about, specially German composers, like says Henry Cole (Patrick Stewart) on some point of the film.
What is amazing is the way music is interconnected with the story, how is not only an ambiental music, but a kind of companion and most of the time it gives a clarity to the scenes. Is like a movie inside the movie, but full of sound, full of stories, full of meaning.
This is a film that only could be the way it is: slowly, meditative, almost poetic, against the hurries and rushes from today cultural mainstream. A very beautiful and meaningful film that deserves a better qualification on IMDB, but I guess many of the reviewers doesn't understand the nuances and little twists here and there, and less about classical music, so at least they loss a half of the meaning of the movie when the doesn't get that message. I'm pretty sure that many reviewers doesn't know anything about classical music, so probably they only identifies the first piece of music when are transcurred 24 minutes, and many other pieces were played and telling things they don't understand.
So, this is not a film for people immerse on today's pop culture.
I have great excpetctations when I saw the names of Burt Reynolds and Clint Eastwood, and that this is a kind of historic period movie when prohibition was working all over the US. It has a comedy tone that not always wok as used to be. Reynolds fit perfectly the character he embodies, but Eastwood character is not so good. Comedy is not his thing, so most of the jokes or punch lines vanishes as soon he says them.
The historic background is not bad, but the screenplay and the mise en scene faisl to deliver all the posibilities that this story could give to the audience. Most of the shots reveal lack of imagination and of budget. The story is very shallow, and has so poor develope that it seems made by amateurs. Everything is so ridiculous, that almost get the big prize, but they missed it.
This is like that serial from History chanel on what a bunch a morons believe that Hitler survive and went to Argentina to live undercover. The same idiotic plot, but with Sasquatch. Avoid at any cost like covid.
A biopic about a great writer, and a complicated man (Moralists, go away!)
If you are going to judge any writer or artist since a moral standard, a contemporary politically correct moral standard, you can rid off almost all the great art of the past because if you are looking for saints, people who love cats and feed birds, that people could be your type of friendly person of today, but they never will produce a piece of art, you are looking on the wrong part of humanity.
What make great Hemingway is not he was a admirer of bull fights, like millions of others. Was not he hunt animals like millions of others. Was not he use rifles and guns, like millions of others. Was not he get drunk every single day of his life like millions of others. He could be one piece of crap like million of others. But he created some of the most fascinating and important books from the last century, on any language. He could be like your sorry and politically correct and double standard ass of today, but he wasn't. He could have a farm with beautiful little animals. Nobody cares for someone like that, unless he finally write something absolutely marvelous, like all the great books he wrote. If you like animal care, you can retire to a farm and watch over piggies, cows, bulls, chickens and worms, and wait for someone film a biopic about you.
But Hemingway wrote some of the most important and memorable books of the past century on any language. Some of those books are brutal, because he live a brutal life, someone who ends by took his own life the way he lives. Millions of people has done that, too. But if you write The Oldman and the Fish, A farewell to arms, From whom the belss tolls, Death in the afternoon, Green Hills of Africa, The Snows of Kilimanjaro, and win the Nobel Prize, man that's a life worth to live and worth to be told and retold.
I'm not American, but Mexican, but Hemingway is one of the most important writers not only from the US, but from the entire world. If that doesn't ring a bell, Moralists, you can go away to Gilligan's island. This is a biopic of an absolute admirable man, who could be like millions of others, like I just have said. Instead, he left a literary corpus that still is one of the American true treasures of their literary history, someone that can make you feel proud to be part of his nation, proud as human being, and also proud of reading him and find someone extraordinary, and not a poor drunk failure who liked to kiss cows and chickens in a remote farm.
If you like that, be my guest. But before that, please, read his books and if you doesn't end admiring his intelectual stature and his brilliance as a writer, then you don't know to read, and you deserve to live in the Fantasy island. This biopic is a masterpiece, well worth for the men who inspired it.
Very few times we see a "documentary" that is blalantly based on lies and economical propaganda as this. By no means this can be called a revolution, unless you corrupt the original meaning of the word and change for a piece of crap like this "crypto-currency", which is an economical derivate, something that doesn't have any real economical base. It is not strange that this economical fenomenon starts in Africa, were Neoliberalism first apply its nociviness into all African countries, devastating almost all the countries in were it was apply. And to that you call it "revolution"? I call it scam, because that it is. When the snowball will fall, and I can sure you it's going to be big time when that happen, I hope people remember this piece of economical propaganda and acknowledge they were the first on clapping this crime. If you like to hear lies one after another and feel good about it, this is the kind of crap you need.
Of course, yuo have to be a complete cynical to name this a "Bitcoin revolution". There is no such thing as "Bitcoin revolution", and you can see how Africa is sinking in poverty for Western greedy because they can believe anything Western sell. The "Enron revolution" doesn't ring any bell? When all collyde, you will finnally wil listen the names of all crooks and criminal who sold the idea of the Bitcoin as something susteinable.
I rate this crap 1 since I cannot give it negative numbers, but this is an actual crime enveloped as a long advertising of the benefits of something that is clearly a fraud.
The Catalina Five-0 series is a silly porn story based and copied up on the original 1968-1980 Hawaii Five-0 detective series, with some shoots made only to locate de starlets on the island, and some short shoots on some Hawaiian beach, since all the actions happen on some studio pretending to be the headquarters of the PI, embodied by the gorgeous Raven (Vicky Vickers) and Zara Whites, who barely follow criminal cases wich lead to nothing really important, and all is a pretext to have some g/g or b/g intercourse scenes one after another.
The plot is almost inexistent, but the sex scenes are amongst the best sex scenes of that era. One curious thing is that Raven was the star on the Taboo American Style series from 1985, wich was an impressive success, and she star this new series, surrounded by very beautiful starlets such the always neglected Mexican Viviana, who made very few films but let an unforgateble warm image ofher porn persona.
So, the detectives of this series, wich appears with no name at all, Raven and Zara Whites, are lead to a series of meetings and allegedly research in order to "solve" crimes, misteries and so on. But once the sex action begin, nobody cares about the crime or mistery, just to have sex with the next girl or boy on the list.
And so there is barely plot on every film, also barely are related between them, just for Raven and Zara Whites' constant presence on all the five installment of the series. This is not, by any means necesary, a series that deserves a Bafta or a similar award. But is a good golden rate of the golden era of porn, before even porn become an industrialized product without identity.
This is not a mastrerpiece, but is a challenge for everyone
I guess people expected the usual biopic of a criminal gangster, as Hollywood has portrayed them always: powerful, elegant, merciless, almost if they were role models for people. Since gunslighters of the good old Wild West, American people love criminals, and for that is not surprise that in the land of the excess, Serial Killers and other dispicable people are almost heroes. So when someone presents not a romantic and glamorous perspective on some criminal, they don't like and speak about waste of time and similr terms on this product.
I think that is against this film. This is a film that dares you to look what happen on a criminal mind after imprisonment and years of mental illness. In the end, that is what is about this movie: what happen after years and years of drugs and alcohol abuse in the mind of a criminal. It cannot be romantizised, it cannot be glamorous or full of luxury. It's the sad end years of a despicable man, a criminal that not deserves to be portrayed in such a usual and customized way.
In that sense, this film doesn't have precedents and is understanding that people turn their back on it. Its not the kind of romantic portrate of a gangster. But I think deserve more intelligence and critical appraisal than has received. It is more simple to reject something we don't understand, than use the brain and understand the subject and the way is approaching. Bad guys end bad, and this film shows it brutally. Tom Hardy delivers an impresisve performance of a man who see how he has lost literally his mojo, and his mind wander as if wasn't in control. I guess they want to him in Armani suits like Robert De Niro in Untouchables. Well, this is not the case.
This is not a mastrerpiece, but is a challenge for everyone.
I guess we can say that since mr. Eastwood develope thta that we can name as his Late Style his cinematography went to a lousy state of affairs. He hasn't make a decent film since his lousy "J. Edgar" (2011), but sice his "Invictus" (2009) you can perceive that something went wrong with him. J. Edgar is a film made about disguise all the abuses and crimes commited by mr. J. Edgar Hoover. A poor film about a poor and despicable man, that doesn't deserve other thing than perpetual oblivion.
How can it be "Richard Jewell" a good film if its build upon the same basis that "J. Edgar"? Mr. Eastwood build a film about lie after lie, presenting a b&w perspective, like a fairy tale, from a very complicate theme about a very complicated research on a such issue as homeland terrorism and present all the characters as perfectly good or perfectly bad?
Faced with the very facts of the terrorist attack on the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, Eastwood's film presents us with a fantastic world, divided into the individual voluntarism that pretends to want everything, and the legal, factual, complex world where the events occur. The complexity of the real world disappears not only from the characters but from the story. Eastwood takes the liberty of lying, literally, by introducing agent Tom Shaw (John Hamm) as a ruthless FBI agent hell-bent on locking up Richard Jewell and who until the end still considers him a suspect, which is true, but not It was not for Agent Shaw, but for the director of the FBI, who never wanted to clear Jewell's name or exonerate him post-mortem. Eastwood also lies and deforms the character of reporter Kathy Scruggs (Olivia Wilde) by hiding her dependence on drugs and presenting her at the Jewell press conference at the Marriott Hotel almost on the verge of tears, as if she repented and gave herself up. He realizes that he was wrong in his case, as Eastwood actually claims. And that is false, both the reporter Scruggs and the newspaper she worked for never retracted their false reports. Not only that, Scruggs dies of a heroin overdose in the days leading up to the trial of the terrorist behind the Olympics bombing.
What we can call Mr. Eastwood's Late Style is riddled with a very simple and fanciful morality, unrelated to reality, which has permeated his last nine films. That moral perspective of Mr. Eastwood was not remotely in his films of the previous decade, where he gave us at least three masterpieces. This late stage of his development as a film director has given us discursive and argumentative films, instead of presenting us with solidly constructed characters, which date back to their own nature and the complex reality of the world in which they move.
It is a sad swan song for a once great, great director. What a pity.
I have to say that this is not a horror movie as Hollywood understands. There is no monsters, or CGI all over the place, there is no scaries or shadows moving here and there, just a brutal story about faith and the supranatural. It is not a religious movie also. It is one of the most amazing debuts you can imagine in an actor as Bill Paxton, a remarkable actor and a very fine director. Matty O'Leary makes an impressive chartactrization of the young Felton Meiks, a superb performance of a teenager as you very rare see in a movie. I did not tell the plot, because is just mindblowing, with a very dark tone on the humane nature. If you want to see a horror movie that scares you, this is not your kind of film, but definetively scares the hell out of you like very few films today. This is a masterpiece of a thriller with a remrkable performances by Bill Paxton, Matthew McConnaughy and Powers Boothe. Impressive and breathtaking film! Hollywood does not made this films very often, and this Paxton debut shows some mastery that is difficult to find in big budget films.
For Christ sake, someone give a regular job to Nicolas Cage
I think that the only one explanation or reason for Nicolas Cage throwing down the toilet his acting career the last 20 or 30 years is that her ex-wife estipulated that in the plee-bargain with the judge, and punished him to a 30 years of crappy movies, instead of 30 years in prison. Wow, that's sound's like a Nicolas Cage movie. Do I need to say more? Please, some give him a regular job and free out of his misery. If is not for him do it for his childrens and free them out of the bullying!
Why Hollywood has not made an American remake of this mess?
There is only one reason, and one only to watch this movie: Mélanie Laurent, a superbly beautiful French actress. Yeah, but that is very little if the rest of the cast embody angry and annoying characters who most important feature is to be all the time with a bad temper and grimace. The plot of the film is not exactly a story but an anecdote that someone has once in a cocktail bar and though it would be a great idea to became a film. Bad idea. It was not.
The stoy is ridiculous and shallow, the characters unidimensional, and since the beginning you know who are the bad guys, because they have only one feature: to be mad and to have bad temper and to have an annoying face. As story of a female killer, this is one of the worst ever filmed. Most of the scenes are a complete mess. Just to mention one that is a complete ludicrous one, that on where Lucrèce (Mélanie Laurent) is under the shower with complete make up, and the water blur it from her face.
But the worst part of the film is the musical one. It supposed that Lucrèce is a killer that is also a contralto (!) who is under contract to kill Alexander Child (Christopher Still), a bass singer, while Rico (Clovis Cornillac), a Flamenco guitarist is under contract for the same reason Lucrèce is, but he suddenly appear as a barock guitarist on a period instrument orchestra. Really? They are to perform Handel's Messiah at the opening night of a fictional music festival in a Swiss chateau at the feet of the Alps, in the middle of nowhere, with out any sign that indicates that in that remote place is about to celebrate it. Not a damn sign with the program of the festival, the musicians or the singers or orchestras that will perform. Not even a post to the press that usually report that kind of events. When the opening night finnally arrives, the crowd in the theater has not a hand program in their hands, as usual on any concert hall in the world, with the bios of the cast, conductor and orchestra. Where they bougth the tickets, where they park their cars...? and so on. Another ludicrous thing came from the screenwriters is that at the end of the first part of the Messiah perform you listen backstage that at the local sound someone is anounced that in five minutes starts the intermission. Does the people that attend the opening night doesn't know that Handel's Messiah contains an intermission and they need to be aware while the orchestra and singers are playing? I only mention another thing that is awful. It is supposed that the anonymous French conductor (Michel Fau) is a very famous and bad temper one, but if you know a little about conducting an orchestra, you will realize that this one is so terribly bad in conducting the orchestra just as was Mozart in Amadeus. BTW, it would Corrado Invernizzi in the role of tenor singer Vittorio Biamonte related with superb Italian contralto Roberta Invernizzi?
I could go on and on over all the ludicrous things that happened in this so call "Musical Festival", that at least for me it is an important aspect of the film, since the shallow plot it develops in a musical environment, and if you don't have interest in that part, well, you will miss a many other levels of screewriting incompetence.
It's so bad this movie, that I don't understand why there has no been remaked by Hollywood, not in the Swiss Alps but in the middle of... Kansas.
What Dupont do to US is not far from what Hitler do to 1930's Germany
Few times I found a film so exceptional and so brilliantly filmed as this one. Mark Ruffalo is on the Robert Redford filmaking/acting line of activism and protest since they share credits on The Last Castle (2001). This is probably his finest work up today, and is not a Superheroe piece of garbage with special effects and tons of CGI instead a great script. This is a very difficult film to watching, because denounces how great global corporations woprk without any respecto and concern for all kind of life. It is not an exageration to say that what Dupont make to American people and to the world is not very far from what Adolf Hitler and Nationalsocialism made to Germany after 1933. But this is far worst because affected all the planet and all forms of life. If you don't get very very angry and sick after seen this movie, you really don't belong to human race, and you deserve thta other global companies take your future and throw away to the garbage can.
This is an exceptional film, based on pure acting, and a simple storytell about greed and disrepect to any form of life, of that what Karl Marx call The superior form of capitalism. Its a shame that this film has not been considered by the Academy for the Oscar ceremony this year. Nevertheless, is better than almost every single movie among nominated this year, excepting Parasite.
A scientist who doesn't act like a real scientist doesn't make a good movie
In the US and the First World there's always a fear on AI, a fear exploited irrationally and intentionally by filmakers of all kind. Mostly bad writing are the common place on all this films, exploiting an absurd fear from ignorant folks who doesn't understand anything about AI and make not any effort at all to try to understand what exactly is AI and how it works. If they do that, they realize how absurd is all the allegedly science behind this allegedly SciFy film.
A scientist who has his own high tech laboratory on the basement of his high thech house? And he make experiments through a tablet? And he has a high tech robot who play music to relax him? And so and so? If you believe that that is posible, you are in the ignorant side and you can believe anything Hollywood or conspiracy theory-makers decided to tell you.
AI is not what Hollywood has make to believe, and if you think it is, you need to read more and stop watching this kind of movie crap.
It's incredible the amount of crap that both Hollywood and television produces for American audiences. Not any sense of reality on this show, and only someone who has a childish mind could believe that this actually happened or could happen. It is not suprising that the amount of believers on conspiracy theories (Flat Earth followers, Hitler alive, Giants in America, White supremacists, and a bunch of other morons out there) need this kind of crap. Of course you need a psychic insdtead of science to resolve a murder! As George Costanza put it crystal clear: "It's not a lie if you believe".
Rizsard Kapuscinsky or how to give voice to poor and wretched peoples
Rizsard Kapuscinsky is one of the most important reporters of the XX Century, and someone who witnessed some of the biggest war crimes in Europe, Latin America and Africa. His books and reportages are ineludible documents to understand all the interests behind war, invasions and geopolitics. It is not surprise that any American viewer say nothing about this animated documentary. It is very probably that American audiences doesn't like at all what Kapuscinski has written, and the way he is portrayed on here. Very far from the way are portayed reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein on the Watergate affair. In that case, there is no ideology. America film and history are made to believe that what both Washington Post reporters it is what investigative journalism is all about. This is, for say the least, an arrogant point of view. America is not the world, nor even the center of the word. Is one pole. The other is Russia, and the former USSR.
This animated documentary involves both poles from the Cold War, and is not, and cannot be by any means precisely a fruit of objectivity. But, as Kapuscinski put it in many other of his reporter works, and is put it that way on here, his job is to give word to those are condemned to be forgotten, those who usually die amidst oblivion and never are listen, those who are needed and poor, just like Jesus say on his preach, which not means I compared Jesus with Kapuscinski.
Animation is awesome on this documentary, the way are blended original footage and pictures of many of the depicted characters is just amazing, and shows how American power is capable of the worst atrocities only to support its foreing policy of destruction and empoverity entire countries. The Angola conflict is one of those defeites that American doesn't want to remember, after Vietnam. Of course, it would be naïve to consider that this documentary support openly Russian interventionism, since they abandon too Angola, only to see how Cuba took their place in the conflict and made it to succeed.
There is no such a thing called neutral interventionism, but Kapuscinski knows that he has to be the voice of those who hasn't and seem condemned to be crashed by any outside political power. "This is the way I look" is a frase repeated several times in the documentary, as if little people raise his voice to be remeber in the future and not fall into oblivion. That's the very point on what Kapuscinski was doing all his life, and for that will be remembered as one of the biggest and more influential reporters of the last century.
A very impressive documentary, a must see to unveil our prejudices about interventionism.
A masterpiece Sophoclean Greek tragedy narrated on western imaginery
Unforgiven is an absolute masterpiece written by David Webb Peoples and transforming brilliantly in a cinematic narrative by Clint Eastwood in 1992. But, even when all facts occur in American wild west, its foundations can be traced in the good old Greek classic theatre, specifically on Sophocles tragedy Oedipus Rex.
As any would could know, a Greek tragedy is based, simplistically descibed, in a man confronted with a riddle that puts the inevitability of his fate with that riddle, and no matter what he does, he can escape from that destiny. That is exactly what we see on Unforgiven. I know Americans think the only world exists is theirs, and nothing else matter. There is no world outside United States, and wester genre demonstrates taht. But structurally speaking, this is an impressive Greek tragedy on which we see a man that denies, time and time again, that he is no more an assasin, a cold blooded killer, until he is confronted with his past that shocks him and he realize that he he is exactly that that he denies all through the story.
All the predicaments he live in a journey into his own depths are part of the iniciatic journey he need to travel, wich includes resurrection (the three days he pass among deaths, since he arrives to Old Whiskey town) is part of the kathársis he need to realize who really is, and embrace it.
It contains all the parts of what a tragedy needs to be: a foreword and an epilogue, stasimon (Greek for parts of the chorus), párodos (entrance of characters), and epeisodia (the narrative), that structurates the story by means of contrastating characters and development the story.
This is so obvious for a people who doesn't read the story of the film from the tradition of the western genre, which sets the story on a specific lanscape, that I picke up since the very same day I saw the film on a theatre on Mexico city, and ever since I consider an absolute masterpiece, and in my opinion, the best film I ever seen, among top five of all XXth century film story.
Dialogues on this case are just so precise and deep that doesn't belong to the western genre and shows a very complex way to build every character and to show their personality on every line they say. I repet: this is an absolute and complete cinematic masterpiece.
A boring story about something only interesting for Americans
This is the best example of boring American history that nobody's cares both inside and outside United States. Is there any point in to make a film about something so grey, so lame as a failure in American political life when the world was at the highest point in the Cold War? This is why the Hollywood fails time and time again, when producers and filmakers only look at their belly button and think they are the center of the world. This is money throw into the toilette, both to the producers and movie goers if someone think here is gonna find something interesting: like flies flying over a poo pile.
Don't waste your time and money for this. One of the boring films ever made for any outside of US.