samkan

INTERSTELLAR has more than it's share of gushing reviews. Saw this in 2014; without benefit of captions , rewind, etc. Indeed it appears to be full of "science" intended to make it stand out from green-men-from-mars science fiction. On the other hand it's full of melodrama (could've done without the "love" dimension!) and, unfortunately, contains many standard sci-fi plot-devise tools; e.g., wormhole, suspended animation, etc. Not to mention the the half-dozen plus explanations of astrophysics in the form of dialog that characters would otherwise find patronizing. On the other hand, the plot (again, melodramatic) is engaging, the visuals captivating and the script and acting superb. Thus INTERSTELLAR transcends the usual sci-fi nonsense and services both escapism and contemplation.

Assortment of Hitler -Nazi themed, but otherwise unrelated people, events, stories, etc. Absolutely no central theme, no chronology and limited context. Apologies to many well spoken experts possibly unaware editors were third-graders. The title is as obscure as it is misleading. At best the film portrays contemporary neo-nazis and right-leaning groups. What is the meaning of "The meaning of Hitler"?

Besides now being dated, contradicted, etc. Alice seems to find things which indeed are interesting but are a stretch as far as being relevant to topic; e.g., maybe bamboo was once used as a tool but maybe a thousand other things too. The Siberian culture trip is intriguing but doesn't shed light on how and why such came about. Much more time could have been spent on different archeological digs and modern DNA analysis. Needs more expert interviews.

A modest film but daringly strange. Many horror and/or science fiction fans may be disappointed. But grippingly holds your interest until the end. I'm a 67 year-old horror/sci-fi curmudgeon. More than one evening I've spent an hour beginning a half dozen such films before giving up. The acting of the two TBIS leads was very good as were the script and the film shots. You actually begin to care about the obnoxious young man at the center of the movie. Has an crime/thriller type ending but nonetheless fitting and successful. As opposed to the usual fare, some actual THOUGHT went into this endeavor.

Katherine Gun leaked top secret information to the press. The British government brought charges then dropped the case at the last minute when it realized that complying with the rules of evidence would require it to expose sensitive information. That's it. The End. Fini. As noble as Gun's motives were, there's little story here. Padding things out to feature film length require lots of stupifying dialog and close-ups of Kiera Knightly. More filler is provided by a deranged press veteran and an arrogant prosecutor. There is the stereotypical diligent reporter and the tenacious barrister. The courtroom scene at the end of the film is beyond ridiculous. Don't waste your money.

The Movie ("OUATIH") moves immediately into my top five favorite movies about Hollywood and that's a tough class to crack; e.g., Sunset Boulevard, Singing In The Rain, The Player! Always believed Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction to be showy, pretentious nothings, and Kill Bills silly. But with OUATIH this Quenton fellow has made a good film. Shave a half hour by clipping the Where Cliff Lives, Tate at Movies, the Little Girl n' Book, Flying Back From Italy, Too Long in Bar ... and you've got a GREAT movie. The sets and props are stupendous, right down to a case of 6 oz. Cokes. Spahn's Ranch was so scary because QT painted it look so believable. Encounters were great, Cliff v. Bruce Lee, Pacino and Dern turns .. and the ending ...already a legend. Don't miss OUATIH.

Indeed beneath enormous glitz, great dialog and acting, etc., the plot is a usual one: Bad guy comes back from mothballs, jaded cop with booze and domestic problems breaks procedural rules to set things straight. Common episodic scene-to scene character intro. But if done before done very well here! Could've lived without daughter/boyfriend soap. Query: How much make-up is too much? Kidman looks downright silly in close-ups. But she's still Nicole Kidman and this movie is worth the ticket price!

Okay, I'm eight years after the fact and have only watched the first three episodes, but LAID gives me some put-offs. Our heroine is so likable in the hilarious office scenes but who would want to get to seriously know a young woman with such an aloof and detached attitude towards coupling? We old folk are not prudes and suffered and simultaneously enjoyed our promiscuous years but, looking back, such amounted to compromising our desire for pleasure with the more serious search for a mate. Would definitely hook up with Roo for a few rounds of fun. But it seems to me her character would be confused as to why I stopped calling. I'm not sure that's the type of character the makers of LAID are trying to present.

European films used to be made in B&W with limited dialog not necessarily out of choice but because of lack of better resources. COLD WAR is made that way to ...., well, look like those old films. Not in itself a fault but COLD WAR does not come close to the artistic level of European endeavors in and around the '60's. There's no background to the main characters that might make me sympathetic or intrigued with the plot changes; some brief moments in the beginning might have achieved such. I can accept a film's huge shifts in time and setting but in COLD WAR the pace is too erratic. Again, why not throw in just moments to cover the in-between years. The ending of COLD WAR is simply too dramatic and abrupt but, worse, wholly inconsistent with the characters portrayed. I know I'm a curmudgeon. COLD WAR is/was a worthwhile endeavor and earns it's ticket price. Not a contender, however.

Truly appears at first that this MAY be a quality production; e.g., interesting setting and some impressive sets. Best part of film is the drone footage of the indochinese island. Rapidly disintegrates into usual manure; e.g., closed and fixed interior (Read: Inexpensive) set, rote and unrealistic "dialog" exchanged between characters to explain plot, circumstances, what we must accept, etc. Jones and Phillips do a decent job of acting. Taylor and Sprawling -especially Sprawling- don't seem to get it and think they are making a Scoobi-Do movie. I've seen worse but don't bother with GEHENNA.

This film gives itself away in the first few minutes; i.e., the bad guying enviously eyeing up the cuddling hero and heroine. About a third of the way through you have seen all you need to know about the plot and the bad guys: HINT: Suits, nice offices, money : Bad. Blue jeans, the streets and pubs, surfing : Good. The only issue is how much money will be spent bringing this tired movie exercise to an end. Penn and Winstone are two of my favorite actors. They're just going through the motions in this film. I cannot recommend wasting time with this loser of a film.

What a fantastic examination of contrasts! The scope of the actions of our protagonists is minuscule compared to the danger they face if/when caught. The quite indignation and passion of our bereaved parents is palpably examined in their mundane circumstances and amplified a thousand times by the fine pacing, acting and -especially- the use of sparse but pointed dialog. Absolutely excellent casting, especially Gleason. I can not think of any film which so brutally and undramatically depicts the life of ordinary German citizens living under the Nazi regime, a truly poignant depiction of ordinary emotion existing in a sea of madness. ALONE IN BERLIN is not to be missed!

Competent science fiction. Not an alien-on-board, among-us, , etc. I'm guessing many will be turned off by the low budget aspects. Indeed, the alien terrain looks like it's just out of sight on the Interstate and the spaceship iinteriors look like oversized broom closets. But the story and dialog is intriguing enough to allow the viewer to overcome such. Don't watch TV or otherwise know anything about Brandon Olive but he carries the entire movie with believable reactions and excellent delivery of computer-speak geek script and creates suspense out of almost nothing. Had the makers of this film been granted an INTERSTELLAR-sized budget, we would have a comparable movie. Most impressive is that the ending, certainly a cop-out or annoying to some- actually is a logical one given the development of our central character. I frequenting view a half dozen movies before I stick with one. You should try sticking with Magellan.

Marion Cotillard is arresting as a selfish, neurotic young woman who carries her self-imposed burdens into adulthood before an epiphany years later awakes her to the realities of love and life. Cotillard's "Gabrielle" when younger, reveals a selfish, emotionally disturbed young lady believing she has an entitlement to a passionate erotic love life with partners out of her reach. Such leads to her parents' drastic counter-productive remedy of an arranged marriage. I've not read the novel and am unsure if Gabby's physical malady which send her to a sanatorium suggests a cause of her problems or is simply a plot devise. Regardless, the dialog, acting, pacing and photography in this film are first rate! If I had to find fault I'd suggest adding some "clues" and/or nuance to the "mystery" that leads us to the solution But don't miss this fine French film!

A perfect score on Rotten Tomatoes says something. Maybe something more about ourselves than the movie itself. Lady Bird is a charming, engrossing, well-written and acted film. Greta Gerwig would have to concede that her movie breaks no new ground though it certainly covers excellently a niche within a genre; i.e., American high school coming- of-age, as well or better than most. Especially the mother/daughter relationship; e.g., Laurie Metcalf's airport circle cry could jerk tears out of a crash dummy. But the RT hype tells us we are so starved for quality with the state of multiplex fare that we'll elevate a fine take on a tried-and-true vehicle to Citizen Kane status. Call me a snob if you will. I wholly expect and maybe deserve "2 out of 50 liked this COMMENT" feedback. But I'm not trying to draw attention to myself or play the devil's advocate. Everyone loved Lady Bird and I had a nice time with it. However, after the tears dry and the gushing ends, it's just a nice movie.

If you have not seen Crimson Peak before, yes you have. About a thousand times. Sometimes less lavishly, less melodramatic, less formulamatic, lesser-known cast, etc. The only ground this film breaks is the pink-ooze built into the setting and plot. The heroine is possibly the stupidest character ever to make it to screen; e.g., having seen monsters and apparitions in the morning wanders about in the afternoon as if she's on vacation. The leading male creep is as handsome and charismatic as a bathroom plunger. The dialogue gives new definition to contrived. What was del Toro thinking? "I'll make the ultimate Gothic horror film!". And who and why, Guilllmero, would anyone be interested in sitting through two-hours af absolute predictability watching caricatures mouth loaded banalities to one another? Emily Bronte, Mary Shelley and Edgar Allen Poe are laughing so hard they're busting out of their graves.

Mr. Herzog has had a long and acclaimed career, And deservedly so. But after films such as MY SON, MY SON ..." (also with Mike Shannon) and this one some one must tell him he's not so much making films anymore as he is preaching to the audience, while tossing in the odd joke here and there. The dialog gives new definition to "stilted". You can see the pain on the actors faces trying to deliver such. Characters and ostensible plot points disappear. Unconnected philosophical bon mots are delivered out of nowhere. S&F does have some beautiful scenery, though the musical score accompanying such -no doubt culturally true to the locale- becomes increasingly annoying. I finished S&F because .....well, it IS Werner Herzog. Watch only if you share my degree of respect.

Wales is a beautiful country and Welsh a beautiful language. Add this haunting story and you've a sure winner. What's great about this film is the pacing, oh so slow at first, just enough to keep your interest. Then a slow and improbable -but believable- sexual tension that builds to a crescendo that is tragic on more than one level. Oddly, though a clear supernatural element is introduced rather early, such takes a distant back seat to the real life drams taking place among our three characters - or is it real life at all? All this plus a surprise ending. Excellent camera work. Having gushed this much, THE PASSING is not for everyone; e,g, some horror fans might be disappointed. I'll take this film over an American slasher or zombie flick any day!

I am guessing nothing irks a writer and/or director more than being told that a film was good but could have been great. The talented Sophia Copolla indeed adds to a feather-in-her-cap, jewel-in-her-crown with THE BEGUILED. Yet ................

This viewer couldn't help but think what might have been. Instead of beginning with John's discovery, if we had been given an introduction of the harmony, balance, etc., of the mansion life and it's female world such would have stood in interesting contrast to the story. And a brief moment or two of John in battle, facing death, would have serviced well. Some broader paint strokes might have been used in emphasizing three stages of female life represented by Miss Martha, Edwina and Alicia; e.g., different degrees of wisdom, restraint, charm (or lack of it) and approach all the while there existing a similar desire. Plot wise, I like the amputation as punishment, retribution and/or just-desserts but did not think it had to be a product of Edwina's intrusion into Alicia's lusts. The accident giving rise to the amputation would have been better worked as an intentional act caused by an unidentified resident.

But for the above, this could have been Oscar material. Don't hate me, Sophia.

I allow for the fact that this film is 30-year old British television, that TV budgets of said era were cut-rate an that we've new international concerns today. But some/many of the scenes in D-R were laughable. A Russian spy "shadows" a British agent by walking 20 yards behind him in open countryside. Rookie rabbit hunters later 'bag" the Russian. Protesters chant to empty space then participate in a sissy-slap riot. Worse, subplots and characters go nowhere; e.g., the guru and the crutches guy. Our "hero" imagines himself James Bond but is closer to Mr. Bean. The score appears provided by an adolescent garage band. We know of the Philby & Co. background to British espionage, but this is, at best, exploitive of such. I dare you to make it to the end of this movie

Grabs your attention with myriad possibilities, intrigue and suspense. Such continues for a full two-thirds of the film and then just totally evaporates. Indeed, if you want to watch the first hour or so just do so and then turn LEOPARD off and make up your own ending. It's not that the last third of the film is disappointing, implausible, inconsistent, etc. Rather, it is numbingly mundane, cruel and inconsequential. What a shame. Odd to say, but if this film didn't appear to be so darn good at first the ending wouldn't be so downright irritating. Okay, okay, some homage paid to Steinbeck's "East of Eden". And at the price of creating a truly annoying film.

Great acting, especially Segal, who I've never seen before. Jessy Plemons is almost scene stealing in a small roll. Redford well cast as a cult leader aspirant. But what is introduced as a story of the afterlife evaporates into existential angst and worn out sci-fi ideas using cheesy "science" props reminiscent of Dr. Frankenstien. Rooney Mara's character is poorly drawn, clumsily inserted and downright irritating at times. You know a film is bad when the characters attempt to explain to watchers what is going on by saying, "Hey! What if reality really is (insert your favorite sci-fi theme)". The final ten minutes is laughably bad. This film went nowhere for good reason. Watch only if you've ABSOLUTELY nothing else to do.

If you have not already, read hof-4's COMMENT for some background on the history. I had the luck to have viewed a three part documentary of the Spanish Civil War and was able to quickly pick up on the background politics; i.e., as far as impact on plot.. If you too know some of the details leading up to the eruption of the SCW, your viewing pleasure will be enhanced. Even if not, the English subtitles do a fine job. History aside, the lead characters and the setting create a compelling detective/suspense story. Amazing that I'm only the second COMMENTer for this film. I especially like the cafe and alley scenes, though the love interest is done sweetly and discreetly. Tired of all the manure streaming nowadays? Try NECKAN.

ROOM is two films, really, complimenting one another and every bit as enthralling in their individual rights. Most impressive about this film is how much thought the writer Emma Donaghue put into her screenplay, not made easier and probably harder by the fact she also wrote the source novel (a surprise and must-read to me!). With help from Director Lenny Abrahamson the film is finely crafted not to waste a word or a moment to embellish the story and suspense. It would be very easy to veer into pathos, melodrama and voyeurism to stir up emotions but such temptations are well avoided. The thrilling scenes in the middle of the film are standing alone worth the watching. The dialog and screenplay skills become most apparent in the second half of ROOM when experiencing Jack's emotional, physical and verbal responses to a world he is unfamiliar with. most apparent in his almost humorous but curiously on-point descriptions of everyday behavior and encounters. I'd have assigned a perfect "10" but for the fact that Macy's Dad's reaction Ma's "descent" might've been anticipated a bit more. I quibble. Great movie!

I think imizrahi2002 's COMMENT is dead right. The first episodes are great espionage, intrigue and just what one would expect from John LaCarre. Besides the fact that LaCarre published TNM in 1993, the viewer should be advised that the makers of this series vastly altered locales and characters. Such can be forgiven BUT NOT the series' descent into soapy melodrama. imizrahi2002 is correct that events in the last few episodes are both implausible and poorly staged. No offense to Elizabeth Debicki ("Jed") but her character was too stereo-typically femme fatale. Olivia Coleman's "Burr" (male in the book) becomes increasingly fussy and melodramatic ala Angela Lansbury. Hugh Laurie's "Roper" is too unflawed, erudite, etc. Enormous money spent on settings, props, etc., would have been better spent on writing, conceiving, etc.