arzewski

Saw this on the plane.

Know a thing or two about adventure racing.

Cannot believe that financing was approved to make this.

First of all, the main character comes out as a PTSD suffering army veteran, exactly what you don't want.

Second of all, adventure racing is much more about camaraderie, and the characters portrayed here are often the opposite.

There are also some fallacies and flaws in how the story is told. Some holes here and there, and the sequence of events don't make sense.

At the end, it is all entertainment. You like dogs? Great. You will love this flick.

Otherwise, stay away.

From the very opening scene, I realized something was wrong. We were in late 1700s France and a bunch of people were talking and yelling in a large hall. But I was confused. All the actors were speaking in a British-accented english. Was this London?

And that was the beginning.

From the great director that gave us Blade Runner, at the end, this flick turned out to be lukewarm. Nothing memorable.

If you are into battle scenes, with attention to detail on weaponry of the time and tactics of warfare in the battlefield, with cavalry, infantrymen, artillery guns, then you would LOVE this film.

But at the end, there seems to be very little to be told about the man and the time.

By comparison, the 1970 film "Patton", directed by Franklin J. Schaffner, and written by Francis Ford Coppola, was a much better production and film, with a better outcome and feel for the story.

We all know the masterpiece by Francesco Rosi, "Cristo si e' fermato ad Eboli". A Northerner educated man, finding himself in an isolated remote mountain village in the deep south of Italy. A city person learning what it means to conduct an agrarian life, with crops and farm animals, and little modernity and sophistication. In that film, the only "educated" person in the village is the priest, representing the institution of the catholic church, as to provide guidance in the meaning of life.

So, here too we have a Northerner that comes from the North into the South. And here too we have a priest. And we have peasant population, with their crops, farm animals, hand tools, and basic necessities.

But, unlike Francesco Rosi's masterpiece, this film is ineffective in rendering the same emotional and artistic value. Even the shooting scene is so amateurish that a graduate student must have choreographed it. Had they had a young Sergio Leone from the early 1960s on staff, that shooting scene would have been much different and more realistic.

The entire film felt like it was a dud. At the end, a line of text appeared on the screen: "Dedicated to the people of Calabria". There were a few people from Calabria in the audience, and they weren't clapping. So, no thanks.

As Cheyenne says about Harmonica, in Sergio Leone's "Once Upon a Time in the West", "He not only plays, he shoots too". Here, they just play, but don't know how to shoot.

Simply put, a boring documentary. Linear in time, void storytelling, staid information. There are other documentaries that are much more engaging and exciting. This one really looked like an old-fashioned production. The old reels from the Istituto Luce are good. But the presentation of the material is just unappealing. Maybe for an italian old aged audience that knew her work, this documentary would work. But for a non-italian audience, this production fell on deaf ears. I was hoping for a more engaging and riveting production and presentation, knowing the actress style, but it was all dull. Maybe another time.

Not knowing what was in for, and checked into IMDB and saw an average score of 8, walked into the theater expecting a piece of art.

it ain't.

very slow going. seemed going at a pace that was unnecessary slow.

Story of the priest and child sex abuse in France in the early 1980s. Uses professional actors, who act their roles very very well. Follows an accurate timeline established by real facts. Does not sensationalize it nor adds emotional content with a sweeping musical score. The feel is very realistic, almost like a documentary. It portrays individual courage to overcome fears of being seen as an outcast in public. Small attention to details really make this a great film, such as the bureaucratic police office, with noise in the background, distractions, people walking by. Not your typical Hollywood movie, which would have had more emotion, more music in the background, more drama. The overall effect is a production that is very sensitive to all involved.

The first half was interesting. Scenes of an impoverish inner-country small rural down, somewhere where desertification is advancing, and the small community is slowly dying. The characters where presented, and it got interesting.

But then, somewhere at half-time, things started going haywire.

A flying saucer. A couple of mysterious motorcyclists dressed in kitsch bike outfits. English-speaking gun-toting tourists playing Terminator.

Adding insult to injury, got tired of seeing the Brazilian stereotype of, the prostitute, having chain-sex inside the trailer while a waiting queue of men awaits outside.

What a disappointment !!

After hearing all the hoop-la on radio stations, reviews, newspapers, digital media, I thought this was the new 2001 Space Odyssey, with a new take on it fifty years later by a new breed of idealists and space poets.

1. the opening scene of him falling to Earth from high-rise antenna, is completely gratuitous. What's the meaning? it is just a stunt.

2. the character acted by actor Donald Sutherland, he appears at the beginning and then disappears, never to be seen again. What was he for? why not use his talent for a more lengthy cross-webbing of storytelling?

3. The scene of a monkey eating human flesh, isn't that kitsch? it sure has that shock factor. Why put it there? It really doesn't help much on the overall narrative. What purpose does it have in the overall narrative?

4. The science, physics, and math to support that stunt at the end of him catapulting from the rotating antenna of one spaceship, to get back to his spaceship, and flying in space through a Saturn belt of orbiting rocks, all this while protecting himself with a metal shield, conveniently retrieved from the antenna's cover, is just laughable on the ridiculous. The probability of targeting the mother ship, on a 0.000001 arc sec maximum tolerance, is infinitesimally small.

Woke up the next day and had nothing good to tell or say about it. Woke up 50 years after seeing 2001 Space Odyssey, and I have alot to talk about.

You can spot a made-for-TV production right away. The story-line is straightforward, little nuances that make you think days later, the takes are frontal and simple, the dialogue is simple and obvious, the facial expressions are stereotyped. Or maybe the Big Cinema budgets in today's Italy are YesterYear. Fact is, I almost fell asleep on this one. A modern day Nancy Drew figures out plot and counter-plot. Yeah, it's a comedy. But make sure you pay less than five bucks for your time watching this.

Was recommended this by a friend that I trust and whom I share many opinions on film. Saw it on DVD and had the privilege of using the fast-forward button on the remote control.

Not sure how this happened, but I did not enjoy this film, nor did I find it interesting. If it was supposed to be a punt at today's post-modernistic society, I find Idioterne (1998) by Lars von Trier more interesting. I did enjoy the scene where people just peek in for a second or two into a museum room with piles of dirt on the floor, and a museum guard seated on a chair guarding the dirt. But what about the living room with the monkey? was that necessary? did it really make it a great film. I don't think so.

See it at your own risk. You may end up using that FFWD button on the remote control just like I did.

OK, it is a finished cinematic production. Done deal. It delivers. But it is just ok.

In the first 120 seconds, there is black & white imagery of a beautiful night-life city, people eating outside, cars and scooters jamming together for the city's ritual late-evening social life, the prostitutes with roman ruins on the background. Yes, this is Rome in the mid-Seventies. Great. Just Great.

But then, after the 120 seconds, this beautiful retro vintage display is never shown again.

What follows is quite conventional movie-making and story-telling.

OK, it is a finished cinematic production. Done deal. It delivers. But it is just ok.

In the first 120 seconds, there is black & white imagery of a beautiful night-life city, people eating outside, cars and scooters jamming together for the city's ritual late-evening social life, the prostitutes with roman ruins on the background. Yes, this is Rome in the mid-Seventies. Great. Just Great.

But then, after the 120 seconds, this beautiful retro vintage display is never shown again.

What follows is quite conventional movie-making and story-telling.

Unusual to review a film that was produced more than 10 years earlier, but the story needs to be told.

Found it on DVD format, Director's Cut, 2-disk, at a church rummage sale (Byzantine rite, of all churches... ) and purchased it for one dollar. Figured it was going to be good entertainment back home.

While viewing it with friends, we all made comments at how a director of the caliber of Oliver Stone was convinced by producers to make such a film. The scenes of the warrior riding his horse, the disciples learning from the philosophers among ionic ruins, domestic squabbles among togas, battle scenes with swords and armor, a British accented English spoken language to give erudition to the characters.

All reminiscent properties and aspects of the sword and sweat 1950's film generation, which then was repeated for television in the 1980's. Not sure why financing was allowed to flow for this relatively flat cinematic production. Old. Just too old.

Had great anticipation, after reading a write-up on a local paper, and made special plans to clear one evening to go to the local theater and see this. While the drawings depicting the city of Paris in imaginary time extensions were beautiful, the action sequences seemed dull. The story too was a bit outmoded, seemed to steeped into traditional storytelling of graphic novels of four decades ago. And the character of Inspector Pizoni was just a inherited old baggage from Tintin's Dupont and Dupont. Not funny anymore. Also, in a Europe that is more and more intertwined with different cultural streams, this plot was entirely Franco-centric, with nostalgic references to an imperial France that stubbornly still hinges of some people's minds. Get over it. It's over. There is so much "new", so why keep on bringing back the "old" ? At the end, left the theater somewhat disappointed.

I guess I *used* to be a Tarantino fan, but this flick now puts me on the side of the "I once used to like his films". With great anticipation, went to see the special 70mm version, an expectation that was elevated even more when I discovered that the first 8 showings in three days at my city theater (chosen for the 70mm release) was sold out, and that I had to purchase tickets for a showing two days later.

Don't get me wrong, it was WELL MADE. But I don't think the gratuitous violence and gory details give any additional value to the plot. I could just have well been at a B-rate flea market and for a dollar, purchased a used DVD of some obscure horror film director, showing blood splatter and body parts dangling.

And if you are using the privilege of shooting in 65mm lenses, then you should exploit it for grandiose outdoor scenery. No. Not here. 95% of the plot is indoors. Wasted.

About the Ennio Morricone full score: not impressed. The overture of music only was nice. But that's about it. The rest of the plot had very little need for musical support. The rest of the plot was just a string of sequential quotes from verbal dialogue that had very little need for musical background. Sergio Leone employed Morricone's music very differently, where the sound, tunes, and lyrics ARE the dialogue. A Sergio Leone close-up is a rugged Klaus Kinski face, twitching nervously, and a jarring sound track supporting its expression. But Tarantino never NEVER uses the music to his plot advantage. So, what's the music for ? left the theater unsatisfied.

Went to see it four days after opening night, and there were already dozens of review on IMDb, so was somewhat alerted on what to look for with attention, and I must say, my fellow commentators and reviewers pretty much nailed it right.

Overall, it was a pleasant entertaining action flick. But it was not at the level of a memorable Bond flick. My expectations six months ago were much higher, as the title name suggested a return to revisit what started the Bond series in the first place. But at the end, there was mild disappointment.

Some of the commentary, the features, the objects, seem to be expressively chosen for an older audience of movie-goers, one that is melancholic of the 1960s Bond movies. So, several vintage mode of transportation are used, be it a train or a motor vehicle. And who is wearing wrist watches anymore? all small details that seemed to be specifically chosen to address an older audience. I found that curious.

Just like "From Russia With Love", there was a confined-space body-to-body combat, and just like "You Only Live Twice", there was a small-body-against-large-body combat. And many other features reminded of Odd Job, the villain's assistant in "Gold Finger". So, in a way, there many subtle homages to the Sean Connery series of 1960s Bond movies. I liked that.

Was somewhat surprised at some slow and dull moments. The film seemed to get into a slow quagmire and one wonders how did an action film get into it.

From a cinematography point of view, comparing with other films in the same genre, such as the Bourne series, there was some disappointment here, as it seemed less credible, over-stated and inflated, and utterly symbolic.

If you still are eager to find classic British-style cinematic experiences, with Dover chalk cliffs on the background, country cottages, and steam engine trains, than this is for you. Upon seeing a 7.6 IMDb rating, my expectations were a bit higher, and a more tight storyline, packed with minutiae details. The dementia episodes could have been exploited more like in "Memento" (Christopher Nolan, 2000) but instead the storyline stayed traditional. I would also say that today's cinematic experience in the theaters exploit sound and audio effects, as the theaters are equipped with sound-producing apparatuses, but unfortunately this cinematic production took no advantage of those capabilities, and at this point, the experience of watching this could just have well been accomplished at one's living room at home using conventional house-hold equipment.

After seeing all the advertisement in December about this new show to be broadcast in January 2014, it looked really interesting. And yes, it did remind a bit of "Six Million Dollar Man".

So, who are the villains of today? well, just read today's news and decide for yourself on who is not in favor with the West nowadays. And yes, our hero has a heart. A soft spot for humanity, rescuing the weak and the needy. But quite simply, the plots are not believable. It has all of real-life complexities removed, producing instead a simplistic foreign-affairs viewpoint that is just unwatchable.

Big disappointment. Big note to CBS and its advertisement clients, if you are reading this: I am switching off, and not watching commercial advertisement that comes with it.

Excellent cinematography and rendition of interiors. Was particularly impressed with the sound of doors closing, the same clunky noise of wood doors. Also, the period clothing recreation is excellent. The motor vehicles, train, and airplane transport rendition are excellent. In this regard, the film is definitely worth watching.

But the story, colorful it is, is not believable. It has a nice happy ending, and somewhat predictable, but in reality, such a story would not have happened.

In the theme of impersonation during that period, the film "Europa, Europa" is more believable.

Set up myself to watch this DVD with great anticipation, having high expectations from what seemed an engaging internationalist story with interesting characters. Having distanced myself from over-sentimental Hollywood production, I often turn to the more complex European productions. But this was an unexpected disappointment. There were the usual clichés, the usual scenes of old neighborhoods and relationships, the usual stereotypes, the "good" folks and the "bad" folks, and simplistic portrayal of societal conflict. It almost seemed as if it was done on purpose to dumb-down some moral educational principle to a population, as on a mission of historical revisionism and political correctness.

A thriller, with a outdoor scenery shots in a snowy rural Sweden, and the rest shot in the central Italian region of Abbruzzi near Sulmona. The photography was great, with beautiful scenery shots of long landscapes, road curves, and medieval urban topography of alleys, steps, and side passages in a gray cold setting. But the plot is slow, and what is what expected never happens. At the end, not much happens. The role of the small town priest is a bit like the priest in CRISTO SI E' FERMATO AD EBOLI and that was a powerful character in the plot. The urban topography of the old town was used to infer intrigue of people hiding and people following, but it was not used as effectively as in RONIN, the latter using the alleys in the ancient roman amphitheater of Arles. One scene that was totally non-believable was the total male sexual fantasy of woman undressing and bathing in the creek - that scene was ill conceived and cast the final doubt on this production.

Someone tells you one word: "Sicily". Quick, quick, what do you think? you think of Godfather scenes, of rolling rural landscapes, societies scarred by vendettas and inter-family violence, closeups of old rugged facial lineaments, scenes of emigration on rural lifestyle.

Now, the true Sicily is much different, with modern office buildings, people holding cell phones and having business meetings, and a much more urban society.

For a motion picture financed and produced just a few years ago, and supposedly on a modern story, this production was a disappointment. Totally stereotypical. I mean, Antonioni's "L'Avventura" from forty years earlier looks much more modern.

Obviously, the producers wanted to create a cash cow and sell it to the American audience, still nostalgic of the GF series. Smart movie-goers can easily see through the facade, and not like this production. The producers think that the audience is stupid enough to see their stereotypical work.

If you want to see a motion picture that portrays modern Italy with its crime-ridden background, see Gomorrah.

So, in Rocky IV, we saw the American facing overwhelming odds while in Russia.

In this one, we see an American facing overwhelming odds while in China.

The character of the American mother is at best, irritating. Not sure if that was the intention of the script writer. I wonder what was the reaction by Chinese audiences in seeing the role of a woman from impoverished Detroit settling in a Chinese city and feeling entitled to an American standard of living.

The one quote in the movie that summarizes this flick is "We can no longer be friends. You are bad for my life". Agreed.

Nice movie, with many takes outdoors shot on location in the Friuli-Venezia-Giulia region. To add even more authenticity, some of the scenes that are indoors are inside a meeting room with large posters on the wall of what seems to be photographs of the great earthquake in Friuli of 1976, suggesting that the municipal building in where the characters meet is a building built or restored after that earthquake.

There are nice scenes of mountain stark scenery, with clean tree branches.

Yes, the main investigator speaks with an accent of southern Italy, but then, many in law enforcement are from the south of Italy, so to me, that added to the authenticity.

In a somewhat dysfunctional build-up of characters, the director focuses almost exclusively all the screen real-estate space on the two main characters, their personalities, their neuroses. No sound track, very little landscape visuals and surroundings, no action. The characters have inherent personality and social flaws, almost unbearable to watch. If you like this kind of film, then it's for you. It was not for me. In a way, it almost reminded me a bit of some of the films by the Taviani brothers, and ironically, one of them, "La Notte di San Lorenzo", was entirely filmed in a Tuscany town, just as this one. BTW, I liked the ending, the final shot. It was exactly what I expected. Simple, minimalistic, not much else to say. It summarized the entire film.