Irakli28 Reviews

Schindler's List (1993)

a wonderful educational film for kids

[2/10 · 17 February 2009]

This is a wonderful educational film for kids, I mean the youth between 12-18, to inform them about the horrors of Nazism and the Holocaust, but for adult Viewer who knows a lot about the Fascism and Concentration Camps this film will seem too straightforward and even tasteless. It is not enough to use a serious theme and a black and white film to make a good picture. And I definitely do not understand the viewers who behave as if they haven't seen any of anti-fascist films of much higher quality.

It is true -Mr. Spielberg is a great Master, Master of Manipulation and a great specialist of Exploitation Cinema. This is what exactly he does here - he exploits the Important and Painful topic of Holocaust (or it can be slavery, terrorism, etc) being perfectly aware that many would praise the film not for its artistic merits but for the STORY and the MESSAGE, and if one dares to say that the film is lousy - he/she will be immediately accused of being a revisionist, indifferent to peoples suffering, holocaust denier and almost Neo-Nazi.

Let me put this straight - I am none of these and still I think that Spielberg film is not good. It is not good as a piece of art but it might be good as an awareness raising reel - for those who had no or very little idea about Nazism and holocaust, but for those of us who don't need a gaudy movie from a Hollywood hack to know basics of history - there is nothing of interest here - I can name two or three dozens of feature films of documentaries that dealt with Holocaust much better, I suspect many of admirers of this film simply have not seen any of those.

Uneven script and even worse direction is camouflaged with the important messages and arty shell of BW photography. What comes tomy mind is another film about Nazism - somewhere in mid 70-ies Art-Porn maker Tinto Brass (of Caligula fame) took Nazim as a background for his film Salon Kitty. He invited famous art house stars Tulin and Berger who had previously acted in very highly regarded anti-fascist film of great Lucino Visconti and made own film about fascism. The result? Despite the sets, the stars, the important issues - the film still ended up being Art-Porn - as this was the only thing Mr. Brass could do. The same is problem with Spielberg - he might be really willing to make an important picture but still ended up with what he is best at making – exploitation movie.

As to the rain of Oscars – well, didn't "Around the world in 80 days" once get an Oscar?

Bloodline (1979)

Very disappointing.

[27 November 2001]

Very disappointing.

Nobody expects film based on Sidney Sheldon's book to be come art-house masterpiece but at least it could be made into enjoyable crime movie like Death on Nile. Well it was not. Despite the rather famous director (Young is not Fellini of course but most his previous films were enjoyable eye-feasts; would that be a spy adventure (2 Bond movies), eurowestern (Red Sun) or costume drama (Mayerling)) and all-star cast the film is very weak.

The plot is inconsistent and empty the idea to equip the Agatha Christy-like crime puzzle with subplots from other genres may seem not bad idea but it doesn't work at all

Subplot 1- (WWII -Jewish Tragedy with absolutely aimless trip to Poland) and Subplot 2 (French one - Schneider/Ronet story ) seem to be taken from the absolutely different film as well as the type-cast Shariff's line

Actually this all-star cast is the only reason to watch it, but its is painful to watch so much talent wasted. If Hupbern, Gazarra and Mason are at least is doing something during the boringly unveiling plot, the others are just fitting the empty space. especially annoying to see superb dramatic actresses like Papas and Schneider wasting their talent in this turkey.

Mimino (1977)

CLASSIC

[22 November 2001]

This is one of the BEST and MOST POPULAR Soviet Comedies ever!

In all former Soviet states this film is still loved and admired, so It's pity that non-Russian speaking audience will never get even 10% of its jokes and humor. There are several reasons for this:

1) To understand this (and actually all soviet film) one must not just know the Russian language - one must know the Soviet system, soviet culture, lifestyle.

2) Those who think that Soviet UNION=Russia are very wrong, and here the fact that USSR consisted of 15 different states (and hundreds of nations actually) has a great importance - as the story concerns the "adventures" of two southerners (a Georgian and an Armenian) in Moscow (that was both capital of Russia and USSR)-great deal of humor comes from their accents, as well as cultural differences. The director himself is Georgian who mostly lives in Russia and most of his films concern Russia (almost all of them are very popular in Russia) Only in one film (Ne Goryui!- that is equally as good as this one though very different) the action takes place in Georgia. (other much recommended films are Kin-Dza-Dza and Autumn Marathon..)

3) It is very important to know certain cultural confrontation that existed in USSR and still exists in Russia - Caucasians (Russia is the only v\country where this term means "black, dark person" - i.e. Georgians, Armenians, Azeri, and others) are rather unpopular in Russia (Russian nationalists consider them second main enemy after Jews, now due to Chechnya war Caucasian people became the most unpopular in Russia ); Characters of Georgian And Armenian visually fit the most standard stereotypes that exist in Russia (- big flat hat, moustaches, etc.) Armenians and Georgians for thousands of years had rivalry and competition, each trying to prove that it is older, better, and more cultural than the other;

• AND DESPUITE ALL THIESE Danelia MADE a film where there is no national problem - there are good people and not so good people, friendship and understanding between all these nations win - and therefore the film has a great political-subtexts - though it is delivered so lightly and tenderly that nobody thinks to call it propaganda or political film- its just a CLASSIC SOVIET COMEDY, delicious and funny, not that slapstick-cake-into-face staff, but film about real people, real feelings and real values.

Almost Famous (2000)

Mediocre

[1/10 · 8 May 2001]

If film is based on the real facts, this doesn't mean at all that the film is good. On the contrary most Hollywood real life stories are flat, boring, and superficial. The director (writer, painter,- whoever you want) trying to depict his own experience must be at least talented.

I don't want to say that "almost Famous' is that bad, its far better than the previous "masterpiece" of Cameron Crowe - a disgusting soap called "Jerry McGuire" (or something like that). The main problem with this film is that it is not just ABOUT a teenager but it is FOR the Teenagers. The film is not very bad but still it is rather boring, rather moralistic and even good acting of the most cast was not worth Oscar nominations.

The Watcher (I) (2000)

what a boring, predictable waste of time

[2/10 · 9 March 2001]

this + "bone collector" and that terrible film with Ashley Judd and Tommy Lee Jones must be just part of some B-rated tv series, as both predictable and extremely standard story line , weak acting and uninteresting photography make them look just like the standard TV bore.

Repentance (1984)

Underrated Masterpiece

[10/10 · 22 February 2001]

For Georgian Cinema, every film of T.Abuladze was a landmark. Each project was at least the most typical if not the best film of its time. Visually they all are made in different style and form defined by (or sometimes defining) the trends in the contemporary Georgian cinema. (spoilers ahead !).

The major achievement of Tengiz Abuladze himself is a trilogy The Plead, Tree of Wishes and Repentance. These films got a wide critical acclaim and Repentance even became the major hit in USSR. Many Soviet and Post-Soviet Critics and viewers consider it to be the best Soviet film of 80-ies. The phrases and notions from this film became proverbs and are quoted everywhere, general concepts "Repentance" and "the Way to the Temple" where over-abused by soviet media for over a decade. But... some foreign critics were much less agitated by the film. Leonard Maltin even found it boring (while in USSR the film was often criticized for being too entertaining !!!). On the contrary film by Nikita Mikhalkhov on a similar subject - "Burnt by the Sun" was very well received in the west, while in former USSR it was simply excoriated by critics as a shallow Hollywood-oriented Soap and a definite cash-in on the glory of Repentance. Some foreign critics and viewers didn't understand anything about the Repentance (which is full of symbols and allusions, some of them are uniquely Georgian.) apart from the Stalin criticism. Here are some facts about the film that foreigners mostly do not know.

1. The story- is a real one - Beria (the darkest evil character of Stalin epoque crushed a well-known painter after he attempted to protect the Metechi Temple (a trade mark of Tbilisi-capital of Georgia), that Beria planned to destroy to build some monument. As always everyone who opposed Beria were arrested and mostly executed. But the Temple- symbol of spirituality, human values, heart of a nation survived.

2. Due to this the prologue and epilogue of the film are very important - (by the way there are 2 time periods in the film- the Past - Stalin Time, totalitarian regime, the Present - Brejnev Period, so called Zastoi (standstill, stagnation period) - time of conformism when everything became seemingly all right)- so the prologue and epilogue is the picture of the soviet Zastoi of 70-ies- everything seems to be all right and a child of family destroyed by totalitarian regime makes cakes with beautiful but fake temples on them, eventually the cake is eaten be a dirty little bearded man admiring the totalitarian past and speaking about Varlam Aravidze (read Stalin, Beria and all other monsters from the Past) with admiration, and the cake-maker (the victim of Varlam) says nothing and just imagines what could she do to remind people of truth. But this is just her imagination, people are conformists they need no truth and only old vagabond woman searches for the Way to the Tample.

3. The Axis of the film is Aravidze family (Aravidze in Georgian means Nobody's Son): we see 3 generations- Varlam - (the totalitarian past), his son Abel and His Wife- (the "innocent" conformist Present,) and Tornike- the Grandson (the future that finally must take the responsibility for the crimes of past)

4. But this " taking the responsibility for the crimes of past" is a controversial issue that's why everything happens only in the imagination of the cake-maker- becouse the degree and a form of repentance, and the repentance itself is a very complex and painful matter; and yes, the Skeleton in the Closet affects and punishes not Varlam who commits the crime but Abel who tries to hush it up and Tornike who is among few really "innocent" characters of the film. Digging out the corpse of Varlam (the Past) - is this a solution? The authors leave the question to the viewers.

5. Some scenes need explanation:

The funeral may look grotesque, but in fact its pretty realistic and is more a humoristic critique of Georgian obsession with ceremonies Georgian Cemeteries are really the monuments of human vanity - huge, with excessive use of marble, granites and other materials. Putting cage on the grave of Varlam is symbolic, but in general the episode depicts how unholy the sacred places have become in Soviet Union (Georgia), the episode with church shows the same - the church is transformed into Power Station. Episode in the greenhouse is a Naked Gun-like literal depiction of the expression "Under the Cap"(to have someone under control). During his "Inauguration Speech" Varlam makes a statement that became quintessential when depicting Stalin regime. He cites Confucius " It's hard to catch cat in the dark room, especially if it is not there" and paraphrases it "We Will Catch the Cat in the Dark Room, Even if It's not There". For those who have little idea of Stalinism the accusation for "making a tunnel from Bombay to London " may sound forced but in fact its very realistic and sounds rather tame next to some other accusations based on which millions of people were killed. Episode with Goddess of Justice has dual symbolism: First, the goddess has become a lady of dubious reputation playing piano with a stalinistic prosecutor, second, the actress making cameo appearance here appeared in the first part of the trilogy as well (the Plea) there she was a symbol of beauty and purity.

6. The cast is "all star" (of Georgian cinema of course). Many viewers even didn't noticed that father and son- Varlam and Abel are acted by the same actor !!! The old lady at the end of the film looking for a temple, is last screen appearance of Veriko Anjaparidze, perhaps the greatest Georgian actress. By the way her character is obvious "older" Pupala from the "Tree of Wishes", there this character was acted by S. Chiaureli -daughter of Veriko.

The Wishing Tree (1976)

Superb

[10/10 · 22 February 2001]

For Georgian Cinema, every film of T.Abuladze was a landmark. Each project was at least the most typical if not the best film of its time. Visually they all are made in different style and form defined (or sometimes defining) the trends in the contemporary Georgian cinema. (! -there are several spoilers ahead).

The Early films (made in co-operation with T. Chkheidze) were definitely influenced by the Italian NeoRealism (though the influence was more stylistical than conceptual). In the first film - Magdanas Lurja- the classic short story of I. Chavchavadze (Writer, Poet and Political Activist of the 19th century, assassinated by the socialists, and later declared a Saint by the Georgian Orthodox Church) was used to make one of the earliest attempts of Georgian cinema alla' Neorealism. The attempt was nice for the debut but was limited by the demands of Official Censorship - the story of a 19th century court case obviously had a Propaganda touch - "Such injustice would never happen in the Soviet Union". Even the happy end of the original story was changed.

In the next film - Our Yard - in addition to obvious use of Neorealistic traditions one can feel (mostly in camerawork) the influence a new cinematic vogue - Indian Cinema (that used to be very appraised at some period in USSR before becoming a stereotype of mixture of melodrama, singing and fighting-by the way very popular among certain parts of the Soviet audience). Despite (or maybe because of) all these Our Yard was very popular with Georgian viewers .

Others Children - finishes the "NeoRealistic Period" and mixes the extremely melodramatic story with stylish (sometimes excessively stylish) visuals. This film reflects the new fashion of using camera and editing in cinema established in USSR by the director D.Kalatozishvili (sometimes referred as Kalatozov).

Than Abuladze made a screen version of the humoristic bestseller "I, Grandma, Ilia and Illarion". The film was rather popular with Georgian audiences but most admitted that it was not as good as the book. Some criticized the casting for the title character - Zurikela (the "I") looked too much like a well-bred-upper-middle-class-city-boy instead of being a sly and witty provincial. New trend that is sometimes called Intelligent Romanticism of 60-ies abounded in this film. In general the film is no more than just nice, but one of the last episodes (death of the grandmother) was very strong and became the most brilliant screen achievement of the theatre star Cecilia Takaishvili (the Grandmother).

The major achievement of Tengiz Abuladze himself is a trilogy The Plead (Vedreba), Tree of Wishes (Natvris Khe) and Repentance (Monanieba). Whereas I personally regard all three films to be masterpieces, the Non-Georgian Audience will hardly understand their depth as most symbols and allusions used are "Very Georgian". Despite this the last two parts of a trilogy got a wide critical acclaim and Repentance even became the major commercial hit at Soviet Cinemas. But with the magnificent Plead the situation was different. The major problem is that film is not just based on the poetry of Vaja-Pshavela (regarded by many to be the greatest Georgian poet ever), its literally full of it. Poetry of Vaja-Pshavela is very complex one and actually not translatable as he uses a very specific language, symbols, notions and terms of East Georgia Mountain Provinces, the mood of the entire film is based on this verses constantly cited within the film; Retelling just their content gives nothing and foreign audience is left with graphic and extravagant visuals that may seem interesting for 10 minutes but become tiresome during the full-length film. Both visually and conceptually the film is perhaps the most outstanding and controversial Georgian film of its time.

Unlike the Plead, the Tree of Wishes was accepted by Georgian audience without any hesitation. Tree of Wishes is exquisite for its beautiful cinematography and all star casting (from these especially should be noted Lika Kavjaradze as beautiful Marita, Sophico Chiaureli as extravagant Pupala , Ramaz Chikvadze as a corrupt priest, Erosi Manjgaladze as idealistic patriot and Cecilia Takaishvili who once again (since "I, Grandma, Ilia and Illarion") gave a brilliant performance (again as a grandmother and again giving the brilliant ending of the film). The various characters and storylines of Giorgi Leonidze's short stories about his childhood are united in a delicious, poetic and entertaining film.

Ever After: A Cinderella Story (1998)

Next to the Chekh "cinderella" this one is bleak and worthless

[3/10 · 2 September 2000]

O, lord is there a justice in this crazy world? User rating for this boring saga is higher than for the best ever filmed Cinderella-film Czechoslovakian `Three nuts for Cinderella, (Tri orísky pro Popelku (1973))' that I personally consider being a real masterpiece. It just proves how provincial the American audience has become and how USA addicted are in the rest of the world. Of course I admit that `Ever After' is not the worst film ever made but there is virtually nothing special about it. Mrs. Barrymore is bleaker than I could ever imagined, the Prince seems too old and serious, the story twist involving Da Vinci seems cheap (though it could have been rather interesting in more talented hands). The only good thing apart from rather nice costumes is Anjelica Houston. She is simply perfect in every scene and it's a pity that a great actress like her has not possibility to act in films that deserve her talent.

Three Wishes for Cinderella (1973)

Fairy-tale Masterpiece

[10/10 · 2 September 2000]

Perhaps, one of the few really good things about living in former USSR was the possibility to see lots of magnificent East European fairy-tale Films, and among these "3 nuts for Cinderella" (as this film was called In my country) is undoubtedly the most recommended. I really do believe that it is really one of the best fairy tale s made on film of all times and of course the best out of those made about Cinderella - There were some quite good films and cartoons made in Russia and Europe, but they still lack the magic that this film possesses, and don't even get me started about the American films about Cinderella. All of them, with the exception of quite nice but too standard and unoriginal Disney cartoon, were simply terrible, and I have a special dislike to that oddity with Drew Barrymore that was worth watching only for ever wonderful Angelica Huston.

"Tri orioshky" is a real masterpiece. Story itself is more a mix of Cinderella and Peau d'âne fairy tales. All its components (acting, screenplay, sets, camera-work, score) are top-notch and the entire film has certain humanity and naiveté that is clearly missing from most of the modern children's movies. However I am sure whoever loved this film as a child would re-watch it as an adult with great pleasure.

Gladiator (2000)

Lacks originality

[3/10 · 18 August 2000]

After seeing this film my generally neutral attitude to Fall of Roman Empire (the film the Gladiator is almost a remake of-at least the same period and the same characters, almost the same beginning and the end) to almost an admiration. Almost forty years ago they made a watchable, highly spectacular film, with no pretention to be more than a big costume drama, with a wonderful star cast and the magnificent Sophia Loren in the midst of it. What about the gladiator? special effects used to restore the ancient rome are very good. And film is a good sample of new technical solutions for historical films. But apart from this The Gladiator has nothing to be proud of. I can say that there are at least 2 reasons for a film-addicted person like me to dislike it:

1. The story. This is not even a drama, this is melodrama, plot lines concerning children and Christianity are very weak and can be used as a samples (in comparison with the above mentioned nice film of sixties) of incrreasing religiousness and family values addiction of Americans (the trends that may be are not bad as just a social-cultural phenomena but have a very bad impact on cinema). The development of the story is very flat and predictable, (europeans,especially french, often make some new interpretation of old movie themes, but always add something new and original not just to filmmaking process but to the story as well. The story of Gladiator is to polished,well known, reserved, making impression that its makers were doing everything to avoid any originality and interesting moves. 2. The cast. Well, its nod bad, but the main character looks more rather like rugby player than roman general, though his acting is rather good(though not an Oscar-worthy), Mr. Phoenix visually is rather a good type for the Emperor, but all the rest are very boring and unappealing, including the main fimale character (good looks, good acting, but.. not Sophia Loren), It was especially disappointing to see a very bleak and unimaginative acting of great actors of the elder generation (Richard Harris and late Oliver Reed).

Finally I must say that the director of this film, Mr Riddley Scott who made several very good films in his early career started loosing imagination in 90-ies. All his last films have a very promising plot, but a rather ordinary solution. Unfortunately The Gladiator is not an exception.

Sphere (1998)

Pretentious fake

[3/10 · 18 August 2000]

The story a is not bad. But the directing is rather weak. I could feel the attempt of the makers to create something like intellectual science fiction of sixties-seventies, but the attempt is not the succesful one. The film also lacked the stylishness of ScFi-s of that period.The Sphere just makes the impression to be more serious than Independence Day, but still is just a fake. Acting is rather weak, and this concerns not just Sheron Stone (who proved that she can act quite well only when the director is good, here she overacts terribly) but all the rest of the famous and talanted cast.

Its very interesting to see that a very similar screenplays can transform both into the mediocre movie (as it is in the case of the Sphere) and into the masterpiece of not just science fiction genre, but even the jewel of the world art of cinema (Solaris of Andrei Tarkovsky – if you have not seen this film you know nothing about science fiction).

Independence Day (1996)

Very expensive, but still cheap

[3/10 · 18 August 2000]

Some latest American films remind me of big `burger'-like sandwiches: too many things amassed in them, no traces of taste and a question `how can anyone eat and even swallow such a big piece of…?' Well, to be honest, ID is definitely not the worst film of the decade, and even of the year… and it's a good evolution for Mr.Emmerich after Moon 44 and Universal Soldier-like second rate flicks (some say his debut was the best film of his career, unfortunately, I have not seen it). But this cannot justify the immense success of the film. The thing is that the director has calculated the formula of success with American audience (patriotism + freedom + democracy + lots of special effects + couple of stars + little work for viewers brain + simple and predictable story so that the audience feels happy that it can foresee the next move of the plot=lots of money=good film; if you add to this science fiction elements it may become a super blockbuster, if you add a couple of serious problems and exclude aliens you may even get an Oscar nomination ) and if the film is blockbuster in USA it almost always earns a good money in the rest of the world, but than, this is not art, not even entertainment, its just an arithmetic.

Now about the film itself. This is not a science fiction. Some other term should be invented for the film like this, because it sounds almost ridiculous, OK, I see fiction, but where the hell is science? Real science fiction books or films use some invented or fantastic world to show some all human problems, this doesn't mean that all SFi films should be as serious as films of Tarkovsky or Kubrick, but Independence Day goes beyond all imaginable limits of cliché melodrama, cheap action film and hurrah-patriotic propaganda (when watching ID sometimes I even suspected that German Emmerich mocks at excessive patriotic feelings of some Americans – his last film `Patriot' goes even farther in this nationalistic fields of glory-but if this is a satire it is a very subtle one and most people take the `God bless America, land that I love…' part of the film rather seriously). Of course, some may say `the film is what it is - pure entertainment, want serious themes? go, watch Fellini', partly it's right, and entertaining side of the film is not that bad (effects are good, the first part – `the chess game' till the `checkmate' is rather engrossing and I may say that on the level of the entertainment I liked it, than, especially after air plane attack scene, goes blah-blah-blah). When I watch a film like this I often ask myself wouldn't it still be a blockbuster if the storylines were better developed, dialogs were wiser, characters were not that schematic? Ok maybe you earn a couple millions more in USA if you make the American president to save the universe, but what we, non-Americans done to deserve such a torture? I think its mainly fault of critics and ordinary viewers. The first should have burned such film for its bad taste and low level, the audience should demonstrate that of course it likes entertainment but it doesn't mean that entertaining film should be stupid and flat. But the main problem is that Americans themselves are obsessed in finding `messages' in the films. So, what is the message of this one?

AMERICA IS THE SAVIOR OF THE WORLD, it saved the world from feudalism (`The Patriot'), and communism (there are more films on this subject than I can remember) , now it saves us from all possible enemies from Islamic terrorists to Godzila (by the way, it may shock some, but I LIKED GODZILLA, at least there was not that much flag waving and it seemed to be more pure entertainment than pro-American and pro-militaristic propaganda). If the ID stayed within the limits of `Martians attack' and disaster films, it would be pretty acceptable but here all these is mixed with enormous dosage of `America, America, God shed his grace on thee' and `Rembo-Rocky-A Few Good Man-stand up and fight' turns. The resulting salad is almost unbearable.

Shakespeare in Love (1998)

Nice

[7/10 · 5 October 1999]

The film is not a masterpiece, but it is nice to watch. Definitely not the best film of the year (but the best out of those nominated for Oscar). The plot is interesting and entertaining, reminds of good costume films of 60-ies and 70-ies.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

No matter how important and serious is the problem of the film, nothing will save it if it is made without taste

[2/10 · 5 October 1999]

This film is a typical example of the wrong conception that the big money and a serious theme make a great art. No matter how important and serious is the problem of the film, nothing will save it if it is made without taste. Spielberg goes on making dull, pretentious, unbearably politically correct films for adults with a teenage level of intellect. Well, there is nothing bad in making naive picture but naivety of Spielberg Films is of a special kind. It seems that the director wants to make something more important than ET or Indiana Jones but, actually these are his best films, because they are what they are __ nice, entertaining films for kids. When Spielberg aspires for something higher he inevitably finishes with a huge, monumental soap.

Unlike Shindlers List that I consider a good educational film for youth, Private Ryan has something that I, citizen of a post-communist (post-totalitarian) country cannot accept. America used to be for us a symbol of democracy, and it is strange that now when there is no Soviet danger anymore, American cinema is becoming more and more conservative and hurrah-patriotic. Of course there is nothing bad in being a patriot of your nation but the latest tendency is obviously aimed at propagating the armed forces, militarism, etc. From this point of view there is not much difference between the Private Rayan and the Independence Day. Spielbergs films doesn't seem to show that much of senselessness of war (as it was advertised), but propagates the bravery of the American soldiers and the wisdom of the American regime, and does this as straightforward and primitive as it can be. The story of the film seems pathetic (even if it is true), and the acting is corresponding, good photography and excellent sound effects cannot save the film. I think it is time for some filmmakers to realize that no matter how important and serious is the problem of film; nothing will save it if it is made without taste.

Nights of Cabiria (1957)

Masterpiece

[5 October 1999]

I have seen these film many times and still feel the thrill of contact with REAL CINEMA. "Cabiria" is perfect as it can be. If this were the only film of Fellini it would be enough to prove that he was a genius.

Masina is simply unforgettable, and it is such a pity that such films and such actors do not exist anymore.