Galagonya Reviews

Modigliani (2004)

Powerful and strong recollection of the era

[8/10 · 14 September 2007]

The main assets of Modigliani are the spectacular acting, the beautiful camera shots and the great music (featuring La Vie en Rose and a beautiful Ave Maria interpretation).

Andy Garcia does a wonderful job as the tormented Modigliani (he always does a wonderful job), whom everybody loves very much but nobody can help at all.

Omid Djalili comes very close to the Picasso image I had in my mind.

The story does not work very well, it is in fact a love story intertwined with a male friendship/rivalry. They tried to cram in so many characters into the plot that I sometimes felt at loss, and would have wished to know more about individual characters, respectively.

For example, there is a scene in which Jeanne tells her father to leave her be and that she "recalls what he has done" already, a reference to her youth or early childhood, I assumed. I did not gather what he supposedly did.

Then Modigliani also sees other women- has there been a break-up with Jeanne, I wondered or is it just his nature, and are we later on witnessing a reconciliation, the story does not tell.

I did not understand why at the end, when Modigliani gets beaten up, his boy-self does not try to intervene, or reflect on the happenings, or why he did not try to urge his adult self to get going from the bar earlier, whereas he quite strongly interferes earlier, suggesting that Modigliani does not let Jeanne leave.

The plot also includes many visions of Modigliani, such as the death of his friend in the asylum, or the conversations with himself as a child, which make a follow-up even harder.

Although the runtime of Modigliani exceeds 2 hours, which I did not notice as the story captured me right from the start, there have been plot lines left unfinished.

The movie Modigliani does not try to be authentic or historical, but rather captures the Montmartre, the Parisienne painters' everyday life and struggle in the '20s, seen through a beautiful and difficult love story and friendship.

If you take it for what it is, a fictional, strongly emotional (and somewhat irrational) story based on some non-fictional characters, in a beautifully arranged setting and shot in a highly artistic manner, Modigliani is a wonderful movie and a worthy homage to the era and the great artists of those times.

The Good Shepherd (2006)

The 10 years the director spent elaborating this project definitely show.

[10/10 · 9 July 2007]

The Good Shepherd is, although considerably long, extremely intriguing. The atmosphere generated is of such fine quality that - unlike in most spy stories, you can immediately relate to the main character, Edward Wilson, wonderfully portrayed by Matt Damon, and continue with him on a strange journey at the end of which Wilson is hopelessly entangled in the net of the early CIA.

What makes this spy story different from all other spy stories is that there are no spectacular action scenes, no bad guys and good guys, and, what is very rare in the cinema, the director does not transmit a ready-made opinion to the viewer on what he or she is supposed to think of each and every character. The viewer is thought to be capable to form an own concept. What a refreshing novelty! While most of the actors do fine, Matt Damon is brilliant.

And I have never heard of Tammy Blanchard before, but she does some great acting here.

The Good Shepherd sports some excellent music which is one of the reasons you are hooked on the film from the start. The first 15 minutes are more exciting than a dozen other spy thrillers put together (yes, the James Bonds included, yes, the newest one as well).

One of the many reasons The Good Shepherd works so well is that throughout the story a sense of reality and everyday life is kept. Pictures of the main character's working hours are followed up by equally interesting family matters.

The only thing that annoyed me was that the characters seemingly did not get any older, although a substantial amount of time passed as the story evolved.

It is absolutely a shame that this movie did not get any Oscars.

The Good Shepherd is not only an interesting account of the early days of the CIA, but the fascinating story of an unfortunate man who should never have trusted anybody but himself, and the consequences of when he did.

All the King's Men (2006)

How could they mess up such a seemingly bullet-proof story?

[1/10 · 6 July 2007]

I did not read the novel. But from the plot outlines and the cast lists publicly available I felt quite certain that I could not go wrong when picking this movie to watch. I have also learnt that the original adaptation had won Oscar. Still, I have been completely, entirely mislead.

The movie is basically about Willie Stark's (Sean Penn) rising political career, in the course of which he gets even more cynical, disillusioned and, sort of, fanatic, as he has been when we met him in the beginning.

The three little crosses symbolizing three little children's deaths at the beginning of the movie are a good symbol all through All the King's Men, representing the willingness of all characters to go over the graves of even their most beloved ones.

And now I come to the point where this film got out of the grip of the director: while it can be interesting, if all characters in a story are equally repellent, still, the overall story only works, if at times, a side of them is shown, which is, even if not easy to relate, but at least some sort of understandable.

The characters here seem to act on impulse entirely. For no reason. No personal gain. Maybe they are just bored. But they do not seem to get any thrills from their actions, either.

Why would you ruthlessly betray the person you loved as a father all your life, if a) he has never harmed you and b) you do not gain anything from it (besides, you are rich as can be, so you need no money either; nor have you any ambitions).

Why would you not keep in touch with the so-called love of your life, who obviously also loves you, and your best friend?

Where did the wife of Willie Stark disappear to? The reasons for which Willie Stark kept Tiny Duffy in his inner circle is simply ridiculous. You can expect nothing but vengeance from a man you have made a popular laughing stock.

And what doe they want with poor Anthony Hokpins'es character stroking his chair all the time when he is on screen?

In the end, when his best friend ever races to his death, the journalist stands by with wide eyes (obviously a specialty of Jude Law, and frequently used all through the movie).

Besides, the performances of Willie Stark in public are driven to the border of absurdity. Willie Stark sways around while giving speeches as a flag in a hurricane. He is ruthless, mean, cheats on everybody he has around him, and the script is still centered around Jude Law's character simply destroying everything in his own life on the first plea of Willie Stark. Jude Law's character is not threatened, he is not promised anything. He does awful things just for kicks. Oh- yes, and he is the good guy. (Besides, I think that Jude Law is the same in most of his roles. This one included. So prepare to see Jude Law a.k.a. Jude Law.)

Sean Penn is brilliant though (as he has always been, but he comes close to how good he was in Hurlyburly, thus is even much better than in Mystic River).

Kate Winslet, Anthony Hokins and Patricia Clarkson have stupid roles and try to manage.

Jackie Earle Haley is wasted.

James Gandolfini is also a waste for the role of a quite unintelligent brute.

Maybe it was the scriptwriters concept to show how the weak character of the journalist becomes free prey to someone of the willpower of Willie Stark, I do not know. But even this failed, since the journalist is an absolutely abhorrent person himself - anyone betraying the guy who raised him in love for no reasons is- this just doesn't work.

I do not know what the concept was meant to be, but you have Wiillie Stark's road to madness, and Jack Burden's road to hell. Both of those fail to interest.

The Lost City (2005)

Excellent.

[10/10 · 6 July 2007]

The Lost City is a very private, heartfelt and intriguing movie from Andy Garcia. In its manner, it is perfect.

In my opinion, in the case of a story of generations and personal interactions, it is quite unreasonable to debate, whether the historical events used in the movie are authentic or not. This is not an objective documentary, and it does not need to be, although it does its best at objectiveness, I think.

The same is true for the critics that a night-club owner is no angel himself, or that there are several minor characters who could and should have been left out altogether. But for me, Bill Murray's character, Fico's friends, the family suppers, all add up to a captivating intake of one man's life, and one man's point-of-view.

Even if you cannot fully agree with the political message of The Lost City, it is worth watching for the simple sheer beauty of the shots, the wonderful music, and the splendid cast.

I have read that this movie has been a life-time project and dream of Andy Garcia, and I think that this is visible all the way along.

Alexander (2004)

Stupid but spectacular.

[3/10 · 25 June 2007]

Q.: What happens when you subtract all the sense from Gladiator and mix it with the dumb approach of Troy and flavor it with unlikely and unreal characters (note: these need to be based on real persons strictly)?

(drums)

A.: Well, obviously the movie Alexander!

The three points out of ten go to the love to the detail and the good looks of the movie. Because you might argue, that Alexander has a silly, even ridiculous script, but it surely has been shot nicely.

While the occasion could have been used to depict Alexander as a great tactic, as a great ruler, as a great leader, as an interesting character, as a great thinker, or as a great man, in the least, instead a picture of a shaky, confused and pitiable person is painted.

He is tormented by his influential mother, enters difficult relationships, and is altogether in the need of a big hug.

Although the approach taken is interesting, it does not work very well. (I would just like to add in brackets that I never understood why Alexander's performer had to be dyed blonde. Why Angelina Jolie has to go about the place with snakes. Why it is so important that Alexander could have been bisexual, I thought it was already common knowledge that such sexual orientation was quite usual in those days. I'll stop here.)

If you haven't watched it already, watch only if you are an avid fan of Greek mythology/ history, and enjoy spectacular movies and fight scenes even without contents. I can assure you that it is possible.

Flightplan (2005)

Bumpy ride, but it flies somewhat anyway.

[5/10 · 25 June 2007]

Flightplan is really good entertainment but nothing more than that.

It does not make you think of anything except that maybe it would be good to design every vehicle yourself which holds a potential that your child might be kidnapped on it.

The plot is not the cleverest ever written, and there surely are unnecessary flaws, including:

1. nobody saw the child prior to kidnapping? extremely unlikely, at least the neighbors (or the surveillance cameras) should have caught a glimpse.

2. obviously, the kidnappers could have kidnapped the child elsewhere much more conveniently -why bother with an airplane, risking your own safety as a worthy kidnapper as well?

3. if they were tracking the family, would they not have known that the plane was designed by the mother?

Well, anyway- there is still enough suspense and some good acting to carry this movie, not far, but far enough to make it to a decent one night's entertainment.

5 points out of 10 from me.

Heroes (II) (2006–2010)

Brilliant.

[10/10 · 25 June 2007]

To everyone out there- this is the series of the decade and the brainiest ever since J. Michael Straczynski's Babylon 5 in this genre.

The compelling story of every day heroes grabs you as the plot of the first season unwinds bit by bit.

The decisions and the alternatives the characters have to face are tough and thought-provoking and make it easy to relate to almost each and every one of them. It is very rare to have a show in which even the smallest character is so real-life (okay, apart from their abilities). This is also one of the few shows where every sentence really has its place and where everything is truly connected, and not only, because someone on the show gives a lengthy monologue on that being so. Further, one of the few shows, where there are rarely black-and-white characters, and everyone has their bad-person-day.

There is such a superb balance between the heroes' powers. Kudos, since there is an amazing amount of cast appearing and disappearing all the time.

The visual effects are outstanding.

All in all, Heroes has a uniquely coherent storyline, includes no dead ends and loops as is often the case with big budget shows that want to be marketed well, and they managed to gather a brilliant cast.

Heroes has come up with a very original solution and plot line stemming from an overall exploited idea of heroes walking amongst us. I am absolutely looking forward to (hopefully) many more seasons to come.

American Pie (1999)

If you are not an American teenager, I suggest you do not watch this one.

[1/10 · 25 June 2007]

As I am not an American teenager myself, I failed to grasp the sense of the entire movie, I am afraid.

Further, I feel somewhat uneasy that I have watched it at all.

Hence I comment on this title: anyone over the age of 20, not American, who is not likely to laugh about bad language and noises coming from peoples' body cavities, skip this one as I should have done myself.

Why is it, that since Grease nobody could come up with a somewhat intelligent take on high school students and their major issue (a.k.a get a girl/boyfriend quick before the party/end of semester).

The characters are uninteresting and unreal, the story is simply dumb.

There is only hype around this film because there is a tendency to cheer on vulgarity nowadays instead of admitting you simply feel insulted and think it misplaced and ridiculous.

The Brothers Grimm (2005)

Brothers Grimm awake your worst childhood nightmares.

[10/10 · 25 June 2007]

I am surprised to find that this movie is so utterly underrated here.

I have grown up on those tales, and I must say, Terry Gilliam really portrayed the worst of all the stories ever scripted by the Grimm Brothers.

The plot itself is quite uncomplicated: the two Grimm Brothers travel around the land, pretending to fight evil spirits and witches they make up. The people are relieved and pay well. However, after their trick is found out, the only way they can regain their freedom is by encountering and fighting a true witch in a haunted forest that makes me shudder even as I think of it right now (no kidding). And believe it or not, Monica Bellucci is simply horrifying as the evil queen nurturing herself on the dead bodies of little girls of the village.

The toad showing the directions is plainly hilarious.

The gingerbread man is a blood-thirsty alternative for Shrek's pal.

I think that everyone complaining about Grimm Brothers should stop and think that this is a generally not very twisted version of what kids get to read or what is read to them at a very-very young age (at least here in Europe). I think Brothers Grimm is, apart from being a really intriguing and spectacular horror movie, a very well-made and intelligent satire on the Grimms' "children bedtime" stories. Brothers Grimm is one of its kind.

The Prestige (2006)

Confusingly told story of two disagreeable rivals.

[6/10 · 25 June 2007]

Although the story is great, and the end-twist, i.e, no magic at all, is fabulous, the Prestige gets lost in the confusing manner in which it is told (exactly just like Memento; I do not understand that the same director who after all those unsuccessful attempts gave the Batman series a worthy movie, gets lost for the second time in his own story-telling).

The many flashbacks, different views, diaries and all, lead to a sort of loss of sense for which you either have to watch the movie all over to check whether you got it right and whether the director has made any mistakes, or you just settle with what you have grasped the first time- a somewhat messy account of - to tell you the truth- uninteresting events.

The feud between the two magicians is, frankly speaking, quite flat. Both are so annoying and dislikable, that you can't help but think that it would be in the general interest of mankind if both would perish. I am usually not this cruel, bit I certainly could not identify or sympathize with either.

The good things include the somewhat dark perspective (the part with David Bowie and his experiments really can get you some goose bumps if you are inclined to get some), and the end with all those clones dead is quite eerie as well. So the feeling had it going. The character of Scarlett Johansson had much unnecessary screening time.

The Prestige is really entertaining, but I am generally opposed to films and plots that are supposed to have "meaning" and something to say, but are nothing but an optical illusion themselves. This is clearly the case with the Prestige- one admirable and great idea (that of the no-tricks) is exploited to its uttermost, all marrow sucked out of its bones. The rest is illusion.

The Illusionist (2006)

Fairy tale set in Vienna.

[6/10 · 25 June 2007]

I must agree with the comments indicating that the material covered in this movie would have been enough for a short story only and is - somewhat- insufficient for 110 minutes.

The aforementioned mystic aura of some sort is the best part of the Illusionist. The performances are fine as well- Edward Norton is, as always, very good at what he is doing, and Paul Giamatti and Rufus Sewell are also okay.I am very sorry Liv Tyler could not do the part of Eisenheim's love interest in the end, as her fairy-like person would have added a lot more to the mystique of the film.

You get to figure out the tricks of Eisenheim on the way along with Inspector Uhl. You do not get all of them explained. If you prefer explanations, go watch Prestige instead.

The music did the plot well and underlined the magic greatly, although in a somewhat repetitive manner. The camera works so well you get your eyes glued to the screen - even if you won't probably bite your nails in excitement.

The major problem is that while the Illusionist keeps you watching if you are a fan of myths & magic, it certainly does not hold a great plot twist. So no big surprises can be expected there. The ending is quite predictable. This is a pity because there is a lot of potential to the story, and there certainly would have been a lot more to the setting, and the characters, and the actors portraying them, if only it had been tapped.

Crown Prince Leopold's character should have been exploited much more. I missed a real confrontation or row between him and Eisenheim; the one at the Prince's premises was not much of that. The death of the Crown Prince is viewed by the director in a totally detached way which surely tries to say that bad guys always die in the end, but hey, who took whose fianceé around here?

Also- even the general basis of the story, i.e., that the girl and Eisenheim are childhood sweethearts, seems quite like a fairy tale itself- it is quite unlikely that a girl of her status would have been left alone on enough occasions to develop a relationship with a boy of his standing, and go unnoticed for an adequately long period of time.

So - I recommend you watch the Illusionist for what it is -a somewhat romantic fairy tale set in Vienna, in the era of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, in the troubled and magic times of the great Eisenheim. And it is very good as THAT.

Shrek (2001)

Ogres are fun!

[10/10 · 22 June 2007]

The story of grumpy, unsocial and feared ogre Shrek, who develops a crush on a princess with a little secret.

Besides being extraordinary fun, full with great characters, the story apparently also has something to say about grumpy people (pardon me, ogres) are often good-hearted in the inside, princesses are not always what they seam, and the looks are not the thing that matter.

I have had the "Welcome to Duloc" song in my head for several weeks after having first watched Shrek 1.

Not only is Duloc a perfect town, but Shrek 1 is a simply perfect animation movie. Once in a while it happens that truly deserving movies win Oscars. This has just been the case right here.

Shrek 2 (2004)

Being a good guy is tough.

[10/10 · 22 June 2007]

Shrek 2 is just perfect in its manner.

The idyllic life of Shrek and Fiona (and their numerous friends) in the swamp ends with a dinner invitation to the parents of Fiona. Then many problems start to unfold.

With an evil fairy godmother, a frog king (best part, I love King Harold, please note as my brother did when when you re-watch the movie that the royal bedroom is plastered with numerous adorable pictures of ponds, hint, hint), a Puss-in-Boots and a marvelous additional cast featuring the Muffinman (the Muffinman? the Muffinman!), fabulous (smaller and greater) Gingerbreadmen, Donkey and Co., Shrek 2 is first class entertainment for 93 minutes, which even has a lot to say and teach.

Shrek the Third (2007)

It is Shrek the Third. It is great the third time too, but you have to consider that it is the third time.

[8/10 · 22 June 2007]

It is definitely not the most rewarding task to do a third part of a flourishing movie. The audience is already used to several of the jokes, the characters as such are not fun in themselves (as they undoubtedly were in the first - and, the newer ones, in the second - movie), so saying that Shrek the Third is much worse than its predecessors is just simply not fair.

It is a little bit worse, though. The main problem I would say is that they operate with so many characters, that you do not have the chance to learn to like, hate, or be afraid of them, respectively.

Doris is my favorite new character by far.

The girl-pack (Rapunzel & Co.) are also okay, but again, nobody gets more than one or two minutes screening time- that is not enough to develop or show a character you can find cool.

Also, the scene where King Harold dies (several times) - well, I am not easily offended, but that was a bit of a stretch.

Apart from that, there is a lot of stuff to laugh on and enjoy, the story is a decent (but again, not well-elaborated) parody of the Harry Potter and King Arthur sagas, the part where Pinocchio is interrogated is a gem (did you catch before that the same guy is doing the voice for Pinocchio and the piggies?), and so is the escape of the ladies from their prison.

Everybody you liked is here, including the Gingerbread Man, the Wolf, and of course the Donkey and Puss and the rest.

the nanny dwarf is just sooo cool.

The story is mainly centered around Shrek trying to get back to the beginning of Shrek No. 1 - with one addition, Fiona- and have his peace in his swamp. Meanwhile, he has to find a new king to replace him, get acquainted with the fact that he is to become a dad, and try to save Far Far Away from Prince Charming and those, who never had a happily ever after before. Quite a lot to do there!

The animation and the technicalities of the background reminded me of fabulous old Walt Disney backgrounds, they were so well-done. if you compare the technique with that of part 1 - well, the development in such a short time is amazing.

I think that it is unfair to go to a third part of a series and expect that the original characters for whom you have gone there have been completely reinvented so that you get the same thrill as you did the first time. The magic of newness is natural to fade.

So - there is quite a decent amount of laughter you can get from Shrek the Third. Go see the movie and enjoy it as I did.

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

Ron Howard didn't crack the Da Vinci Code.

[1/10 · 22 June 2007]

I have read the book before seeing the movie with family members who haven't. Thanks Heavens we watched it on DVD because after every 10 minutes we had to stop for me to explain what was going on.

It seems that director Ron Howard and his script-writers have left out just about everything that would have added some depth or meaning to an otherwise not bad, but far-from-great novel.

The cast is an enigma to me. Audrey Tatou in all of her roles is always herself, and I think few are extraordinarily fond of her (she is somewhat creepy) and Tom Hanks, otherwise good as he may be, here with a humiliating toupee or bob, whichever)is not fit for the role of an adventurous beau professor, either.

Paul Bettany excels as Silas (okay, he is always great), he is outstanding in an otherwise extremely poor movie. Ian McKellen is miscast. Alfred Molina tries his best but the role he has has been twisted been emptied by the movie makers. Even Jean Reno has such a poor role that I completely forgot he had anything to do with the flick and just got reminded as I went through the cast.

This all adds up to a movie where - as our private screen testing revealed- nobody gets anything who hasn't read the book, and the ones who have feel they have to apologize.

The others didn't get that Silas is a victim of fanaticism and is betrayed. They saw a freak and serial killer in him.

Nobody understood what the catholic Church was doing with Bishop Aringarosa.

Nobody seriously believed that Audrey Tatou's character understands even part of what she is talking about (as it could not be understood by anyone who has not read the novel).

The novel has something of the Umberto Eco's Name of the Rose- some thinking, some theories, some religious sacrileges, to give you a spooky and enjoyable medieval feeling. The movie completely fails to transfer this. Instead, the characters do an awful lot of talking- which is really annoying, as the characters portrayed by the badly picked actors are, other than in the book- and from their lengthy and cheesy dialogs is the complicated story to unfold. Well, it doesn't.

If there is anything good to be credited to the novel of Dan Brown, it is the atmosphere and tension related to mysticism, fanaticism and religion in general, as well as the secretiveness of the sects involved that hook you and make you read the novel in one night. Nothing of that atmosphere was cast in the movie adaptation. Less talking (or even a dark, male narrator's voice) and a little more tension could have done most of the job.

If there ever was a movie deserving a 1 out of 10, this surely does.

V for Vendetta (2005)

V for Vendetta is good, while it should have been great.

[7/10 · 22 June 2007]

V for Vendetta - despite the obviously good basic story, for which and for the great performances I give 7 points- is somehow not well done. I do not wonder Alan Moore, the creator of V refused any association with this adaptation.

Thus in the following I shall try to only criticize the movie as it was made, and leave the comic as such alone.

Hugo Weaving is a fine actor and it is a very unrewarding task to accept a role of a man in a mask because it could- technically - be just anybody else. The same was true for Edward Norton when he did the part of King Baldwin in Kingdom of Heaven. It is rare that a man in a mask can be remembered for additional features such as singing as Gerard Butler in the Phantom of the Opera. So all together, very brave of Hugo Weaving, and I am sorry we did not get to see any of him.

The genre is unclear and undefined. It is not a drama as Children of Men, as V chooses death over a life with Evey, who loves her. It is not a profound criticism of our civilization as such- well, maybe it is for the English, anyway-, as 1984. It is not an action-flick in the sense of Matrix - the parts meant to be action are rare and understated. The story (interpreted by the Wachowsky Brothers) is not as fascinating as that of the Island, for example. It tries to get the best of all these and ends up using the worst clichés of all.

At some points, the story-telling obviously stumbles.

There is the end scene, where all dead (who made their very own sacrifice and should be honored and left alone) are standing within the amazed crowd again. I really tried to see this as some sort of statement relating to the disturbing and stupid monologue Evey has to deliver at the end on the topic "V was all of us". My attempt failed and it still looked stupid.

And why does no one (the parents of Evey, Deitrich, the girl whose story Evey reads while she is in prison) ever try to flee in this movie? Evereybody is sitting and having a cup of tea, waiting for the guys with the black bags to arrive.

Why is V so kind with the lady he kills, who is obviously one of the key figures that lead to his deformation and torture? Obviously we are supposed to understand that he is a gentleman.

Why does V tell the police officer that he has been waiting for him all these years??? What does that police officer do, anyway? And the ultimate goof where I really had to laugh out loud- the slowing-down and Matrix-like falling of the raindrops when Evey is freed from prison, as well as the slow motion burning of the fire from where V had to escape, put together- we would have seen the parallel anyway, thank you, those 10 minutes or so would not have been necessary. Ant the fact that Evey even uttered "God is in the rain" - a touching sentence which has been read by her just 10 sec. ago so everybody still remembered it- is an insult and seriously damages this climax of the plot.

Further, I have to mention that I can not imagine where on earth Evey found those roses in the underground to put on the deathbed of V. Maybe I just missed something.

Higlights are the Benny Hill-tribute of Stephen Fry's character, V's monologues and fencing, and Natalie Portman.

V for Vendetta as a movie is good, but it is the subject matter that is great. There go the credits.

The Court Jester (1955)

THE perfect comedy. Everybody doing movies recently, please watch this once in while.

[10/10 · 22 June 2007]

This is one of the few movies I grew up on, the dialogs and songs of which I know by heart up to this day.

Made in the golden era, the set is beautiful, the costumes are great and the sing-and-dance inserts are spectacular.

Besides, this movie contains some of the wittiest sentences ever uttered on broad screen. The tongue-twisters, the admirable tunes and the loads of on-spot jokes poured on the viewer are overwhelming. Yes, in those days - and with Danny Kaye's talent- you could afford to have a movie where jokes are left to sparkle and are not overexploited and redone several times in 15 minutes to initially freeze your grin just to have it fade away completely shortly afterwards.

The extra-fast knighting ceremony, the witch, the finger-snapping-magic, the dress-up as Foltzingdale the wine merchant and the fabulous dialog here, the great fencing scene with evil Sir Ravenhurst (magnificent Basil Rathbone), the vessel with the pestle, the palace from the chalice, the flagon with the dragon, all underline an interesting and well-written script, leading to a grand end scene, even managing to add a lot of depth to the story on the way.

Danny Kaye shines and shows that he is the true King of Jesters (and the Jester of the King).

Babel (I) (2006)

Unusual kaleidoscope.

[8/10 · 22 June 2007]

I am very pleased that eventually something decent has been awarded.

The center of Babel, as is to be expected from the title, is the Babel-idea of all things in life intertwining. This is here supported by a very strong cast, story lines that go under the skin (yes they do, because they are all easy to relate to as they are so ordinary in a manner), and extraordinarily great music.

The length is made up to a good extent of parts without dialog, where you have the pictures, the actors' faces and the music only. You might consider this the weak spot or the virtue of the film. I vote for the latter.

The stories connect in a very slow pace. Although violence and action are very strongly present in the movie, the overall impression is that of some sort of timelessness and peacefulness, as all elements of the kaleidoscope slowly shift into their place.

I think there is well room for criticism if you dissect the individual stories and analyze them under a microscope. Still, if the movie is viewed from the distance and the problems are perceived as abstractions of all problems (as Plato's ideas on the wall of the cave), Babel is an intriguing tale which fulfills its aim- it makes the point that the most unlikely events, people might be connected, as seen in an unusual superhuman kaleidoscope.

The Merchant of Venice (2004)

Spectacular adaptation, with a complete misunderstanding.

[6/10 · 22 June 2007]

The cast is brilliant. The settings and cuts are nice. The costumes are great. The music is nice. Still, at the end of the day, this adaptation by Michael Radford reveals a very strange version and understanding of the original story, which is rather disturbing.

If you have seen Luther with Joseph Fiennes, in which he undoubtedly did great, you can about imagine how dark and somber this version of a - supposedly- funny play has turned out.

First of all, Shylock is a very tormented figure, actually, the only one you can sympathize with. This is somehow crooked as he is to be the bad guy. Remember, this is Shakespeare's theater, we have good guys and bad guys. Our age's greyness has not penetrated those times yet.

Second, the daughter of Shylock, contrary to the feelings of all the audience, just can't wait to get off and away with her love. While the actress does a great job with what she gets, there is not much space left for her to develop a character. This I find disturbing as she is supposedly the character that leads to the deeds of Shylock and his lust for revenge, which make up the story as such.

Third, this Shakespearian play has been turned into some sort of Holocaust-movie, which is, from one side, appropriate, since it depicts the general views of the age, but, from the other side, is completely twisted, since the performance of a medieval play also requires some understanding of the age it stems from- and at that time, Jews were tormented due to religious, and not racial differences. This was true mutually and for any men of different religions. Although you might agree with this new view of the director, it is simply disturbing because the balance of the entire play is thrown over- the bad guy is the good guy, the good guys are the intolerant guys, I'll leave this with that.

Fourth, as the relationship between Antonio and Bassanio is left unexplained, and the homosexual line - albeit suggested by many renowned Shakespeare-researchers and not unknown at the time - is not included, the viewer is left wondering whether he or she had any "friend" he or she would offer a pound of his or her flesh for. Thus, the other most important storyline - besides that of the daughter of Shylock- is also inadequately depicted.

Fifth, the main speeches are not delivered at the appropriate places. Shylock's big one ('Do we not bleed') is whispered in the open street, which would be okay, but, since the director goes through the biggest efforts to make Shylock the nice leading man - in which he I think succeeds- more emphasis should have been included here.

Shakespeare, I believe, included funny parts for you to laugh and have a good time, and could still make you think and consider. I think this is the foundation of the beloved English sense of humor, that there is always something below the surface. You may laugh at the surface, but you shall think of what lies beneath it.

This movie is a completely American adaptation- it looks great, but does not assume you shall be able to think of what Shakespeare supposedly wanted to say if you get your laughs as well. A social drama instead of a comedy. Anyway, a treat to the eye.

Boys Don't Cry (1999)

Topic misused for attention-raising.

[2/10 · 9 May 2007]

I did not like this movie and did only not walk out because I went to the theater with a bunch of friends who insisted I keep quiet and I was sitting in the middle of a row. I should regret I did not leave.

This is another movie where the topic has been awarded and not the picture itself. Although I can sympathize with trans-genders' certainly faced everyday disturbing issues, I can not think of anything in this movie that would enhance their situation in any way. The story is violent mainly, and not revealing or fairly touching or interesting in any manner. Both Hilary Swank and Chloé Sevigny are doing their parts nicely, though.

The plot has flaws such as Lana is not angry at all after her love interest turns out to be a woman. By that time the viewer also had to endure a painful love scene between the two. Nothing, well, strange, got noticed there, you see. And nobody minds in the end. Right.

The rest of the story depicts the depreciating, hopeless area in which the characters reside.

Nothing is said of, let's say, memories of Swank's character on how she turned out to be this way (born like it? trauma? woke up like it?), although I think it would be very important to enable the viewer to form an opinion. In case this has been left vague for a purpose, well, I do not believe that the viewers should not be allowed their opinions. It would have helped build the character. This way, Brendon remains a mystery. Why not wait until the OP is over and try find a lesbian girl-friend in the meantime?

The reaction of the "bad guys" is not justifiable in any means, please do not get me wrong, but it is true that finding out that your buddy is a girl really could disturb anybody. I understand the movie is based on a real-life drama and I feel very sorry for the real Brandon.

I had the impression that this movie is just using its topic to gain attention but does not give answers, or, although this would be the least to be expected, does not raise any questions.

The two points go for the brave choice of the basic topic and the good performances. Everything else has fallen too short.

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)

Entertaining, strangely.

[3/10 · 9 May 2007]

Having overcome the initial shock that two allegedly top-notch assassins are supposedly not aware of the job of the person they live with, despite the fact, that they met while both being on the run in South America and covered up for each other, the movie was quite enjoyable.

I feel the more so, since the Trivia for this picture states that the original cast would have been Nicole Kidman and Johnny Depp. It seems quite impossible to come up with a more awkward couple. At least Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are a good match.

The Smiths is nothing memorable, nothing special, but in its own way surprisingly entertaining (once).

Still, if for some twisted reason you would want to see professional, exciting and intriguing (and also touching and intelligent) fights between members of a couple, watch Ying xiong's Broken Sword and Flying Snow instead.

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider - The Cradle of Life (2003)

Just like No. 1. "S" for spectacular, not for story.

[3/10 · 9 May 2007]

Lara Croft No. 1 has been more a spectacular show-off of choreography and some less spectacular show-off of technical know-how and special effects. The second part has even a thinner plot line – funny, since the first movie has also been criticized for lack of story. Pandora's Box might have been utilized well, nice thought, but then again, it wasn't.

The below-the-surface shots are once again good-looking but lack credibility (especially the shark part).

The mean guys fail to make a mean enough impression. I do not know who included Thriller as one genre of this movie at IMDb, perhaps there is a meaning of this phrase that eluded me so far.

You might argue that the rare dialogs are just there to fill up the time between the action scenes. Should this disturb you, do not watch. Otherwise as enjoyable as the first one. The scene with the stone figures coming to life is as remarkable and memorable to me as has been the flying-around hall-fight scene in the first Lara Croft movie.

I venture to say I like these movies, but if there is ever, ever going to be another sequel, try find somebody who can do a script for a change. Stick to the choreographer and the visual effects department, though!

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)

If you forget that movies are supposed to have a script, quite entertaining.

[3/10 · 9 May 2007]

• I do not know the game and I am no avid fan of Angelina Jolie. -

The choreography is excellent, and to me the almost initial scene where they are literally hanging around and fighting in the hall is quite memorable.

The plot including a secret chamber in the own mansion of Lara Croft seems rather out of place (you would not expect from a heroine such as her that there are untracked parts and bits about her family home), the planets all in a line, triangular pieces lying around scattered all over the world, well, that part is quite like Indiana Jones and similarly weak.

Still, if you can lean back and simply enjoy the action scenes, Tomb Raider is quite worth watching.

Gladiator (2000)

A stunning duel staged against the decaying Roman Empire.

[9/10 · 9 May 2007]

One comment insists that Gladiator would be something for Fight Club fans. I do not get the idea, but I have to admit that I indeed enjoyed both films very much.

That much said, be prepared for beautifully shot scenes, spectacular fights, some interesting characters (there could have been a little enhancement in this respect, but nevertheless, the characters are strong and sound).

Kudos to Joaquin Phoenix in the first place. He performs a haunted, tormented and cruel emperor you can still sometimes glimpse the human and pitiable side of, and is altogether very creepy and goes under your skin. Yes, he definitely should have gotten the Oscar. He is the only member of the cast I can not imagine to be replaceable. His interpretation of Commodus adds depth to Gladiator as otherwise it might have been just the usual the very, very, very good guy battles the bad, stupid, really bad one against all odds.

Russell Crowe is a fine Maximus. He engages in some spectacular fights in and out of the arena while showing off genuine feelings and wits. The opening battle is in its genre perfect in my belief. The much disputed scenes where he is floating over the fields are a bit kitschy, a bit cheesy, but still, nice thought, and do not work that bad with the excellent music.

Oliver Reed and Richard Harris are both rendering great performances and contribute mainly to the authenticity (not meant in a historical sense) of the story.

Why is it a problem for so many that in the end Maximus fights and kills the Emperor in the arena in a duel that never ever took or would have taken place in reality? Do not expect historical correctness or accuracy, this is not a documentary to be broadcast on National Geographic or the History Channel. Enjoy Gladiator for for what it is, an action-drama-epic imaginary saga set in powerful cruel ancient Rome already overshadowed by its unavoidable fall from greatness.

8 Women (2002)

It is not enough to simply cast good people to do a good movie.

[2/10 · 9 May 2007]

Or, usually, the work would not stop there. Here it did.

The renowned actresses try their best. I can't even say that the plot is bad because it could have worked (the two points I gave are to be derived from that). The problem was that the story just got lost and the movie became a parody of itself. It does not do well as a crime, comedy or musical movie in any manner.

1. Musical? You would need to be able to sing and dance for that to decent melodies. Forget it.

I am a musical fan, believe me, this is not a musical in any respect. It is true that there are attempts at some screeching to music-like tunes but saying that there be singing and music is simply not true.

2. Comedy? In as much as this is ridiculous, yes.

I also have to admit that I am not an admirer of the so called "French humor" (in case this phenomenon exists at all, anyone encountered it yet?), and could not recognize any comedic parts in here either.

3. Crime time line lost.

As a result of the genre mix, the crime line that could have been doing well (I even venture to say that in the beginning, you do have suspense), fades away very soon.

4. Lack of characters that are at least interesting.

The female characters depicted are to the greatest extent unlikeable and unlikely.

A good deal of the screening time tries to deal with the tangled interpersonal relationship of the eight women, but due to lack of time and artistic virtues on behalf of the director (oh yes, it is true, sorry), it just gets out of bounds and is incomprehensible and uninteresting.

There is no likeness whatsoever to Agatha Christie's any works (except maybe the very early and lame Mary Westmacott love stories she started with).

I do not know, why 8 Femmes has such an excellent rating at IMDb, I suppose it can be derived from the general respect for the cast members, but otherwise, this movie did not work for me, it did not work in any genre it attempted to form the part of, and is should not be legal to have such casts wasted all for nothing.