The Movie Perspective

While you were sleeping, 1995

2012-02-09T20:39:00.005+01:00

While you were sleeping, 1995
Director: Jon Turteltaub
Cast: Sandra Bullock, Bill Pullman, Peter Gallagher

Stage: Home theatre, TV selection

While you were sleeping in short: Lucy's life consists of constant loneliness that is until she saves Peter's life. Now she is a part of his family, and with a strong heart and fate on her side, others begin to realize what a terrific person she is, especially Jack, Peter's brother. An extraordinarily true-to-life sequence of events begin to take place as Lucy and Jack become closer and learn more about each other and themselves than one would ever expect from such coincidental, yet believable events.

Preps: wow, a wonderful surprise on a Thursday evening. I adore Sandra and also Pullman. I saw this piece a few times and it makes me dream away every time.

Reality: As always, not dissappointed. The storyline is interesting, the philosophy behind it even more. How far are you going with things you make up and where do you choose to have the limit? Especially if you are as sad and yearning for love and someone to love (and that would love you back). So she makes something small up which afterwards comes up to a giant fat lie she can't back away from. She grows into the heart of his family, she plays the game until she falls in love with the brother. After that still plays the game. Do women really want to be comfortable until the very last breath?
The charade is really fun to watch and I love the witty scenes and the confusion she brings with her intelligent statements. Also the side role of her friend in the building that proposes to her constantly, is really intriguing.
Setting is placed around Christmas, the perfect time you can forgive her for making things up. The perfect time to be with the family and ones you love. You can easily feel with a person that is all alone, working on Christmas. So with the personification of the viewer, a bit of romance, fluffy yearning.. and the director wins the homerun.
Can you give me any reason I shouldn't marry your brother?, she asks Pullman. What would be the answer if he told her he loves her? Then the charade of the wedding, family love, etc, would vanish and she would be stuck with her conscience. The mixup at the wedding scene is really touching. We all need to confess our sins, especially if they are mixing with other people, influencing other people's feelings. The proposal at the ticket station is so romantic it really makes your heart turn a bit mushy. Life doesn't always turn out the way you planned.

My personal rating: 7,0 (a solid romantic comedy. You will love it, especially if you are fond of family way of living and are cheering for happy endings).

While you were sleeping on IMDB

Le Concert, 2009

2012-02-08T09:12:00.003+01:00

Le Concert, 2009
Director: Rado Mihaileanu
Cast: Aleksey Guskov, Melanie Laurent, Dmitri Nazarov

Stage: Home theatre, early morning on a morning I couldn't sleep, cultural holiday. Maybe the best beginning of such a day with some culture in the piece.

Le Concert in short: Thirty years ago, Andrei Simoniovich Filipov, the renowned conductor of the Bolshoi orchestra, was fired for hiring Jewish musicians. Now a mere cleaning man at the Bolshoi, he learns by accident that the Châtelet Theater in Paris invites the Bolshoi orchestra to play there. He decides to gather together his former musicians and to perform in Paris in the place of the current Bolshoi orchestra. As a solo violin player to accompany his old Jewish or Gypsy musicians he wants Anne-Marie Jacquet, a young virtuoso. If they all overcome the hardships ahead this very special concert will be a triumph.

Preps: Heard many great reviews about this piece, yet never came to its place on my perfect night. Now I have a perfect morning, the dawn of our national cultural holiday to celebrate with this piece.

Reality: An extraordinary piece, touched me to my heart and soul. Besides miraculous music, also great interpretation and great story. Reminds me somehow of a hungarian movie I saw a while ago, however that piece consisted on the dancing (maiden danced to death .. ). This one consists on music and bringing back virtually dead people to live again on stage.

The real story is about revealing real parents to a young talented violinist and telling her the story about her life as it really is. The parallel story is about getting some rusted russian players (concert players, artists) to perform again, with a real attitude, in Paris, the centre of culture (up to a russian standard, obviously also to the rest of the world). Numerous funny scenes happen inbetween, the russians somehow manage to assemble themselves and fly to Paris, however once they are in the city, they get loose of their strings, per se. Which means they act less serious than ever and don't really have in mind they came here to perform to a crowd of critics and eager people.

The movie has a genuine depressive drama mode, accompanied with the mindset of a true russian, as presented here - some would say even balcan way of thinking (we would call it "lako čemo" or we will get by). Which means that the real artists like this violinist would never perform with such a crowd of sheep for the lack of respect and interest in such barbarians. Still, somehow, the dramatic effect of the first subtle story about someone reaching to the parents and this clown artist story on the other hand, somehow collide in a superb concert they manage to deliver at last.
The final scene is breathtaking and makes it worth staying behind the screen until the movie lasts. It touches your innerself and makes your body shiver. The music collides with the feelings and the confession or the real story, which is told inbetween. Brilliant piece, in term of seeking something that touches you deeply.

Now, can IRL some people just go to the airport and print some passports, or on the other hand, can they deliver an excellent concert without practising at all? I really doubt. The movie is also filled with subtle hints how russian (or eastern) people are supposed to be and brings a dark spotlight upon them. I doubt things are really like this, however, if we see too many movies on this topic made in the same way, we might consider this to be the truth. Similar with our prejudice towards some US citizen (because of some movies that show them more stupid as I really think they are). So in some sense, this movie is humiliating the attitude towards russian nation and some eastern nations as a whole. Still, I got to laugh quite a bit. You will, too.

Some hindback for me; it's a russian movie, I saw it with spanish subtitles. I am not as fluent in spanish as in english or german, still, I got it all. But do yourself a favour and download english subtitles. Most of the jokes will be funny instantly, not after one minute (once I got them :)

My personal rating: 8,0 (a splendid piece, worthy seeing on a cultural holiday. I love the story and I love the outcome. the music will rock your bones).

Le concert on IMDB

Girl, Interrupted, 1999

2012-02-06T09:57:00.006+01:00

Girl, Interrupted, 1999
Director: James Mangold
Cast: Winona Ryder, Angelina Jolie, Whoopi Goldberg

Stage: Home theatre, late Sunday night

Girl, Interrupted in short: Susanna is rushed to the hospital. Afterwards she discusses this with a psychiatrist. She had been having some delusions. She had also been having an affair with the husband of her parents' friend. The doctor suggests that combining a bottle of aspirin and a bottle of vodka was a suicide attempt. This she denies. He recommends a short period of rest at Claymoore. Claymoore is a private mental hospital full of noisy, crazy people. Georgina is a pathological liar. Polly has been badly scarred by fire. Daisy won't eat in the presence of other people. Lisa is a sociopath, the biggest exasperation for the staff - like Nurse Valerie - and the biggest influence on the other girls in the hospital. Lisa has a history of escapes, so gaining access to personal medical files is not a problem... Susanna's boyfriend Toby is concerned that she seems too comfortable living with her institutionalized friends.

Preps: Angelina got an oscar for this piece. Winona was nominated, I think. Something I haven't seen before and definitely need to see it. It's an oldie, but I think I might like it. The trailer tells me it's the topic that interests me.

Reality: Narrator (Winona) begins with.. "Have you ever confused a dream with life? Or stolen something when you have the cash? Have you ever been blue? Or thought your train moving while sitting still? Maybe I was just crazy. Maybe it was the 60's. Or maybe I was just a girl... interrupted"

Winona is right. Sometimes you need to go a bit crazy to understand the real world. Where else do you submit to be analyzed and cured at an institution which doesn't want to give you a leave or let you go. It's a bit sad watching how an institution can influence a sane person (or at least turn someone with a few weird characteristics into a complete looney). A place, where sane people are kept because they tread on the system, and sick ones are left home, where they cut their veins and keep chicken in the fridge to please the father that's raping them.

The movie will strike you with the reality of the scenes and the horror it might pose down your bloodstream. You are terrified to find yourself once in a place like this and you need to think out of the box to convey the message. If you are placed in an institution, lie because otherwise you won't escape :)
To be quite honest, this must be one of the best Angelina Jolie's casts. I adored her also in the Changeling - the serious role of a mother that loses a child. I think that serious drama movies fit her better than action movies. Yes, she's a hot chick, but appereantly she can contribute much more to the cause than just a nice ass and hot lips. So use her in those roles, instead of only action Lara Croft figures! :) (Maybe action brings more money, I don't know. But I have grown a deep respect for her in drama casts).

Winona is superb also. I just love the dialogue these two "more sane" women are having all the time and the adventures they are a part of being kept in a looney house. It devastates my mind to think about the impact you have on your soul, if you are working in a place like this. The scenery is superb, the dialogues are witty and intelligent, the music brings /adds on, where necessary.

The movie is more than worth seeing. It's worth thinking about it and the limit you are willing to admit (to yourself and to others), what is a sane person and what an insane looks (feels, thinks) like. When are we insane and aren't we all in certain moments? Should we all be locked or would the locking benefit to our image of ourselves at some point? Winona after a while doesn't want to leave the institution that she took shelter in. The same I have at home, she says and refuses to leave.
As if we build the cage we are caught in. And are our own prisoners, keepers and managers.

P.s. Exclusively nice to see Whoopi Goldberg, even though it's a relatively old movie.

My personal rating: 8,0 (a splendid show-off of lunecy vs. sanity. And a superb cast. You will enjoy the two dames in their prime roles. Plus, have fun with the dialogues and looney actions.)

Girl, Interrupted on IMDB

Bringing down the house, 2003

2012-02-05T21:18:00.003+01:00

Bringing down the house, 2003
Director: Adam Shankman
Cast: Steve Martin, Queen Latifah, Eugene Levy

Stage: home theatre, Sunday evening, randomly chosen

Bringing down the house in short: Peter Sanderson is a divorced, straight-laced, uptight attorney who still loves his ex-wife and can't figure out what he did wrong to make her leave him. However, Peter's trying to move on, and he's smitten with a brainy, bombshell barrister he's been chatting with online. However, when she comes to his house for their first face-to-face, she isn't refined, isn't Ivy League, and isn't even a lawyer. Instead, it's Charlene, a prison escapee who's proclaiming her innocence and wants Peter to help her clear her name. But Peter wants nothing to do with her, prompting the loud and shocking Charlene to turn Peter's perfectly ordered life upside down, jeopardizing his effort to get back with his wife and woo a billion dollar client.

Preps: well, nothing more exciting to do on a Sunday night, plus I am a bit tired. This was on my list a while ago, however I need something sweet and relaxing. I know this one will be no brainer for my cells.

Reality: Well, true to the last bit. It is no brainer. You need no cells to burn. Easy and simple to understand, filled with some sit com moments, no smart laughing, but fun.
It's amazing how Queen Latifah can wear so many clothes in such various colours, that would never fit a rounded lady, but she looks hot in them. I could call this a special Queen Latifah genre, as these movies that contain her, are very similar. She is either a cop, a detective, a baby sitter, a criminal(name the profession), she always has a guy besides (more or less attractive) and makes a "cool" impression. You get to learn the cool vibes, the cool language.. so you feel equipped to go under the hood and in one of those districts.

As said from starters, it's not a specifically intelectual piece. And it's not even trying to be. It has the energy and the moves, it has the good music that makes you want to dance all night long and it has humour that relaxes you. Plus, in this perticular piece we have the privilege to see Dear John again, which is also the plus of it. I haven't seen this guy ever since, so I am quite excited about this.
Now, being Queen Latifah is something, but trying to copy her is another. This is why Martin looks like an idiot when trying to do it. Joan Plowright from The Golden Girls is another addition to this movie and she casts a strange old lady that is a good flavour to this movie.

It gives second thoughts to our prejudice we carry in our inside. Are people really what they seem to be or is it on us to discover their innerself, may it be good or bad. And how much that prejudice influences our decisions? Would a lawyer from a good family really take a convict under his roof? Don't really think so. Would this same person really change everything he knows or stood for? Also, not really likely. But in this piece, it is shown in the most humorous way. As I am against most of movies Queen Latifah plays in for the same reason (find the humour really stupid and underestimating to the viewer), I need to admit that this piece is above the average in this made-up genre. Entertaining, but not really profound.

My personal grade: 5,0 ( a cute comedy to have on a Sunday night).

Bringing on IMDB

Panic room, 2002

2012-02-05T12:46:00.004+01:00

Panic room, 2002
Director: David Fincher
Cast: Jodie Foster, Kristen Stewart, Forest Whitaker

Stage: Home TV, late Saturday selection

Panic room in short: Recently divorced Meg Altman and her daughter Sarah have bought a new home in New York. On their tour around the mansion, they come across the panic room. A room so secure, that no one can get in. When three burglars break in, Meg makes a move to the panic room. But all her troubles don't stop there. The criminals know where she is, and what they require the most in the house is in that very room.

Preps: Hm. I have seen this piece at the movies in 2002, I liked it. Now I see it has Kristen Stewart, known for vampire saga Twilight as a beautiful Bella. Here I need to see her as a child.

Reality: Wow, beautiful Bella once really was a child. Here as Jodie Foster's diabetic daughter, she gains my confidence in her act. She was developing at that time, but least I see she has been working hard from the beginning (same thing as Drew Barrymore, for instance, starting off with ET.

Now, the Panic room is a perfect shelter for people that don't get excited in closed spaces. Ironically enough, Jodie Foster plays someone that really doesn't like closed rooms, nor supervision through cameras. An unusual story, where some leftovers are hidden after the last owner and aren't taken away quick enough. This is why the burglars come to claim the property, not knowing the house has been sold in the mean time and even more, has now new owners, actually living in the house. The threesome is amusing, showing underappreciation towards burglars. Maybe Finches' own fears or attempt to teach us about how things should be in this world. I doubt that most burglars come as a)fathers that want to give their son the best they can; b)really stupid coleric individuals that don't think two cm below their dicks or c) that they meet at the scene of the job with an armed really weird individual.

In any sense, the movie has a temper and energy, it will keep you high all the time and you will feel the need to ask yourself about the reality these characters are showing. Is it really impossible to get into the safe room? The only way to make the viewer believe is if you make an expert part of the burglar team, namely one that builds such cages. Even if the goal is to prevent burglars from getting into one of those.
Also, some tweeks, I don't buy. You just don't get your hand caught by steel doors and it is still there. It should be cut off. Maybe the choice of director to avoid 18+ rating. And some others.. barefeet people running on the glass not getting hurt is one of them. Hitting a man so hard and him still being conscious, another.. And a lot more. Still, a good showoff of what it might happen somewhere if..

The ending is a bit romantic and could be done a bit differently to get the tention to the peak, not to release it. I claim it to be a fairly good choice of a Sat night movie. It will make you think what would you do if you were in their shoes.

My personal grade: 6,0 (solid proof of concept for a Saturday night. Will get your blood running a bit faster. And you will rehearse the SOS code again :)

Panic room on IMDB

War Horse, 2011

2012-02-04T18:41:00.004+01:00

War Horse, 2011
Director: Steven Spielberg
Cast: Jeremy Irvine, Emily Watson, David Thewlis

Stage: Home theatre.

War horse in short: Dartmoor,1914: To his wife's dismay farmer Narracott buys a thoroughbred horse rather than a plough animal but his teenaged son Albert trains the horse and calls him Joey,the two becoming inseparable. When his harvest fails the farmer has to sell Joey to the British cavalry and he is shipped to France where,after a disastrous offensive he is captured by the Germans and changes hands twice more before he is found,caught in the barbed wire in No Man's Land four years later and freed,due to a bizarre truce. He is returned behind British lines where Albert,now a private,has been temporarily blinded by gas but still recognises his beloved Joey. However as the Armistice is declared Joey is set to be auctioned off. After all they have been through will Albert and Joey return home together?

Preps: One of the hot ones at the movies, got some recommendations and am anxious to see it.

Reality: This must be one of the more touching movies I have seen in a while. I cannot remember crying like this from Lassie, or some similar movies.
In any case, the scenery is fascinating. Is UK really that beautiful? I need to see it desperately! The beginning of the movie is harsh and realistic. They really didn't have money to get through life and couldn't afford anything. Still, this beautiful horse comes in the story as the fresh mint in your breath. Gives energy to that family and makes miracles. Miraclous horse, they say. Agree. I am a fan of animals, not really horses per se, but you fall in love with this one, when seeing this piece. You need to love this horse and Spielberg took care of the bond somewhere in the beginning of the movie.
By the way, the movie starts off with the most beautiful music, probably carefully chosen for this piece and it follows us within the movie all the way. Love it!!
Also, the novel that was the base for this piece, is written by a young novelist Michael Morpungo. Spielgerg got excited with the piece, in 2007 it had a theatre screening and he was figuring out how to get this piece on true screen. Now, in the real style of Finding Private Ryan, a good remake of this spectacle.

The main drive with the movie in my eyes, is the feeling of the horse. I got my eyes wet every time I saw torture of the horses, being dragged into a war. Especially this stallion and his black friend. I am not really a fan of scenes like this, but I am realistic also and know that millions of horses died while people were fighting for any kind of cause in the WW. It stroke me several times with the ruthness the sides in WW had and the cruelty they have shown towards all, people and animals.

One of the best scenes is saving Joey from the front, being caught by a nasty fighting fence. While two soldiers from opposite sides (english and german) cut the fence from a horse, they almost get friendly. A sad story. A lot of people were dragged into the war without them wanting it. In this piece, a lot of young warriors are shown, with terrified fearful look in their eyes, before they go to fight. They need to go, other way they will be shot. Terrible. This is not human. And yet, I understand, this is the way it was.

The story of this brave horse is a breath taking one, wrapping your love and heart into a bundle and if you are a softy as I am, it will definitely make you cry. I loved it, I deeply recommend it.

My personal grade: 9,0 (beautiful, just beautiful. I would cut down the scenes from the battle, but this is merely personal. Without them it wouldn't be so real and harsh. I can only applaude to Spielberg).

War Horse on IMDB

Single White Female 2: The Psycho,2005

2012-02-04T17:58:00.004+01:00

Single White Female 2, The Psycho, 2005
Director: Keith Samples
Cast: Kristen Miller, Allison Lange, Todd Babcock

Stage: Home theatre, late Friday night

SWF in short: In New York, the PRs colleagues and roommates Holly Parker and Jan Lambert are disputing a promotion in their agency. The unethical Jan deceives Holly and sends her to Chicago; meanwhile, she seduces Holly's boyfriend David Kray, in the opening of the fancy restaurant of his own, and they have one night stand. When Holly arrives back home, she finds that David cheated her with Jan, and she decides to move to a new apartment. She schedules a visit with the needy Tess Kositch, and they become roommates and friends. When Tess cuts and dyes her hair identical to Holly's style, she sees that her new roommate is obsessed on her. When Holly follows Tess to the underground night-club "Sin", she realizes that the girl is deranged. But Tess wants to be her friend and put Holly out misery, eliminating her former bad friends.

Preps: None in perticular. Wow, part deux. I did like the first part, it's a good horror movie. What more do they have in stock?

Reality: Bad. Worse. If you saw the first part, you will be dissappointed. It's like seeing Cruel Intentions, which comes up to a fairly decent piece, and after that Cruel Intentions 2, which is a bad remake and your eyes hurt when seeing this piece.
Now, the story isn't something new. You have a roommate which copies everything her friend does, from hair colour, to the dressing, make-up, etc.
In the first movie the movie starts without pre-story. In this case, the first third is dedicated to two career chasing women which are arguing about an account and afterall in a dirty game they win it.
The true remake begins, when one of these two ladies moves out, because of a betrayal. Now the real comparison can begin. Up to this point the movie is somewhere on the range of Legally blonde, and nothing more. This is supposed to be a horror movie, but it's very far from that. I am amazed that they picked two gorgeous actresses, obviously the guy they are chasing as the account is also gorgeous. In the first run (first third) you really get this competitive edge, that most people are facing when chasing a career.
The next level should be an upgrade to the SWF 1, but it's really quite the opposite. It is truly underestimating the viewer, if you are demanding, because you demand more, on the basis of SWF1. If you watch SWF 2 independent, you might even like it, it looks like a teenage horror movie and it has some nice and romantic scenes that are tailored to the mind of a teenager. The love scenes seem vague and without energy. The two friends just make up after the deed that split them apart, in an elevator? This might have been invented by a male person. Women just don't forgive in a second, not a betrayal by a friend who you lived with.

Another question that this movie poses but doesn't answer is the limit of friendship. How far do you go with your girlfriend, in sense of copying, renting clothes, etc. Plus, it has a really weird turnover, when we find out that the prudent roommate is a sexual slave. Hm. Doesn't fit in the profile. Or it could, if the director took this turn and exploited this situation a bit more. As it is, it doesn't contribute to the movie at all.

In any case, I cannot claim it's a waste of time. Not a horror, anyway, but if you never saw SWF 1 you won't come up with the same expectations as I had when trying to watch this. for all of those that think SWF is a good one, don't watch this one, because you will be dissappointed. I was.

My personal score: 5,5 (can't decide. Don't really recommend this but it is appropriate, if you sell it to your teenage kids as a horror :)

SWF on IMDB

Dying young, 1991

2012-01-29T23:09:00.004+01:00

Dying young, 1991
Director: Joel Schumacher
Cast: Julia Roberts, Campbell Scott

Dying young in short: After she discovers that her boyfriend has betrayed her, Hilary O'Neil is looking for a new start and a new job. She begins to work as a private nurse for a young man suffering from blood cancer. Slowly, they fall in love, but they always know their love cannot last because he is destined to die.

Stage: Home theatre, late Sunday night, TV selection

Preps: None in perticular. I am in for a movie. And our local TV makes a hell of a selection on late Sunday nights. Like they knew it would be better sleeping however you cannot resist :)

Reality: A truly sad story about love. And lovely at the same time. It is ironic how love caters us in the inappropriate moments. Like in this piece, you fall in impossible love, one that cannot last and you have the option of taking what's on the plate and enjoy it while it lasts. Or never go along with it because it is doomed to end because of an illness.
A lot of us go along in life perfectly. And some of us cannot seem to find the grasp of love that is portrayed like this in the piece. What to take, the happiness that won't last forever, or seek the forever lasting love? Sometimes we find out that heart doesn't choose like our mind does. Therefore you are thrown into a situation you cannot defy or deny because your heart wants it this way.
In this sense, falling in love with a guy that is sick to death (literally) is a no no, if you look at it from mind perspective. Julia Roberts has one of her cuter roles in being a nurse to this doomed man and falling in love with him. It is lovely to watch the roses grow, on the other hand the rituals they go through when the cancer shows its teeth, are disastrous.
Sacrifice is the main word for this piece. And love, indefinitely. Endlessly. Forever. No matter what. It is a movie for people that like romantic dramas and real life content. It will serve your veins like peas and carrots, that go well together. It will show you the sweetness and sorrow. It will make you laugh and cry. It is not a movie for those that have no respect in this or don't want to waste the time on romance.

My personal rate: 7,0 (a solid piece, worth seeing if you are a romantic soul, looking for something to think about. Would you take the risk of falling in love with someone that is dying? Compared to Sweet November, it is the same thing. If you liked that one, you will like this for sure).

Dying young on IMDB

The Peacemaker, 1997

2012-01-29T22:55:00.003+01:00

The Peacemaker, 1997
Director: Mimi Leder
Cast: Nicole Kidman, George Clooney, Marcel Iures

The Peacemaker in short:Two trains crash somewhere in Russia, one carrying a nuclear payload. A nuclear explosion follows the crash and the world is on alert... However, White House nuclear expert Dr. Julia Kelly doesn't think it was an accident... Special Operations Intelligence Officer Colonel Thomas Devoe doesn't think so either... Together they must unravel a conspiracy that goes from Europe to New York, to stop a terrorist who has no demands..

Stage: Home theatre, Sunday night selection on TV

Preps: Hm, I think I saw this one at the movies and I didn't like it. But memory is a sad story, so let's see if I am right.

Reality: Hm.. I am right. Only the scenery won't do. The war in ex Yugoslavia, Russian disputes, eastern Countries disputes.. is a sad story and has been depicted in many movies. This one is an american attempt of making it more yummy than it is. In other words, it collides many stories, however only one, and that is the pain of the nation, is relevant. No other stories should take place in this one. The quarrel between the nations and the big price they were paying for years has no place for romance, some chase on the US streets. There can be no good collision of US scenes and scenes that depict Russian wars, eastern nations wars, Ex Yugoslavia war. I mean, you cannot film a movie for most of the time in muslim mosque or on streets of war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, or on a russian railroad and then just switch to the US land. It's not probable, it shouldn't be done.
Clooney and Kidman have the saint role in the movie, however as much as US tries, they cannot be perceived as Peacemakers. It is known that they were perceived as Smurfs, because of the helmets. There were many really sad and true pieces filmed about the wars on these regions and the casualties, victims and sadness, depression, the war created. This is definitely not one of them. We are not on this place to celebrate the fact that US sticks their nose wherever they find it interesting (I am not speaking about appropriate). It is (was) not their war as I am sure that they are doing their chores on many places in the same exact way.
Movies like these make people think that US soldiers, Peacemakers, nurses, etc, play a huge role in nation's desputes around the world. Guess what, they usually make it worse, not better. Despite the fact that this movie is trying to persuade you differently, be sure you are watching a fairy tale. With some smart inserts of Višnjevič and some russian, serbian jargon.

My personal rate: 5,0 (I wouldn't recommend it. It is better to watch movies that local people/directors made on the topic. More realistic, better equipped with real information).

The Peacemaker on IMDB

Sleepers, 1996

2012-01-29T22:28:00.003+01:00

Sleepers, 1996
Director: Barry Levinson
Cast: Brad Pitt, Robert de Niro, Kevin Bacon, Dustin Hoffmann, Minnie Driver, Jason Patric

Sleepers in short: Four boys growing up in Hell's Kitchen play a prank that leads to an old man getting hurt. Sentenced to no less than one year in the Wilkenson Center in upstate New York, the four friends are changed by the beating, humiliation and sexual abuse by the guards sworn to protect them. Thirteen years later and a chance meeting lead to a chance for revenge against the Wilkenson Center and the guards.

Preps: None in perticular. The cast is astounding. The director is one of my favourites. And I have naturally watched this earlier, as a child. Admired it at that time, I am sure I will even more now with a critical eye.

Reality: I am right. This is one of better bitter stories ever being put on screen. I believe Levinson is a genious and a coragious man to put this live. Still, the US government and all similar facilities, deny that such places exist, such actions ever could take place and that there wasn't a trial as depicted in the movie.
Well, the story will rip your bones off. It is breathtaking and it makes you shiver with fear and horror all along the way. Violence creates violence. Put normal boys into a facility of correction, juvenile home or something, abuse them and be sure they will grow up to be criminals, most of them.
The sad story revolves around four boys being taken into a facility for a homicide they commited unintentionally. And the abuse they were submitted to, it is just horrible. Their commitment never to speak about that part of their lives is broken when two former boys, now adults, have the chance to take the revenge with a guy that raped them. So they kill them and are put into trial.
The trial isn't about the killing, it's about revenge to the facility that abused them while they were taken in for a year in their childhood. And they get the revenge, with style.
The cast is magnificent. The story is breathtaking. The director did his work and it shivers me even now as I write about it. A must see for any person. It will make you fear of such institutions and make you never do wrong in a way you would get into a facility like that. It will make you hate those that abuse children, even more. And will make you think about the sacrifice you are willing to take for the ones you love. The priest treads on his values or virtues to help the kids get the revenge they want. The truth, even though not admitted by the government, is out and it should be. In a fair world, such things wouldn't go unpunished. And no kids would die on streets with 29. But that is in fairy tales. We live in a no dream world. And need to take it seriously, for it's a place for filth and abuse. You see this undoubtfully in this piece. It will tear down your heart.

My personal rate: 8,5 (splendid piece that makes you think way beyond its purpose and content. It makes you cry in your heart and feel with the characters. Not many pieces do that to you).

Sleepers on IMDB

Fatal Attraction, 1987

2012-01-29T22:05:00.004+01:00

Fatal Attraction, 1987
Director: Adrian Lyne
Cast: Glenn Close, Michael Douglas, Anne Archer

Stage: Home theatre, late Saturday screening

Fatal Attraction in short:Happily married New York lawyer Dan Callagher has an affair with his colleague Alex, and the two enjoy a love weekend while Dan's wife and kid are away. But Alex will not let go of him, and she will stop at nothing to have him for herself. Just how far will she go to get what she wants?.

Preps: None in perticular. Seen this piece. Love its horror and energy.

Reality: Now what animal drives us to make something out of our ordinary and in some cases, jeopardise everything we have, own, want to own or have developed in ages before this perticular action?

The plot is simple; a guy takes a weekend vacation from his marriage and gets involved with a woman that seems to have everything under control. Here comes the true meaning of the title of the piece. Truly it is a fatal attraction, but not fatal in thins these two lovers develop, but in the relationship fall this guy is facing. Douglas plays a similar role to the one in the movie Disclosure. So a guy that was taken advantage of. The cards were on the table. He wanted to fuck so he did, and she wanted to fuck and they did. How about these two getting their armours equipped and turning into two most fatal enemies because of a weekend they spent together as if they were teenagers?

The tables turn as she confesses pregnancy, tries to stalk him on every step and makes him really miserable only by claiming she cannot live without him. It is the deed of desperation she is doing on every day, with the stalking, and calling to his home, to the office. She claims she needs him, his love, she wants to have his child. And all he wanted was a weekend fun.

Now how to confess to the wife (do you confess at all?).. well, the road is steep and long. He doesn't want his life to change at all but he no longer has the control. His weekend affair turns into a raging bull with the angry woman that claims she adores him.

The piece will make you think about the virtues you have and the sacrifices you are willing to make. Also to think about one deed in one night, if it's worth the effort. Would you really want to take everything to the edge and take the risk of losing it all for one day of fun? Highly doubtful for most of the population. And this is the tagline this movie is aiming towards.
Splendid cast by Glenn Close, a good one by Douglas. It is the 80 movie and as such works in this environment. To nowaday spectator it will look out of date. But the topic is as vivid as ever.

My personal rate: 7,5 (a good classic to see, live in any given moment).

Fatal Attraction on IMDB

The way back, 2010

2012-01-29T21:26:00.004+01:00

The way back, 2010
Director: Peter Weir
Cast: Ed Harris, Colin Farrel, Jim Sturgess

Stage: desktop theatre in a nice hotel room in Sarajevo

The way back in short: In 1941, three men reach India from Tibet, having walked 4000 miles after escaping a Siberian gulag. The film tells their story and that of four others who escaped with them and a teenage girl who joins them in flight. The group's natural leader is Janusz, a Pole condemned by accusations secured by torturing his wife; he knows how to live in the wilds. They escape under cover of a snowstorm: a cynical American, a Russian thug, a comic accountant, a pastry chef who draws, a priest, and a Pole with night blindness. They face freezing nights, lack of food and water, mosquitoes, an endless desert, the Himalayas, and moral questions of when to leave someone behind.

Preps: just a good recomendation, I am not aware of the content nor the cast. Therefore a lot of expectations, I give a lot to this person's opinion.

Reality: Hm. a true story indeed. If you aren't under sheets or somewhere warm, you will get cold in the first 20 minutes. Siberian gulags are places like german lagers in the WW2. Not a place you would want to be in, nor the place you could imagine to survive. There are many thoughts in my mind while watching the beginning of the movie, especially means of surviving in those conditions as those men fought against.
Stalin made sure he had the workforce, namely people that were tagged as the enemies of the system, country, its people (pick your favourite) and put into so called gulags. Treated as animals, without food, conditions to live in, at approximately 40 degrees minus, well, a treat truly. Plus, these were working troops, they built several tunnels for the russians, catered the wood, chopped down forests, made railroads.. a free workforce, you might think of them this way. Most of them were taken because a plain thing they did (and it caused their conspiracy to the mother Russia), even though in some cases it was a plain example of a person taking a photo, or someone just looking at an institution. Before put into those starvation cabins, they were tortured (or their families) until they "admitted" they caused some crimes.
In any case, a truly sad and honest story about gulags, in the first third of the movie. To be honest, the movie isn't about gulags at all. It is about surviving. Some men jump out of their fence and escape. Their enemy, as their watchers so vividly express in the beginning, isn't the dogs or the guardians, it is the nature. Surviving in these conditions, having 1000 km of plain forest and snow in front of them, this is the challenge they are facing. And it's not a light challenge. In my opinion, the movie doesn't really show the way how they survived. I doubt I would be able to survive one single night without freezing to death. Therefore I was interested in what the director might show me. And was dissappointed, because they just skipped the part. The same thing happens at the end. Skipping the long walk through Himalayas. What did Weird think when skipping this part? It would add some content to the whole and it would add credibility. Luckily they didn't touch the long walk through Mongolia, which is as hard as the walk through Sibiria. There they made me a believer again.

The main topic in my opinion touches the frames of one's will to survive. If you want something badly enough, you will get to that point, in this sense, India and reunion with the wife you left behind. There will be casualties, but we are looking at the main character, brilliantly played, who took this long journey. I admire the cast of Mr. Smith (the American)- Ed Harris, that comes all the way to Tibet and stays there. Beautiful. Plus, the connection he makes with the woman, astounding.

There is no way many people could have survived, barefoot in the sand and snow. The power of will is magnificent. And this piece shows it directly, in the bloodstream. It will make you admire the will to live and the will to survive.

My personal rate: 8,0 (remarkable piece on how to live because you really really want to).

The way back on IMDB

Apollo 13, 1995

2012-01-15T17:07:00.005+01:00

Apollo 13, 1995
Director: Ron Howard
Cast: Tom Hanks, Gary Sinise, Bill Paxton, Kevin Bacon

Stage: Home TV selection, late Saturday

Apollo in short: Based on the true story of the ill-fated 13th Apollo mission bound for the moon. Astronauts Lovell, Haise and Swigert were scheduled to fly Apollo 14, but are moved up to 13. It's 1970, and America have already achieved their lunar landing goal, so there's little interest in this "routine" flight.. until that is, things go very wrong, and prospects of a safe return fade.

Preps: Hm. I believe I have seen this one already, however I did't like it in perticular.

Reality: Well, this is no brainer. The storyline is predictable, as it is based on the real events (point one) and the second point is that it's made in a way you can be a magician and predict what it is going to take, which path and where it's taking the viewer.

In any case, we cannot go beyond the true facts. A bunch of astronauts going to the moon. Something goes wrong and in the mean time they are trying to get back. We are submurged to the parade of their families, as they eagerly try to monitor the safe return and possible loss of their fathers. Very Hollywood like. I wouldn't dream that NASA or whoever rocks these planetarium visits, really gives a damn about the families. The astronauts are like climbers, or someone that goes in a war zone trying to do good. It is a risk you are signing when you are going to the school that makes you an astronaut. Obviously there is a risk you will stay on some Saturn or never get out of a mission.

However, in this movie, we make a spectacle out of this mission (I am sure that even though it's after real events, it wasn't really like this. Cannot prove it, but I am sure it wasn't). The spectacle has a respectable cast, respectable director, some good music and some good scenes from outer space (and to be honest, this is what we all are hoping for because we aren't able to see it). In this sense, some lovely scenes. But this is it. Some witty dialogues, some dramatical scenes that can make you feel with them, especially being from US. But no wonders. No miracles. Nothing really special about the movie. Predictable ending. People shaking hands in NASA afterwards. Eh.. could be much more,

My personal rate: 5,0 (bah. one in a million similar movies, about the astronaut mission, possible failure and safe Hollywood like return).

Apollo on IMDB

Vertical Limit, 2000

2012-01-15T16:08:00.011+01:00

Vertical Limit, 2000
Director: Martin Campbell
Cast: Scott Glenn, Chris O'Donnell, Bill Paxton

Stage: Home TV selection, somewhere in between the week.

Vertical in short: A high-adrenaline tale of young climber Peter Garrett, who must launch a treacherous and extraordinary rescue effort up K2, the world's second highest peak. Confronting both his own limitations and the awesome power of nature's uncontrollable elements, Peter risks his life to save his sister, Annie, and her summit team in a race against time. The team is trapped in an icy grave at 26,000 feet - a death zone above the vertical limit of endurance where the human body cannot survive for long. Every second counts as Peter enlists the help of a crew of fellow climbers, including eccentric, reclusive mountain man Montgomery Wick, to ascend the chilling might of the world's most feared peak to save her.

Preps: Hm. Third time, I guess. NOthing spectacular I need to see. But something to relax my mind after a long day.

Reality: Somehow it's similar to Apollo 13. Someone that goes on climbing Himalaya, should know his/her strengths, weaknesses. And how far can he/she go in these thin lines between life and death.
Somehow I seem to be repeating myself. How much is one life worth or how much are three lives worth? In currency of lives and maybe in currency of media spectacles. How would it make a change if it was a relative or someone you love up in the mountain? How much money would you claim if you were the brave hero trying to rescue a mission?

One of the good missions that started with a prediction of fail, ends up in the vertical (of death), waiting for the rescue or its death. Being economic along the way (which makes it interesting, I might add). But nothing more than a good mission to make us think about our climbing, if we ever want to go. To think about the stakes and if we are willing to let them be, for the sake of dying possibly on the mountain, or being handicapped for the rest of our lives.

Not to underestimate the mountains is the main message. Taken in many copies around the movie world. This one is pretty average and makes you think about all the others. I still feel the piece with the most breathtaking message, how not to underestimate the mountains, is Alive. Also upon a true story. Maybe that's why it takes my breath away every time. Naah, that's not it. It's the good delivery.

My personal rate: 4,0 (ah.. if you don't have anything more important to do. It's a low brainer).

Vertical on IMDB

The Help, 2011

2012-01-15T16:08:00.008+01:00

The Help, 2011
Director: Tate Taylor
Cast: Emma Stone, Octavia Spencer, Viola Davis

The Help in short:Set in Mississippi during the 1960s, Skeeter (Stone) is a southern society girl who returns from college determined to become a writer, but turns her friends' lives -- and a Mississippi town -- upside down when she decides to interview the black women who have spent their lives taking care of prominent southern families. Aibileen (Davis), Skeeter's best friend's housekeeper, is the first to open up -- to the dismay of her friends in the tight-knit black community. Despite Skeeter's life-long friendships hanging in the balance, she and Aibileen continue their collaboration and soon more women come forward to tell their stories -- and as it turns out, they have a lot to say. Along the way, unlikely friendships are forged and a new sisterhood emerges, but not before everyone in town has a thing or two to say themselves when they become unwittingly -- and unwillingly -- caught up in the changing times.

Stage: Home cinema, late Saturday

Preps: Hm, wonderful critics. I am also aware what the movie is all about. I believe the right drama to see on a good Saturday night.

Reality: It takes me away from present and moves me to the past, where you had different times and values. I have watched a similar movie lately, only happening on a different part of the world, Aleksandrinke.
This one takes you to the core of the problem black people had in the sixties. No real value and no real appreciation. White rich girls were just in a quest to get a husband, make a few babies and that was it. No plan after that. Just black help to get you all settled in.
In this sense, black housewifes and governants (for that was what they really were), were obliged to take care of everything a housewife should, from cooking to cleaning, from groceries to ironing. And taking care of white children, instead of their own, was their job. Day and night. Sometimes they would live with their families, often in their ghetto. Their husbands highly unemployeable, they had no chance but taking it in and enduring the pain caused by white ruthless mistresses.
I feel as if white women got arrowsed by this power given to them by money. Because they spent most of the day demanding something from those black women and giving them blame for something they did or didn't do. Making them take a leak somewhere else than the normal family, eating somewhere else, giving them pennies instead of a real money, and humiliating them whenever it was or wasn't convenient.
The time was right to make a rebel yell, and you are dragged into the movie, as the journalist wanna be (that used to be exactly one of the rich white dames), decides to take an extra step and make a book out of the sad stories. Obviously she doesn't have black governants standing in line to make an open call. However, some happenings, like making someone arrested for the "horrible crime" and harrasment without comparison, make the queue in front of her book longer and longer.

The piece does have some ironically funny moments. However, the complete story is sad, yet true. It will make you think about the virtues you posess and how you behave towards someone that makes such work instead of you (giving it you aren't paying a lot for it and it sounds natural to you to exploit such resources). I believe this was a hard time for most of "different" people, naming all the people that were victims of their environment. Something out of standard, something out of proportion or expectations. Or simply poor and in need of work. At that time work wasn't honored, work was underappreciated. Because no ladies were working. I wonder what it was they were doing. This movie poses one of the options.

My personal rate: 8,0 (a good drama, worth exploring and thinking about it afterwards)

The Help on IMDB

Parada, 2011

2012-01-08T12:13:00.005+01:00

Parada, 2011
Director: Srdjan Dragojević
Cast: Nikola Kojo, Miloš Samolov, Hristina Popović, Goran Jevtić

Stage: Local colloseum, Saturday night, packed with crowd. Only a few seats left :) Luckily I am alone so I don't really care :)

Parada in short: A homophobic, middle-aged, Serbian gangster ends up sacrificing himself to protect Gay freedom in his country. RADMILO (35) and MIRKO (30) are young and successful gay couple, and they would be a happy couple anywhere else except in - Serbia. They try to live discreetly but still, every day they are abused by the homophobic majority. Plus, Mirko is a gay rights activist, and his dream is to organize the first successful PRIDE event in Belgrade. This is almost a "mission impossible"; in 2001, an attempt to hold PRIDE in Belgrade ended up in bloodshed. One decade later, the situation is not much better - nationalist and neo-Nazi organizations prepare another massacre in case of holding the gay parade, while the police refuse to provide protection for the participants. A strange couple arrives in Radmilo's and Mirko's life - LEMON (45) an ex criminal and war veteran, the owner of a small security company and his fiance - PEARL (30) a beauty parlor owner.

Preps: Well, the director is famous for some pieces that were quite notorious a while ago (Lepa sela lepo gore, Rane, Mi nismo andjeli) and I loved them for the dark irony and sadness, yet beauty they reveal as oppose to a simple Hollywood depicting the same scenes (there are some attempts of making Balcan wars and regional disputes popularized, yet it seems only balcan directors are able to do it properly for a different passion they feel towards these same historical actions).

In many ways it can see like a pact between different nations, because the final team to defend the rights of a minority, is constructed of different nations and representatives that shared terror in the war, yet remained friends. It is almost scary seeing them together, because based on the ex-yu war experience, you just expect them to get into a fight. After a while you can be assured they really remained friends and they are interested in a special deal Limun is preparing for them. Maybe for the sake of old times, maybe for the challenge it poses, because it is something none of those mostly homophobic people has done in his life service, maybe for some other reasons. It is truly nice to see them work together, although all the time I am still wondering, what the f.. :) - in a positive way. In no imagination could these five gentlemen work together 15 years ago. They couldn't stand each other at that point and would shoot on spot at each other.

In any case, the issue they need to deal with (on the outside and mostly on the inside), is their homophobic view of the world. Are gay people really people? First to accept this in order to defend their parade. Can you really defend something you don't believe in? Limun at first claims you can. You killed for money, you raped for money, now you are telling me you cannot defend gay people because they are gay? At some point he realizes that his own people really won't work for any amount at all, because they don't want to be connected with gays in any way. Terrifying feeling, watching how high the level of homophobia still is. I am sure most of the countries could practically share the same level, as gay people aren't treated as humans in most of the countries throughout the world. In Slovenia, my country, this is maybe not so violently shown (in the streets), but they aren't treated equal and maybe sometimes physical (non seen) violence can be even worse.
Serbia, in this sense, and Belgrade, is depicted as the country where mob rules the streets and even cops are bribed, so they act the way head mob people want them to. Limun as a powerful man, still finds it extremely difficult to persuade anyone to work for gay, instead of being a sheep and follow the crowd that casts stones towards this minority. The gay parade in this sense is only a metaphore, a separation between the traditional world (my son was ok before, because he was straight. I don't know what you are trying to persuade him into - the words of Radmilo's father) and the new age thinking (the woman of Limun, Biserka, clearly in favor of new age ideas, gays and people that think in a profound, cultural way, the way people that are strictly against gays, cannot). So this metaphore and the fight of 100 men towards a few individuals is more a quest of Sizif, but important one, as of that derive the following parades.

Can you change the way you see the world, if you are living in a scenery for complete lifetime? Can Limun really love gays? I believe, he can learn respect (hence, he follows them one year afterwards on the second parade). He will never be able to really love a gay as an equal. But he will treat them with respect, he learns in the complete setting of searching for defenders of parade. You aren't really born and choose what sex are you going to admire and have lust for. So you shouldn't be judged, because it's not really a mistake/weakness/choice. It's a fact and the world should realize it. Unfortunately there will always be groups like the one fighting against parade, individuals that feel their belief/sex/race/political side is better or the only one that is right. As long as those groups have access to weapons, we are in a threat of violence towards minorities. As said, seen in all the countries all around the world. Serbia is known for its heart, passion, belief in right. All other balcan countries also, but Serbia exceeds in its black/white view of most things. Either my way or highway, something like that. Even more than the other countries around it. I believe this is also the reason why Belgrade was chosen to be the centre of this movie.

A superb movie, worth every minute and so ironically funny along the way. You cannot watch it and not laugh, you cannot stand not to cry in the end, at least in your heart. Touching story and a good shake of the hands of the nations, that Srdjan Dragojević made. An applause.

My personal rate: 9,0 (I would change a few lines, or maybe expand some scenes. Apart from that, superb movie, worth seeing and even more, worth thinking about a lot)

Parada on IMDB

The Forgotten, 2004

2012-01-07T14:19:00.005+01:00

The Forgotten, 2004
Director: Joseph Ruben
Cast: Julianne Moore, Dominic West, Christopher Kovaleski

Stage: Home TV selection on a Friday night

The Forgotten in short: A grieving mother, Telly Paretta, is struggling to cope with the loss of her 9-year-old son. She is stunned when her psychiatrist and her husband tell her that she has created eight years of memories of a son she never had. But when she meets the father of one of her son's friend who is having the same experience, Telly embarks on a mission to prove her son's existence and her sanity.

Preps: I think I have heard of this piece or started watching it on another occassion, but I am not sure. In the heading, I see Julianne Moore, and I sort of admire her drama casts, therefore I give it a shot.

Reality: Well, no special surprise. Another quest for alien actions that are supposed to be happening around us and we are staring in the sky wondering what is really happening. One of worse interpretations, I might add to this. We never learn anything about the aliens, despite the fact that they are unvulnerable. Does this mean that their civilization is expanding all the time? It could give us a laughter, but the focus of the movie isn't really on the aliens. It's on the love one feels for his child and the power or let's say energy that attaches one to another. In some sense it is supposed to be the greatest bond ever made and impossible to break.

In some sense the experiment with forgetting someone is amazing, because it shows place for many things we would really like to forget. On the other hand not forgetting allows us to grow and spread experience when we come in a similar occasion (not to repeat same mistakes, repeat actions that gave us good luck, happiness, etc). In this perticular piece the case is extraordinary, the dilluted mom which seems to be seeking for a child that never existed (at least so you think up to one third of the movie). Her story becomes solid when she meets a parent she knows and forces to remember. So they have a quest together, to bring supposeably dead children back to life. They are naturally followed and they seem to hide despite the fact that they are being observed all the time. The story would normally be filled with holes, however we need to see it like aliens are allmighty and they will get what they want.

The piece isn't very convincing in the way we are used that similar movies on this topic can be. However, it does make up with the energy the mother (Julianne Moore) shows and love she has for her child. The last scenes are in this sense very touching and can get to your soul very easily. So if you are somehow mushy or feeling sad, it will touch you. But if you are looking for alien chase action, don't expect it. This movie doesn't have it.

My personal rate: 5,0 (you won't miss much if you pass on this one. However, it makes you think about the special bondage between parents and children, and how would it be to just forget about everything you knew so far).

The Forgotten on IMDB

Amadeus, 1984

2012-01-06T15:36:00.004+01:00

Amadeus, 1984
Director: Milos Forman
Cast: F. Murray Abraham, Tom Hulze, Elizabeth Berridge

Stage: Home TV selection

Amadeus in short: Antonio Salieri believes that Mozart's music is divine. He wishes he was himself as good a musician as Mozart so that he can praise the Lord through composing. But he can't understand why God favored Mozart, such a vulgar creature, to be his instrument. Salieri's envy has made him an enemy of God whose greatness was evident in Mozart. He is set to take revenge.

Preps: I have seen that when I was really a young child. Ever since I never took a step further to see it as an adult, because the perspective might be completely different.

Reality: Wow, a huge surprise again. I know Forman got an oscar for this piece and I am not surprised. If you didn't know anything about Mozart, this is a good biography. If you wanted a history lesson, here you have it. If you wanted to listen to superb music and learn how it is in the competitive musician's world, where they steal one from another, mock one another, play with everyone else around them, there you have it.

An intriguing piece, taking you directly to the core of Vienna at that time, showing major combat between a genious (yet emotionally immature) Mozart and Salieri, court musical composer, who cannot stand Mozart, yet he's one of his greatest admirors. You get to feel the inner Mozart soul and spirit, wonder how in the world can he do such magic with music and watch his downfall from the top front music classical inventor to the very grave. If you thought that he was praised at his death, think again. The lesson in this is simple - even best genious isn't always appreciated and taken as anything else than a lucky bastard everyone envies. And he never knew who admired him for the music, who understood his yearning to create and who really loved him. All the people around him seemed to kiss his ass all the time and on the other hand, when he turned his back, stab him in the best way they could.

My personal rate: 8,0 (a superb showoff of competitive advantage someone has by nature and how it can reflect in ruining someone's reputation and overall failure)

Amadeus on IMDB

The Ledge, 2011

2012-01-02T19:52:00.005+01:00

The Ledge, 2011
Director: Matthew Chapman
Cast: Liv Tyler, Charlie Hunnam, Terrence Howard, Patrick Wilson

Stage: home theatre, a lazy after holiday afternoon

The Ledge in short: A thriller in which a battle of philosophies between a fundamentalist Christian and an atheist escalates into a lethal battle of wills. Ultimately, as a test of faith, or lack of it, the believer forces the non-believer onto the ledge of a tall building. He then has one hour to make a choice between his own life and someone else's. Without faith in an afterlife, will he be capable of such a sacrifice?

Preps: Don't have a clue whatsoever. So I take the choice of someone, whose opinion means a great deal to me.

Reality: Well, the thing about thrillers is that they are supposed to make a span in your heart and frighten you at least a bit. This piece for starters, definitely isn't a thriller. However, the genre you are looking for, people, is drama. Maybe a family drama, or a philosophical drama. The philosophy, dealing with in the piece, revolves around family virtues, honesty, things you believe in. Either the family. Jesus, materia that evolves in materia after passing.. this piece is going to make you scream for the answers, yet you won't be able to find them. It's up to us, what we want to believe in. What are the virtues we want (or are willing to ) die for. How much do we cherish the honesty, in comparison to deeds that derive from something someone wanted to give to us, even though they aren't as honest as they might be?
Do you die for the person you love or is this egoistic towards that person? What feelings do we keep for the person that loved us so much that he(she) died for us? Or on the other hand, how far are we willing to go to follow a fairy tale, something we discovered or developed for all the wrong reasons and are the person we would like to be instead of being the person we are?

With more than those few incidents, the movie deals with the higher truth, something most of us don't ever think about and don't deal with. The act is supreme, despite the fact that Tyler isn't half a woman she could be. I hate her in the movie, for being so pale and unrecognizeable. Was she like this overall? Never saw that. Maybe because of the roles she played in. But I despise her in the movie. And I deeply admire the role of her husband and the lover. Energetic, different. The way they are supposed to be.

The movie has several cut offs. And several highs. Above the average. But if it did the extra mile with the actress, it would be superb.

My personal rate: 6,5 (a good piece showing more than promised. But definitely not a thriller, more a drama and one of the better ones in terms of things that can go through your mind afterwards. Could live without Liv Tyler, though).

The Ledge on IMDB

The Last Song, 2010

2011-12-31T18:23:00.003+01:00

The Last Song, 2010
Director: Julie Ann Robinson
Cast: Miley Cyrus, Liam Hemsworth, Gregg Kinear

Stage: Home theatre

The Last Song in short:Ronnie's (Miley Cyrus) and her younger brother, Jonah's, parents are divorced. They live with their mother until this summer they are sent to live with their father (Greg Kinnear) in a small town on the beach. Ronnie resents her father and has no intention of being friendly or even talking to him for the summer. But after meeting a handsome guy and beginning to fall in love, Ronnie starts rediscovering her love for music, something she shares with her father. Reconnecting with music revives a kinship with her father which proves to be the most important relationship she may ever experience.

Preps: Wow, the honour of being the last in the row for 2011 - hehe, I don't know anything about it, but I saw the trailer and it took my curiosity not by chance :)

Reality: To give up your dreams or activity you always wanted to do or at least claimed to, because of the divorce of your parents, can happen only in rebellious world of teenagers. Miley Cyrus is the rebel and the two parents cannot help it. The storyline is cute and revolves around spending summer with your daddy (which you hate because he divorced your mom). Simple truth and simple deed that ruined a perfect childhood these two kids had. Now, the younger brother didn't know at that point what went on because he was too little. The older teen girl knows exactly and hates the guts out of her father. Unfortunately she's stuck for the summer.
The drift away from this plot comes in shape of William, cute guy from the neighbourhood, whose parents are filthy rich and all the girls want to get in his pants. All except Miley. Somehow in terms of Hollywood romantic comedy, obviously she gets the access and wins his heart. Vice versa, of course. We know what a perfect summer should feel like.
Some side stories, with turtles and watching their back because racoons are about to eat them, makes this piece really cute and watchable. No extras and no special effects, just getting over the spoilt parent relationship with the superturn at the discovery that dad has cancer and he's about to die. Which makes dad and daughter best friends again and brings back life to Miley Cyrus. Starts to make music again, separates herself from all she loves just to be with him in the last days. Cute, watchable, good plot and feelings. Well acted and well directed. More than average, less than perfect. A good choice for the last movie of the season.

My personal rate: 6,0 (I actually liked the romance, depicted, and the purpose, for which we all seek something to grow up and old with. The devastating relationship break between two people and the influence on the children)

The Last Song on IMDB

JFK, 1991

2011-12-29T23:11:00.006+01:00

JFK, 1991
Director: Oliver Stone
Cast: Kevin Costner, Gary Oldman, Jack Lemmon

Stage: home TV selection

JFK in short: Details the actions of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, who takes it upon himself to investigate the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas, in 1963. Garrison is extremely suspicious of the official story presented by the FBI, and what he already knows and what he subsequently learns lead him to suspect that there is more to the story than the public is being told.

Reality: The government for the people, by the people and of the people :) Is it really? Kevin Coster is a mega star in one of the best achievements to put in a light on the Kennedy's death and assasination. The state prosecutor follows numerous hints on what happened on that day and who is responsible for this, almost losing his job while doing it. I believe that this is one of Stone's triumph movies and the same goes for Costner - one of his best achievements in his career.

I am a fan of historical movies, as long as they depict some kind of reality. In this case, this is Stone's reality. Noone really knows what happened that day and who was really to be taken in front of the court. I doubt this is the movies' intention. I believe that the main idea here lies in the simple fact that we try to see who it is we vote for and who is the responsible person after the dawn. In this case, this was a dawn for american citizen, doubled because both brothers were killed. And there were many aspects to this case, as well as many people that really wanted to know who to blame and put him in front of the jury. However, as said, this is one of realities shown in JFK, however I believe it to be the most energic one, subtitled by true footage and films, made by passengers that day. So in this sense it serves historical facts and things known by public. I doubt it reveals something we didn't have access to, but for many people the facts shown here will be intriguing and difficult to face with.
The cast is brilliant, Costner definitely leaves his mark, as well as Gary Oldman. The scenes carefully chosen, the "honesty" shown so deeply it hurts your eyes sometimes. The side story about leaving everything you care to show your duties to your country.. well, in some sense, you get the idea of how it is to be married to a prosecutor. When he has his focus, he definitely has the focus on. And leaves everything behind, even if it turns on fire.

The piece is watchable and good one, even beyond that. If fan of history or if you are wondering about the happening around JFK's death, this is the place to be. Or to watch, to be exact.

My personal rate: 7,0 (a good, solid piece. A must watching for movie fans. )

JFK on IMDB

Sherlock Holmes: A game of Shadows, 2011

2011-12-29T22:51:00.004+01:00

Sherlock Holmes: A game of shadows,2011
Director: Guy Ritchie
Cast: Robert Downey Junior, Jude Law, Jared Harris

Stage: Home theatre

Sherlock in short: Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) and his longtime trusted associate, Doctor Watson (Jude Law), take on their arch-nemesis, Professor Moriarty (Jared Harris), with the help of Holmes's older brother Mycroft Holmes (Stephen Fry) and a gypsy named Sim (Noomi Rapace).

Preps: This is a hot cake in our theatre's oven. Especially because of my respect for Holmes I need to see it. However because of part one, I doubt I will like it.

Reality: Unfortunately I am correct. As I stated in my critic for part one, part two is a true example of a movie that doesn't have much to do with the figure designed and written about by Doyle. This Sherlock Holmes is a weird detective in Ritchie's eyes. I would expect a weird and somehow wacky enough movie to impress me by Ritchie. The problem is that I read all of Doyle's novels about Sherlock Holmes and I would love to see something like that series we were watching around 15 years ago.

As said, this piece is nothing like this. Combining action features from Matrix and similar movies, it takes us to Kill Bill like scenes, kung fu fighting and escaping bullets quicker than Tom Cruise in MI. A horrible mixture and horrible piece, if you are seeking for true Sherlock like the one depicted by Doyle.
However, if you are not, prepare for the mixture because it might impress you. I wasn't impressed, because I was looking for some true logic and mind games Sherlock Holmes was famous for. Instead, I got a lot of fighing, some gentlemen deeds and fear of love. Bljah. Ritchie was on something when shooting this. Or when reading about Sherlock Holmes. If you are trying to create a movie about a persona, why do it in such a weird style.. least to Holmes. The unfortunate deed for this critic is that I really adored those novels when I was a child. And am still fighting to see a good movie screening of this. Which Game of shadows definitely isn't. But you will find it intriguing if you aren't obsessed with the Doyle's figure.

My personal rate: 2,0 (despite the good movie quality this isn't really about Holmes. It's about Ritchie).

Sherlock on IMDB

Just My Luck, 2006

2011-12-27T20:02:00.005+01:00

Just my luck, 2006
Director: Donald Petrie
Cast: Lindsey Lohan, Chris Pine

Just my luck in short:
In Manhattan, Ashley Albright is a lucky woman and very successful in the agency where she works. The clumsy Jake Hardin is an unlucky aspirant manager of the rock band McFly, who is unsuccessfully trying to contact the entrepreneur Damon Phillips to promote his band. When Ashley meets Jake in a masquerade party, they kiss each other, swapping her fortune with his bad luck.

Stage: home TV selection, late night.

Preps: Hm, just saw it on the TV and I am curious. It has a good beginning plot. Maybe I can cope with it despite Lindsay Lohan, which I am not a huge fan of.

Reality: Hm, another dissappointment. I can't believe how many movies that even don't reach minimum to be able to digest I am watching lately. And I don't suppose it's higher standards I am seeking for. I just think I am out of luck, as this movie implies.
You cannot go through a world like Lindsay in this piece and for sure you cannot go like Chris Pine does. It's simply unbelievable and I cannot cope with this virtual reality, for it's nothing else I see in this piece. I could imagine this to be a book or imaginary world. There's absolutely nothing good or positive I can claim about this piece, as it seems immature, disrespectful to the audience (or its intelligence) and not funny at all. This comes into romantic comedies genre, yet it's quite the opposite. The jokes aren't funny, but plane stupid. The main cast is built in a way you cannot even pretend to fall into the imaginary world they are depicting. Where in the world did the director get Lindsay's boss in the movie? A tweet, what it is, as Monty Phython would say. No way you get such a job and no way so many stupid icons are working with you.
Argh. Again, I don't like the piece even up to a level I could watch it until its end. I claim it is not worth of your time and efforts. The music sucks, the actors also. The scenes are unimaginary and not witty at all. The love that the two main actors seem to develop in the process, seems lame and not real. There is absolutely no energy in this movie. And there isn't a word more that needs to be said.

My personal rate:0 (bljah! Another one bites the dust)

Just my luck on IMDB

New Year's Eve, 2011

2011-12-27T19:17:00.005+01:00

New Year's Eve, 2011
Director: Garry Marshall
Cast: Sarah Jessica Parker, Ashton Kutcher, Naomi Watts, Robert De Niro, Zach Efron, Hale Berry, Alyssa Milano, Jessica Biel,.. (a bunch of famous actors)

Stage: Local theatre, Christmas show in the morning

New Year's eve in short: The lives of several couples and singles in New York intertwine over the course of New Year's Eve.

Preps: wow, a bunch of famous people starring in this piece. Need to see it badly. But the critics are very bad for this piece. Well, couldn't hurt. Have seen several really shitty ones lately.

Reality: Wow. Every scene with some actor I admire or like to watch. For this, this piece is worth seeing. Like in Love actually. Or maybe Notting Hill. Or some other romantic comedies. Around NY you have them standing in a line, trying to get our attention. As said, the winner for the last five years is definitely Letters to Saint Nicholas. A touching movie you should definitely see.
But this one.. what was the budget for this piece? I imagine that the actors must have played for peanuts, because it's quite impossible to budget such a movie. It is definitely fun to see them all assembled, working in specific relationship issues (competition for the first baby, hating the idea of NY and falling in love in an elevator, trying to get your ex to forgive you for leaving her /escaping).. you cannot get fed up with these scenes, but it's not the movie itself that draggs the attention, it's the famous crew, I am sure.
The dialogues get sometimes really intelligent, otherwise, they cannot get rid of cliches and stories about xmas and NY and main resolutions you could make to make it count.
The drop of the ball is simply beautiful. Never knew this was such a big deal there. After seeing this movie, I want to see it live sometimes. This means the movie can be inspiring for some deeds in the future. And I strongly believe it to be a commercial to go and visit NY city. It is really obvious and I am sure that their economy will get a positive feed in the next months or in the next new year to come. And my personal wish.. I would sometimes like to be in charge of something as big as the drop of the ball for NY in NY city. I adore the position and the woman behind it. I think I could cope also with the challenge. In this sense I find the movie inspiring. Plus, a fun to watch. I especially laugh at the scenes and triviality of the baby homerun. Do they really get that amount of money? :) I would love to find out for real.

If you aren't burdened with the Xmas spirit, you will definitely enjoy the movie. It is fun to watch and pleasant to the eyes because of its crew. Plus, it has a positive philosophy: NY is about making piece with yourself. It's about finding forgiveness and a path for future, which doesn't carry burdens from the past. It's a period to reflect everything we wanted and got it and everything we wanted and didn't get it.

My personal rate: 6,0 (cute enough for this period. Plus, a parade of actors. Fun to watch. But don't worry about getting your mind overloaded. It's simple and plain)

New Year's eve on IMDB

Moneyball, 2011

2011-12-27T19:03:00.004+01:00

Moneyball, 2011
Director: Bennet Miller
Cast: Brad Pitt, Robin Wright, Jonah Hill

Stage: home theatre, late screening

Moneyball in short: Oakland A's GM Billy Beane is handicapped with the lowest salary constraint in baseball. If he ever wants to win the World Series, Billy must find a competitive advantage. Billy is about to turn baseball on its ear when he uses statistical data to analyze and place value on the players he picks for the team.

Preps: isn't this the one with Brad Pitt, hot cake in our theatres? I adore the act of Pitt and want to see this.

Reality: Hm. Sometimes being a good actor means obviously that you take on shitty roles. I am dissappointed. Up to this point, the main movie in this genre for me was Any Given Sunday, a good piece about cruelty of sports world with Cameron Diaz.
Now, this perticular piece touches the economy of each club involved and the drama that can derive from a simple fact: actors are a currency and they are of value as long as they can play. And each club makes assumptions, statistics and creates a perfect team up to the level it can afford. Unfortunately sometimes they don't have enough sponsors or money to buy the perfect team, so they fill the spots with less important, less capable actors. And this in whole creates a lot of dramatic effects along the season.
As audience, we enter this world with Brad Pitt, a game creator, trying or struggling to have figures working for him. A prepotentious leader, who takes advantage of economist that makes the analysis and serves the data at a glance.

Even though what I wrote so far, sounds inspiring, it is the mere admiration to the topic. The movie isn't nearly as intriguing as for instance Any Given Sunday or some other sport movies. Brad Pitt doesn't act as he is supposed to, the energy between the cast isn't established and the audience is left hungry behind the bars. Yes, a good insight, however, not delivered good enough. What the director was thinking, I don't have a clue. But I am sure that he wasn't fighting for the piece. It loses me after half an hour. Don't really recommend it at all, unless you are a huge fan of sports movies. In this case you will find it completely average. My opinion is below that.

My personal rate: 0 (do something else, if you aren't a true fan of sport movies)

Moneyball on IMDB

The Guard, 2011

2011-12-27T18:47:00.003+01:00

The Guard, 2011
Director: John Michael McDonagh
Cast: Brendan Gleeson, Don Cheadle, Mark Strong

Stage: Home theatre

The guard in short: Sergeant Gerry Boyle is a small-town Irish cop with a confrontational personality, a subversive sense of humor, a dying mother, a fondness for prostitutes, and absolutely no interest whatsoever in the international cocaine-smuggling ring that has brought straight-laced FBI agent Wendell Everett to his door.

Preps: Another one waiting for my attention. But I don't have a clue what it's about.

Reality: One of the hardest time waiting to figure out what the movie is really about and why do I find it extremely underestimating to the audience (read: Stupid).
The scenes are wrong, the plot is really plain and the action we see is really trivial. Can I say anything good about this piece? I am trying very hard. Mocking Irish people in american cop world is .. well, I find it really lame. Drug busts are a worthy theme and comedies that revolve around them can be really strong. Or hard dramas. Well, this piece is neither of the both and even though I am struggling through the cast and its energy, I cannot bare it anymore. After 20 minutes, a shut down. I think it doesn't deserve your attention, or mine. I think it's a waste of time in more than one level. If we only had good quality dialogues, or scenes, or irony, or.. well, anything. A definite no no. How do these pieces even get the funding anyway, I wonder.

My personal rate: 0 (argh. Waste of time. Nothing in this piece to cherish or get familiar with. Skip it and do something better!)

The Guard on IMDB

Traktor, ljubezen in Rock'n'roll, 2008

2011-12-27T18:19:00.005+01:00

Traktor, ljubezen in Rock'n'roll, 2008
Director: Branko Đurić
Cast: Tanja Ribič, Branko Đurić, Ludvik Bagari

Stage: Local theatre, late evening screening

Traktor in short:

The script of TRAKTOR, LJUBEZEN IN ROCK'N'ROLL was written on the basis of a novel entitled VANKOŠTANC whose main story unfolds in the north-eastern part of Slovenia, namely in the Prekmurje region situated on the border with Hungary, which is characterised by the Hungarian national minority, the unique blend of Hungarian and Slovene traditional culture, the Roma music and the famous Hungarian goulash called bograc, and where the division between the Slovene and Hungarian nations has been watered down through history.

The plot is set in the early 60s. Breza, a country boy from a godforsaken Prekmurje village, wishes to perform at the village festivities playing his electric guitar, but is faced with fierce competition in the form of a traditional Roma band entertaining the villagers by playing popular folk music. Nevertheless, his music seems to be the key to the heart of Silvija, a village beauty and the daughter of a wealthy gastarbeiter from Switzerland, who was sent home to find a healthy Slovene husband. However, the story of Breza and Silvija only marks the beginning of the plot whose main character is actually Düplin, an eccentric outsider, a deaf-and-dumb tramp or, as Breza's mother, the old Popovka, a farm owner and a fortune-teller also referred to as Strina, called him "a lad from a citrus producing country".

Preps: the hot cake in the oven. The notorious movie that couldn't get sponsors. And I am a huge fan of Đuro, who in this case also casts, not only directs. How good can it get?

Reality: Well, as seen several times, all great people in cinematography, directors in perticular, have their bad or worse moments. After seeing several Đurić masterpieces I am terribly dissappointed in this one. It's so average that I cannot believe it. I am now sure why he hasn't received sponsors (this is why we can see this in 2011 instead of 2008, when the movie was really made.). In any case, the plot is simple to follow. A simple guy with a dream wants to succeed as a rock star. Unfortunately, living in a small village around 70 corners (I mean really far far away land), doesn't give much of freedom in creating and can be quite limiting. In some sense, this was the case for most musicians around the world, however, in this perticular case it's really domestic. I believe that slovene audience will definitely show some patriotism in seeing this piece and will compare the historical belief they have (this derives from classes in junior high), with the screened reality.
I believe a great effort was made to copy genuine language and even as a slovenian I cannot say that they have done a great job, because I simply don't know and need to believe Đurić perspective or his side of the coin. There are several different versions of slovene language, in this case he chose the most abstract one. The one noone in Slovenia understands without subtitles. And in this suburban scene he pointed out the difficulty to survive and to grow personally. Because of preserving a life and trying on a farm, hardly possible.

The life as depicted must be like it was. It is breathtaking. And the philosophy of grabbing the first guy, that is willing to marry you, is simply devastating. In this sense, the movie is a perfect example of history shown on screen. But in the real sense, the energy between the actors, the witty scenes (are lacking!!), the lack of the next step that would make me alert the whole time while watching.. I am used of Đurić movies on the different level (higher) than the one shown here. And I am sure he could do a better job. Where is the conclusion in scenes? Where is the dramatic effect we are used to? Deriving from things he does best is perfectly shown in this piece. And I guess it proves one more time, that being a genious in cast and a genious in directing a movie, can turn into something quite average, when one wants to be both. So.. I don't recommend it, because it is more shallow than you would ever expect and below Branko's standard.

My personal rate: 5,0 (for the sake of slovenian audience, I mean that his true fans will see this, being a good piece or not. But to be fair, it's an average example of what I could have seen at home and not at the movies)

Traktor, ljubezen in rock'n'roll on IMDB

The Debt, 2007

2011-12-25T10:33:00.003+01:00

The Debt, 2007
Director: Assaf Bernstein
Cast: Gila Almagor, Yurij Chepurnov, Oleg Drach

The Debt in short: The year is 1965. Rachel Brener is one of 3 young Mossad agents teem who caught "The Surgeon of Treblinca" - a Nazi monster who was never brought to trial in Israel. The official reason was that he has committed suicide as a prisoner while being held by his Israeli captive (kiddenappers) in a safe house somewhere in Europe. Today, 35 years after the well communicated suicide story of the monster, a small article appears in a local unimportant paper in a small town in central Europe. Surprisingly the Surgeon is alive and is willing to admit his crimes against the human race and especially the Jews. The 3 older x Mossad agents who are in their late 60th became aware to this unfortunate threatening knowledge. The fact was that the "Surgeon" managed to escape from his guards- our 3 agents by wounding the woman who was not alert enough. Now that the old story came up to live again in a completely different version..

Preps: One in the oven, waiting for my attention. Why not on Christmas eve?

Reality: Hm. Tuff subject for xmas eve, definitely. The plot is simple and repeating, in sense we have seen this on several occasions. I actually like movies about hunting down war criminals, exposing their crimes and having them punished. This plot is similar to thousands. The crimes commited in a "lager" - between the war, to children, women, men - especially doctors played an important role in this - well, the hunt for doctor begins on two separate time zones. One back in 1965, one in present time. This shows also the fine structuring of the problem and the movie as we grow into the story. Present time, where we have old people remorsing the lie they made ages ago. And past time, where we have after war theme, after war feelings and the urge to chase down people that hurt people the punishers knew or were related to. In this sense, a mother, the complete family. The squad, being sent to chase down the criminal, isn't really convincing. I am not sure about the actual karma in 1965, however I suspect it wasn't as harsh as in actual war. The depicted actions show the same stigma as in the war itself. Was it really as hard to be normal and to act normal two decades later? When thinking, the squad was really young when the crimes were commited, so they cannot really remember a lot, but are acting upon stories.

Nevertheless, the movie does somehow find my deeper passion for these kinds of movies, but isn't one of the better ones I have seen on the topic. It is decent enough that I try to watch it by its end, especially because I am wondering what the real story was. However, I think it could be more shocking. What is shocking about some people killing a murderer because he killed so many people? I just don't see the drama and the true value of their hiding. The whole world was chasing criminals at that stage. Why would this be such a secret - I am not saying this in terms of taking justice in your own hands. This obviously is against the law and I am sure that it was the same case back then. But it was 2 decades after the war and I don't see the real logic. Therefore I judge this movie not to be very convincing. They weren't like Anne Frank, that needed the hidden place not to be executed.

Anyhow, for me to believe the facts shown in the movie, I could use some movie background that this piece isn't showing. I know from historical point, that the time was wacky and all people were tense, so I can believe it from common sense and common educational point of view. However, how about making some of this points in the movie? General audience doesn't have a historical (deep) background. And these sorts of movies are supposed to teach us and make sure these actions don't happen again. This perticular piece isn't convincing at all. And no real energy between the actors.

My personal rate: 5,0 (well the topic is definitely intriguing. However the delivery fails on more than one step. Still, if you are a fan of post naci hunting movies, you might enjoy even this one)

Debt on IMDB

Doc Hollywood, 1991

2011-12-25T10:14:00.003+01:00

Doc Hollywood, 1991
Director: Michael Caton-Jones
Cast: Michael J. Fox, Julie Warner, Bernard Hughes

Stage: home theatre, just before Christmas and midnight carols

Doc Hollywood in short: Benjamin Stone is a young doctor driving to L.A where he was offered a new job as a plastic surgeon in Beverly Hills. He gets off the highway to avoid a traffic jam, but gets lost and ends up crashing into a fence in the small town of Grady. He is sentenced to 32 hrs of community service at the local hospital. All he wants is to serve the sentence and get moving, but gradually the locals become attached to the new doctor, and he falls for the pretty ambulance driver, Lou. Will he leave?

Preps: wow, haven't seen this piece in ages, I used to adore this movie. Finally, on TV. Let's see if I am dazzling even now.

Reality: Well, obviously the movie industry has made several important steps forward. In this sense, movies that used to sparkle our attention around beginning of nineties (Ghost, Pretty woman, even Doc Hollywood in this sense) are like oldies goldies in terms of music: you need to step a step back in time and swallow the feeling that was then - with doing that you can enjoy these movies like in the old days.

Doc Hollywood is one of the movies that breaks the big promise in small particles that make you wonder about the real worth of the big promise. To the people in Titanic USA was the big promise, the promise of a better life. To Doc Hollywood, living in big cities as a successful surgeon, was the promise of a better life. However, on the path to the heaven he discovers that in fact he gives a damn about small, trivial things in life and begins to doubt his decisions or his overall goals. The conversion from a big city man into the small town guy is expected, still cute. The focus in the movie is on family, small things that matter in life, knowing people that are close to you as opposed to relations in bigger cities where you definitely don't know the neighbours. You could call it some kind of catholic marketing in this movie, despite the fact that religion isn't mentioned anywhere. However the values that are praised and the reason why he changes his mind, are pretty catholic. In this sense, you start thinking if it is what you want something like this. To shoot the pigeons when you could be satisfied to your bones with the sparrows that are near you.

I think that if someone thinks big and really really really wants it, that person will find a path and no other things can cross the road there. I admit that you need to spend some time living like this in order to like it. Northern exposure is an example, drawn from series world, on the same topic. The punishment (being forced to live in a small community with small minded persons as you see them) becomes the biggest reward.

I still like the movie. A good relaxing example for big thinking. Nice music, nice dialogues, witty scenes. And some irony hidden along the way. Still worth watching!

My personal rate:6,0 (more than decen fun, obviously you need to set your mindset back 20 years and you will enjoy it a lot!)

Doc Hollywood on IMDB

The Thing, 2011

2011-12-24T21:15:00.004+01:00

The Thing, 2011
Director: Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.
Cast:Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton, Ulrich Thomsen

The Thing in short: At an Antarctica research site, the discovery of an alien craft leads to a confrontation between graduate student Kate Lloyd and scientist Dr. Sander Halvorson. While Dr. Halvorson keeps to his research, Kate partners with Sam Carter, a helicopter pilot, to pursue the alien life form.

Stage: home theatre, Christmas eve.

Preps: None in perticular. But I have heard roomers about this piece and I want to test them.

Reality: Well, it's a shitty movie, to be very direct in my first sentence. Where do the directors that want to shoot a movie about aliens come up with these weird ideas? Ok, you find a lifeform in northern pole. After 10000 years caught in the ice it is still alive. Right. Ok, I swallow this somehow. How about being able to replicate in some kind of grose form of people so we can watch really yukky scenes that don't make any perticular sense or aren't something you want or need to see at any point in your life.

Disgusting movie, showing a fight for survival of some scientists that came to the pole to experience some live scientific things, instead they get caught in a trap and killed. Bla Bla Bla. We have seen it all. The only difference is, that the woman, serving as a paleontologist or something combined with biological/surgeon scientific treasure, is very persistent and doesn't get killed in the first scene. Apart from that, not a movie worth your attention or time. The music sucks, the scenes are unimaginative, the plot is stupid and the actors are very average or even below that level .. The least I say about this, the better. Don't watch it. A definite waste of time. I am more than unhappy having chosen this piece for my christmas evening.

My personal rate: 0 (bljak. No extra comment needed).

Thing on IMDB

Father's day, 1997

2011-12-18T23:28:00.003+01:00

Father's day, 1997
Director: Ivan Reitman
Cast: Billy Cristal, Robin Williams, Julia Louis-Dreyfuss

Father's day in short: Jack Lawrence is a smart allec lawyer who is one day visited by an ex-girlfriend who tells him her kid was his. Enter Dale Putley, a depressed goofball who is also a writer, meets with the same ex-girlfriend who tells him her kid is his. One day Jack and Dale meet and discover what had happened: they've been told the same story and now there's a question of who the real father is. They learn their son is following a rock band called Sugar Ray around. So Jack and Dale hit the road to Sacremento and find their drunk, lovestruck son. Soon after they bring him back to their hotel room, their son escapes and Jack and Dale must use teamwork to find him again, bring him home, and find out which one of them is the real father.

Preps: Just at home, doing nothing and this is on TV. Let's check it out

Reality: Sometimes our televisions should carefully go through the programme they are making for the viewers. I mean, how stupid can the audience get, being submerged to sh... movies like that? My conscious wakens and yells in dispair.

Ok, starting with the cast. I have seen both protagonists, Williams and Crystal, in better shape and definitely better movies. Here they are a clown version of themselves. Not appettite luring.
Secondly, the storyline. I mean, really? Two persons, trying to find the son they don't want to have in the first place and falling in the arms of another lovely woman, filled with lies and betrayal. Seriously?
Now, what are we seeking in this piece? I think it belongs to the irony of the past actions. I the sense, that we really must think about what it is that we are doing with our time and what are the actions we might regret in the future. It's not normal to react the way these two men react. You can see it in some "Everybody loves Mary" sense, but still. I hate the resemblance. It is not true that a possible father will go and chase a possible son just for the sake of being with him or trying to get his attention.

The chase is a mixture of a roadtrip and some lame movies on the topic. This piece is trying to be what it's not and it's killing it. Where is the creativity? Why don't you make the best out of these two fine actors? Again, I cannot bare to watch it up to its end and I lose the grip at the second quarter. Lost, erased, gone. Forgot about it already.

My personal rate: 0 (argh. Another waste of time. unfortunately. Don't make it a waste of time for you :)

Father's day on IMDB

American Dreamz, 2006

2011-12-18T23:14:00.005+01:00

American Dreamz, 2006
Director:Paul Weitz
Cast: Dennis Quaid, Hugh Grant, Mandy Moore

Stage: Home TV selection

American Dreamz in short: The new season of "American Dreamz," the wildly popular television singing contest, has captured the country's attention, as the competition looks to be between a young Midwestern gal (Moore) and a showtunes-loving young man from Orange County (Golzari). Recently awakened President Staton (Quaid) even wants in on the craze, as he signs up for the potential explosive season finale.

Preps: None in perticular, I am just home and have some time to spare.

Reality:Well.. pathetic. Is the director so lame that he thinks there could be a case where a president of US wouldn't function because of a TV show? Or that he could really hide away? Really? I mean, Really?

This is a classic example of a movie that wants to be serious and funny at the same time. You don't get to be a drama and a comedy at the same time. You don't use actors that have a giant role in comedies, and in this case Grant does his job decently. Not if you want a drama about the president.
Oh, wait. Or was it the first intention of the piece to make fun out of president and his role? This reality isn't really funny, nor entertaining, nor dramatic, nor sad. Just plain stupid. Nowhere you could have a president running through the newspapers instead of going to the crowds and shaking their hands, at least.

Hugh Grant in the role of the TV leader isn't as bad as everything else is. Well, I don't admire his role. I just love the man in dramas and romantic comedies. This, trying to be a mixture of both, fails and lets me down completely. Dennis Quaid, as far as I am concerned, is one of greater names in late nineties. But here, he is a complete disaster. I don't buy even a minute of his cast. As if he didn't know the role (or the scenario). Or was it on purpose?

No strings attached. I stop watching. I cannot bare it.

My personal rate: 1,0 (yuk. skip it. If you are a fan of TV shows, maybe. But on the second hand.. No. skip it!)

American Dreamz on IMDB

The Sphere, 1998

2011-12-18T22:55:00.004+01:00

The Sphere, 1998
Director: Barry Levinson
Cast: Dustin Hoffmann, Sharon Stone, Samuel L. Jackson

Stage: Home theatre, TV selection on a fine Sunday night

The Sphere in short: 1000 feet below the ocean, navy divers discover an object half-a-mile long. A crack team of scientists are deployed to the site in Deepsea Habitats. What they find boggles the mind as they discover a perfect metal sphere. What is the secret behind the sphere? Will they survive the mysterious 'manifestations'? Who or what is creating these? They may never live to find out.

Preps: I have seen this a few times. Every time it gives me shivers. A splendid piece.

Reality: One of last decade's better pieces on extraterrestrial life, time journeys, subconscious fear of machines that can manipulate our mind, journey with scientists (that most of us only dream of).. well, this piece does have a lot of things going for him. In addition, it has a fabulous act, witty scenes and creative dialogues. A good music accompanying most of dreadful and scary scenes. A lot of logic you cannot convey and for this reason you just accept the facts as the scientists introduce them.

Speaking with Jerry, speaking with your subconscious, can be freaky. Being online with an alien mind, speaking to it through the computer, going into spheres, coming out as a complete wacko.. the line doesn't end. And you are thrown into a river that.

"I make a journey. You make a journey. We make a journey together." One of the things that Jerry makes clear to the crew. The point where you wonder if you are speaking to a child or is the child underestimating the speaking party on the deck. He's happy, one of the things that psychologist doesn't appreciate (Dustin Hoffmann in one of his good roles). What if the speaker becomes angry? Well, we see this happen in many different aspects. A lot of weird things happen on the deck, all of them trying to give us the lesson that sometimes we shouldn't poke our nose where it doesn't belong. But this is also the reason we are making progress in many fields, science included. If we all minded our own business, we couldn't progress anywhere. Here the team is prosecuted for doing so and biting their own meat from their bodies (between the members) as they are trying to fight the freaky opponent. How to fight something you don't know or aren't aware of how to fight? Learn in the movie. And find some great scenes along the way, like the one with jello fish and dying because of it.

My personal rate: 8,0 ( You will love the fright you will get several times along the way. And the psychological effect of pure deduction procedures done by brilliant mathematician. A lot of things to find in the piece for you. If you are a sci-fi fan, don't miss it!)

The Sphere on IMDB

What's your number, 2011

2011-12-18T22:44:00.006+01:00

What's your number, 2011
Director: Mark Mylod
Cast: Anna Faris, Chris Evans, Ari Graynor

Stage: Home theatre

What's your number in short: Ally is a woman who has many ex-boyfriends who turned out to be losers. Now she believes that she can't find a good guy. But when she runs into one of her exes who is now a 'Prince Charming', she decides to look up all of her exes to see if any of them have changed for the better. And when she has trouble locating them, she asks her neighbor Colin, who sleeps with women every night and sneaks out the morning after to avoid talking to them, to help her.

Preps: Well, another one bites the dust. Stuck in my library, aiming for my attention.

Reality: A huge dissappointment. It's a classic bimbo movie, with a cute blonde, cute eyelashes and this is it. You cannot base your movie upon a cute blonde, hello world! Her tracking of the ex sexual relationships in aim to make it under number 20 just because she saw it in the horoscope that it means she would be perceived a tramp.. well it doesn't ring any specific bells and it doesn't drag my attention. Unfortunately I stay put and watch it a very very long run. It's unimaginative, the dialogues are awful. We are sick of movies that underestimate the audience's intelligence. This is definitely one of them. A bunch of useless talks, subjects that are merely a mirror image of a horoscope of the day. Blyah. You cannot be serious about the plot. It's juvenile and not worthy of the big screen. And the cast is awful, scenes are really stupid and hard to watch. My movie heart sheds a tear as I dislike it up to such extent.

No use. I erase the damn thing. What's my number? Zero, for sure.

My personal rate: 0,0 (eh. Use your time better. This is nothing you can learn from or even have fun. I hated it and found it stupid).

What's your number on IMDB

50 Dead Men Walking, 2008

2011-12-18T22:01:00.004+01:00

50 Dead Men Walking, 2008
Director: Kari Skogland
Cast: Ben Kingsley, Jim Sturgess, Kevin Zegers

Stage: Home TV selection, late Saturday night

50 dead men in short: Based on Martin McGartland's shocking real life story. Martin is a young lad from west Belfast in the late 1980s who is recruited by the British Police to spy on the IRA. He works his way up the ranks as a volunteer for the IRA whilst feeding information to his British handler and saving lives in the process.

Preps: Well, I don't have any. Neither have I heard about the piece, nor I am aware what it's about. But I can see from the beginning it's going to be a hard one, full of reality in its hardest shape.

Reality: Well, this isn't a tough call. The piece shocks you in many ways. We still live in our cocoons all around the world. And think that wars are reserved for places far away. No way they can influence our lives and they are reserved for special missions.
Dream on. This piece was made to clear your mind. The war is as near as Ireland, you can find it in your own country. Making fun out of native citizen, humiliating people, having rasists all around you. I think you can perfectly suit the piece to every country in the EU, yet alone in the world. It is just the simple fact that it's more obvious in Ireland. The war with IRA and british people staying there is just something you can close your eyes from, but cannot deny. Are you a free citizen if you are living in a country you were born in and want to get work, get a life, get family and succeed? It seems that among "equal" some nations are more equal than the others. And in this sense this piece can tore your heart in two parts.
The main protagonist fights two battles, one of his heart (who are you true to) and the other one of survival (yes, human beings normally have the desire to survive). Which one is more important? Is it more cool to die for things you believe in or to live and pretend you don't care? Much simpler puzzle, if you have a family, in this sense you will move towards preserving it from harm. And the movie is filled with choices. To be a spy or to die and be hungry.. Tough dilemmas, the main actor fights all his life and saves lives in his deeds, although not being proud of himself. Just wanting to survive and make the best out of opportunities he das.
Is it good he was doing or was it evil? I will leave the judgement to the audience. I think that after seeing this you will be happy if you have the luck to lie in a country that doesn't fight such terror as it is still present in Ireland. I would like to have a safe feeling about my country and places I go to see. I am happy that noone chases me on our streets just because I am of wrong nation. I am aware there aren't many people as lucky as me.

The piece in its second stage reveals many traumas the young man has. It doesn't serve us the music, the script, just the raw story. Taken upon a true story, it can reveal humbleness in your heart and evil towards unjustice, like we see it here. Pure, red, rebellious.

My personal rate: 6,0 (Don't watch it if you have a bad stomach. It could hurt your sleep as you go along with it)

50 Dead men walking on IMDB

The Sunset Limited, 2011

2011-12-18T21:18:00.004+01:00

The Sunset Limited, 2011
Director: Tommy Lee Jones
Cast: Samuel L Jackson, Tommy Lee Jones

Stage: Home Theatre

The Sunset Limited in short: Two men in an apartment with their opposing beliefs.

Preps: Another one dusty in my closet, waiting for my attention

Reality: For a fact, it is really hard to keep the attention of the viewer if you are locked on one static place and you need to keep the main cast there. We have seen it in The Phone booth, a pure example of what efforts it takes to make this kind of movie work.
Now, this piece has been designed only for TV's. I wonder why. Shy to get on the big screen? TV span of attention of viewers is even lower. We can use every escape possible to get to the fridge. So I guess in my logic it is even harder to make me watch.
But I confess. I have watched it from the beginning to the very last second. The dialogues are extremely good. The words spoken are on a higher level than average. You need to really understand english to be able to really follow. And you can even learn as you go along. How many movies do you know that do that? I know only a few. This is definitely one of them.
I admit, I didn't have a f. idea what the movie was about in the first 15 minutes. I was thinking that maybe the movie isn't trying to reach me or something. Or I wasn't trying hard enough. No, the truth is the opposite. You learn as you go along the movie. The obvious, the saving of a guy, trying to kill himself, becomes something far distant in the past. The only thing you need to know is - have you ever thought about your virtues, your beliefs, your arguments for it? Well.. if you have or haven't, you are in for a treat. As if I would be watching our elections and two complete opposites were trying to pursuade me about their beliefs.

You will think about way you look at the world for your own soul. What is it that you are trying to seek and what is it that you want to be left behind you. Does hell exist, does heaven? Who would you like to meet after you go and is it true that you would really want to meet someone, once you think about it?

Lots of good questions. Lots of philosophy. This movie doesn't have anything more, but the script is powerful and it doesn't need anything else. The two main protagonists act as if their lives would depend on it. I love it, the piece, the energy, the actors. I need to watch it again. Definitely!

My personal rate: 7,0 (truly extreme beliefs and beautiful dialogues, filled with right arguments and right placements of high rank words)

The Sunset on IMDB

The perfect Storm, 2000

2011-12-17T18:02:00.003+01:00

The perfect storm, 2011
Director:Wolfgang Petersen
Cast: Mark Wahlberg, George Clooney, Diane Lane

Stage: home theatre, late afternoon Saturday movie

The perfect storm in short: In October 1991, a confluence of weather conditions combined to form a killer storm in the North Atlantic. Caught in the storm was the sword-fishing boat Andrea Gail. Magnificent foreshadowing and anticipation fill this true-life drama while minute details of the fishing boats, their gear and the weather are juxtaposed with the sea adventure.

Preps: A must see if it's on TV, I have seen in in the movies and loved it. It's just worth seeing what are the values and needs you are willing to try competing with death, for.

Reality: One of my favourite's Clooney parts. I just love him here, because I imagine that in real life he must be as stubborn and rough as his character is in the piece. The real life for fishing village, fishing for life and hardly make a living (or not at all) if you aren't lucky in the season... it will make your heart cry.
The real fight begins if the weather isn't nice and this is the unpredictable part in this story which makes a difference between life and death. If we are truly prudent and posh towards nature, this piece will make you respect it again. It clearly shows the line where you need to surrender and where you need to bow in front of the nature, as we are towards the big organism like ants and it will tread all over us if we disrespect it.

The hunt we are seeing here as the main story (fishing) happens up to this level only because it's a difference whether some families will make it or not. Live or not. They need money to do it so they risk the lives of fishermen. In this case it doesn't happen. In some cases it does. A strange lottery to be playing. And definitely makes me not want to be in similar situation ever.

You will respect the scenes that were pulled obviously off in the studio, because they are naturally embedded and you think it's the real nature. And you will cry for the sake of lost love.

My personal rate: 6,0 (the best perception of the storms, combined with a breathtaking race for life)

The perfoect storm on IMDB

One Day, 2011

2011-12-17T15:54:00.006+01:00

One Day, 2011
Director: Lone Scherfig
Cast: Anne Hathaway, Jim Sturgess, Patricia Clarkson

Stage: home theatre, late Friday with nothing more important or nice on my mind

One Day in short. Emma and Dexter meet on the night of their university graduation. We see them every year on the anniversary of that date - July 15th. Emma is smart but success doesn't come quickly for her, whereas for Dexter, success and women come very easily. Through the years they grow apart as their lives take different directions and they meet other people. But as they grow apart from those other people and their lives start taking opposite directions again, Emma and Dexter find that they belong with each other.

Preps: None. But I wanted to see this at the movies, however I was too late.

Reality: This movie is filled with real life experience and sadness. If by any chance you can impersonate yourself into a similar situation, similar position, you will find the blood freezing in your veins. Can two people search for each other their complete lives? How about seeking for inappropriate moments in one's life? This movie is packed with them.

A pair has a relationship, which starts off with a fling, through friendship and best friends level. They even go on a vacation, yet they don't get seriously involved. One gets married, the other gets married, they both get divorced. And somewhere along the line, their paths cross in the most desireable way from viewer's perspective, obviously better late than never, they get involved. And a couple. And want a white fence house with kids. Up to that point you can see numerous occasions on which they should have stayed in the moment, become a couple, but they simply don't. And it could drive you crazy - after a while you are certain that they will be friends and that's it.

So how long are you ready to wait and hope? And how many times can you wake your feelings again? This movie is about it. I strongly believe that we have our soulmates and that we aren't in the right timing every time we interact. Maybe two soulmates must go apart in order to become stronger in another period of their lives.

The movie is equipped with touchy scenes, good dialoges and excellent cast. I just adore the way the director transforms the two in their different lifestages. The assimilation of their complete life experience and their personal lives is extraordinary and much above average that I would expect from this type of movie. I love the music and I love the main cast.

The side stories cannot influence the mainstream of events we are seeing. The unsatisfied relationships with parents, friends and all the people that surround the main actors. How to escape the relationship you don't want to be in for the obvious reason - being in love with your soulmate becomes main charma in the movie. And how briefly it is, the awakening, so sadly torn apart by accident. Truly broke my heart.

My personal rate: 8,0 ( a solid romantic piece, a good drama with lots of twists. And it will make sure you will want to seize the day)

One Day on IMDB

The Bridges of Madison County, 1995

2011-12-11T22:49:00.004+01:00

The Bridges of Madison County, 1995
Director: Clint Eastwood
Cast: Clint Eastwood, Meryl Streep, Annie Corley

Stage: TV selection on my home TV, Sunday night

The Bridges in short:The path of Francesca Johnson's future seems destined when an unexpected fork in the road causes her to question everything she had come to expect from life. While her husband and children are away at the Illinois state fair in the summer of 1965, Robert Kincaid happens turn into the Johnson farm and asks Francesca for directions to Roseman Bridge. Francesca later learns that he was in Iowa on assignment from National Geographic magazine. She is reluctant seeing that he's a complete stranger and then she agrees to show him to the bridges and gradually she talks about her life from being a war-bride from Italy which sets the pace for this bittersweet and all-too-brief romance of her life. Through the pain of separation from her secret love and the stark isolation she feels as the details of her life consume her, she writes her thoughts of the four-day love affair which took up three journals..

Preps: A good piece I have seen for several times and I love to see it again and again. Eastwood is my mantra.

Reality:

This is one of the most beautiful and most sad love stories of all times, in my opinion. It's all about making decisions and to follow your true love (or what you would like it to be) or not. Leave your life behind, along with your kids and a husband, or not. Blame the new guy for coming all the time you are with him or make yourself happy. Is it really that you would like to make yourself happy, is another question.

There are several perspectives, from which you can observe this particular piece. One of them is the straightforward one - a guy walks in a semi dead marriage and makes a revelation with Francesca. To himself and to her. And after four days they split and never get over it. The idea in this scenario is that she leaves the love to waltz away not knowing what would happen if it happened at all.

The irony is in the fact that most relationships start off like this, like a rocket and it's later that we figure we were living a bit in the clouds (or a lot in the clouds). And if those two really matched as it seems in the movie, it would work. What if they didn't - little they knew about each other and what it would be like living together.
Still, she was willing to escape for a brief moment and would leave it all behind. I think that up to some point Eastwood would have persuaded her to go with him, if he was a bit more insisting on this.
It's a good way to think about love and a disaster to your heart if you can impersonate yourself inside the story, if you ever loved someone and thought it would be it and yet, let it slip away. Regrets is what we all have for bigger or smaller things, sometimes they seem life important.

This is one of more romantic dramas I have ever seen on screen. A beautiful cast with Streep and Eastwood, making their energies fly away in the clouds and bringing the essence of love we are all seeking to the screen. However, if your momental status of love is a disaster, this movie could enhance the depression you are having. And vice versa.

Beautiful scenery, scenes beyond erotic, so sexually pleasing it is a pleasure to watch it. Dialogues are witty and intelligent. I adore watching the two chat about things.

This is one of the more remarkable ideas Eastwood brings to the table at the first dinner:
"I don't think obsessions have reasons. This is why they are called obsessions."

I adore it, from the beginning to its end. In many ways it makes me cry. And in many others, it makes me dream away.

My personal rate: 8,5 (a good romance, it will make you think about your virtues and things you seek in life and love).

Bridges on IMDB

London Boulevard, 2010

2011-12-08T08:53:00.010+01:00

London Boulevard, 2010
Director: William Monahan
Cast: Colin Farrell, Keira Knightley

Stage: Home theatre, late night showing

London Boulevard in short: Mitchel ('Colin Farrell' ) just got out of jail and wants to stay legitimate but his friends involved in the messy London underground fear him and wants him to join them again but Mitchel tries his best to stay away. He gets himself a job as a bodyguard for a retired actress Charlotte (Keira Knightley) who is still hot news for the paparazzi. Mitchell, through his friend Billy eventually meets the underground Don by the name of Gant (Ray Winstone) who wants Mitch to work for him because of Mitch's reputations. While working together Mitch and Charlotte fall in love. Gant asks Billy to get the guy who sent Mitch to jail but it turns out to be the wrong one, Gant kills the guy in front of Mitch and lets Mitch know that he has to work for him now that Mitch has seen him commit the murder but Mitch refuses. Gant keeps trying to force Mitch to his side promising him good ranks.

Preps: I don't know what it's about. Haven't seen or heard about it. And I mean anything. So what's left for me is the feeling it's going to be a good one.

Reality: Well, a decent action afterall. It's a bit of a mixture and I think the director couldn't decide whether to have a good action, a good drama or to show some romance. So he made a decent mix of everything. The bad thing about mixes is that after a while you lose taste. So trying to please all the tastes leads you to average level. Unfortunately this movie is (stays) on average level. So we have a frightened and a bit looney actress, desperately seeking for her Avenger. This one comes in shape of Farrell, a beautiful ex con. Obviously they will fall under the sheets, the question that remains is when and if some of the luring reporters might catch them inbetween.
But we have also a figure of a drunk drugged monkey in shape of her regular guardian. Throughout the movie I am not sure how this figure entered the actress's life and what role in perticular can he play. Because he looks as if he ran out of Monty Phython and most certainly doesn't belong in the picture.
The action is good, but only as it runs in paralel and cannot really reveal it's hurt to the viewer. I mean, the deeds are mean but the whole picture when I look at it from a distance is a bit annoying. Also doesn't really fit. The only connection is that the people trying to get into the actresses life are thieves and ex con is the perfect choice if you want to get inside. Nevertheless, being Lock, Stock and Two smoking barrels and Notting Hill at the same time, hurts the overall feeling one has when watching the movie. No doubt that Farrell has The Looks, but you know, he can act, too. So give him the bloody scenario he can actually show it to us. We don't want to just watch his body, with all do respect. I would love some good dialogues and some music, maybe some creative scenery, etc.

All in all, you won't be dissappointed. But you will look at it as you would look at a decent meal. Nothing revealing, but still satisfactory.

My personal rating: 6,0 (average, yet better than most of the ones I have seen in the last 2 weeks).

London Boulevard on IMDB

Blitz, 2011

2011-12-08T08:53:00.006+01:00

Blitz, 2011
Director: Elliot Lester
Cast: Jason Statham, Luke Evans, Aidan Gillen

Stage: home theatre :)

Blitz in short: Detective Sergeant Tom Brant who is dispatched to take down a serial killer hell bent on killing off the police force one by one. "The Blitz" manages to slip through the grasp of Tom every time, and with the precious lives of his colleagues diminishing one by one, Tom is led to the question: if we can't protect our own, then what good are we?

Preps: Ahm, nothing in perticular. I am not aware of the content, nor cast. One of those waiting on the to do list.

Reality: Well, it's one of those movies that tries to be intelligent, yet witty at the same time. Because of Statham, it would be the least I would expect. I admire Statham a great deal and I am anxious to see the piece.
The more I watch it, the more dissappointed I get. The crew seems disorientated, they don't seem to cling together, not singing the same tune or something. I am not sure. But the piece doesn't get to my heart and I am more and more inclined not to watch it anymore. I cannot believe my luck, because it's not the only movie in my mind this evening that has the same effect on me. The story isn't convincing, I feel it's been abused and that this piece doesn't make a contribution to the genre. If I look from the perspective of scenarist, I even get angry. Not clear dialogues, words put in just for the sake that someone says something. Bljak. I don't hesitate. Not my kind of music. Delete.

My personal rate: 1,0 (I didn't find nothing exceptional inside, nor the reason to watch it after a half).

Blitz on IMDB

Life as we know it, 2010

2011-12-03T23:35:00.014+01:00

Life as we know it, 2010
Director: Greg Berlanti
Cast: Katherine Heigl,Josh Duhamel, Josh Lucas

Stage: home theatre

Life as we know it in short: Holly and Eric were set up on a blind date by their friends, Peter and Allison who are married. After Peter and Allison are killed in an accident, they learn that they have been named as the guardians to Peter and Allison's daughter, Sophie. So they move into their house and try their best to honor their friends' wishes. But raising a child puts a crimp on their style and they don't exactly get along.

Preps: None in perticular. Not aware of anything, haven't seen it at the movies and do not know who is the actor. So I am in for a surprise.

Reality: Wow, a surprise indeed. A cute start, having a perfect family with usual affairs and troubles. It gets complicated as the parents get killed in an accident. And the trivial question - who will take care of the child, gets solved in the most unusual way. I would never expect of any parents to live the child to their best friends for the simple reason, that they cannot stand each other.
Now the funny element in the piece derives from living under the same roof with the person you are obliged to just because your friends requested this as their last wish. So you want to respect that and get over it.
The problem here is not only social (the taking care of the child, which is obvious), but is more like this - can you get over your feelings for a person you hate and really not just pretend that you can get along in the same household? A philosophical cliche, I might say, but in this piece distributed in the most funny way possible. The scenes somehow remind of the better ones from Three men and a little baby /(the french version)/ or What happens in Vegas. I mean really funny scenes you cannot escape with having two persons not knowing how to take care of a baby and a baby in one scene. Entertaining, even more.
The other cliche we cannot escape is that opposites attract. It's pretty clear that one way or another the two main actors are going to get involved, the only remaining question is, if it's just having sex or something more. Since we are in Hollywood pack, it's quite clear it's going to be the second. Of course not without some complications, but still, the second choice.
The good thing about the movie is that it reminds us that having kids isn't just peaches and sweet cream. It's also the other way. And on our paths some mean things can happen to us. Maybe worth considering, what if, every now and then. The piece is more than average and Heigl has this good chemistry she passes in this type of movies. Really lovely to watch and I enjoyed the ride all along the way.

My personal rate: 8,0 ( a cute comedy, you will find a lot of scenes amusing and you will find the complete piece relaxing)

Life as we know it on IMDB

Mars Attacks, 1996

2011-12-03T23:35:00.008+01:00

Mars Attacks, 1996
Director: Tim Burton
Cast: Jack Nicholson, Pierce Brosnan, Sarah Jessica Parker

Stage: Home theatre, TV selection for a Friday night

Mars in short: It is a normal day for everyone, until the President of the United States announces Martians have been spotted circling Earth. The Martians land and a meeting is arranged, but not everything goes to plan, and the Martians seem to have other plans for Earth. Are they just misunderstood beings or do they really want to destroy all of humanity?

Preps: Hm. never seen this piece, although I am aware of its notoriousness a while ago. And the people who's opinion I respect, told me it was a nice piece to see.

Reality:Well, another dissappointment. Genuinely, I despise parodies on a certain type of movies and I seldom find them funny anyway. So I am neither fan of more stupid ones like Austin Powers, nor am I a fan of more sophisticated ones (are there any at all?). Anyhow, this is a fine example of making a remake of more than five movies on the topic of aliens, chasing extraordinary images, fighting with weird weapons - and aside, using top notch actors, like Nicholson, Brosnan, Parker and hoping the crowds are going to come because of that cast.
Now, life isn't a bunch of marshmallows all the time. Put it differently, I have seen disastrous pieces put together with the finest crew. One of more dissappointing ones includes Will Smith, Wild Wild West. And this is just one example from the top of my head.
This piece dissappoints me too. No real act. Nicholson acts like the leader of bunch of clowns, which is, ironically, exactly what the movie is all about. Parker is there for the sake of representing the beautiful feminine side (yet limited). All the others just float through scenes instead of acting.
I give up. Not worhty of my time, not worthy of yours. If you are a fan of Austin Powers, you might enjoy it. In all other cases, don't. Really don't :)

My personal rate: 1,0 (and only because I adore the most of the cast. I thought the movie is shitty!)

Mars Attacks on IMDB

Crazy Heart, 2009

2011-12-03T23:34:00.003+01:00

Crazy Heart, 2009
Director: Scott Cooper
Cast: Jeff Bridges, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Colin Farrel

Stage: Home theatre

Crazy heart in short:Bad Blake is a broken-down, hard-living country music singer who's had way too many marriages, far too many years on the road and one too many drinks way too many times. And yet, Bad can't help but reach for salvation with the help of Jean, a journalist who discovers the real man behind the musician.

Preps: Another one waiting in the line of those on my disc. Eventually they all come to their turn :)

Reality: Ohhhhhh. So bad it hurts my eyes. I cannot stare at this loser on the screen, representing an old musician, trying to make a dime while drinking for the last dollars he has. Are they for real? What did the director think? The viewer is thrown in a hell he cannot escape from. Do I want to see this drunkard? He's not giving me wisdom, nor simpathy, nor am I feeling empathy, argh. I am wondering, whether the movie is heading anywhere, but I am out of luck, I guess. After a fallen show he's doing for approximately ten people in the bowling arena in some local atmosphere, I give up. The music is something I can't hear. The dialogues are so drunk and stupid. The feeling is shitty. I disrespect the feeling I am getting on a fine Saturday evening. Therefore the end is near and inevitable. I erase the damn thing.
If you have something better to do, do it. Nevermind the fact that we have a Colin Farrel and Jeff Bridges placed inside. They act like puppets. Which you don't want to see ever again. And it should be banned and never distributed, this piece. I am sure that the aim is realistic. The fallout of the stars is inevitable and in most cases so nasty it hurts throughout your veins. But this perticular piece leaves me empty and cold. So I dare to seize into this feeling and delete it.

My personal rate: 0,0 (I erased it after half an hour. Don't waste your time!!)

Crazy Heart on IMDB

Hereafter, 2010

2011-12-02T20:58:00.004+01:00

Hereafter, 2010
Director: Clint Eastwood
Cast: Matt Damon, Cecile de France, Bryce Dallas Howard

Stage: Home theatre, cool midnight tweek

Hereafter in short:A drama centered on three people who are haunted by mortality in different ways. George (Damon) is a blue-collar American who has a special connection to the afterlife. On the other side of the world, Marie (de France), a French journalist, has a near-death experience that shakes her reality. And when Marcus (Frankie/George McLaren), a London schoolboy, loses the person closest to him, he desperately needs answers. Each on a path in search of the truth, their lives will intersect, forever changed by what they believe might-or must-exist in the hereafter.

Preps: a remaining item on the to do list. Just came along.

Reality:Well, the first surprise is definitely Damon. And the second the good role of a media person a new face (Cecile) is playing. I adore the fact that three different lives and roles are exchanging until they somehow mix. And I love all three dramas in one. The first one, facing a tsunami on what it was supposed to be a romantic getaway, and facing the life after this, and having a death (facing death) experience while you were at it. The second, being so close to the brother you love dearly, living with a mother that is an alcoholic and after losing the brother, losing a grip to life itself. The third one, being a psychic, able to read what is a pain in other people's lives, not being normal at all and having a brother that cannot accept the fact that this isn't what you want to do. A lot of pain distributed in this movie, a lot of real case live examples of what you wouldn't want to be a part of or what you wouldn't want to experience by yourself.
Eastwood flies this plane safely and surely until the all three different worlds collide and unite, with the help of Damon (the psychic that can read people and doesn't have an own personality), crashing into Dicken's reading somewhere in London. A brilliantly set range of actions, that consequently set all three lives in order. Untraditionally, yet it breaks the heart while you want to see beyond. These are main stories. The side story, what is the afterlife all about, doesn't run in parallel, like a bad subconscience it reveals every now and then in some kind of sci-fi vision that some people experience, no real explanation or no real action afterwards. Is this what Eastwood really sees as afterlife? A bunch of statues, where one runs across to another? I don't know. But as the parallel and not first chosen story, the secret remains buried and is left to the spectator's imagination. Which isn't really bad, as I despise some insinuations and some major breakthroughs which don't seem real. However, in this case we don't hold enough evidence to state true or false. Just believable or not.
Some real life examples on how bad it can get. Two kids waiting for a half drunk mum. A couple being together as long it seems to benefit both careers. And brother love that exceeds expectations, when one forces another to read a person he doesn't really want to. And my absolutely favourite part - Damon with a sweet lady at the cooking class, tasting without seeing what they are going to eat. Sweeeeeet.

My personal rate: 7,0 (a good solid piece, will make you think about what to do if the d day comes and more important, what is beyond)

Hereafter on IMDB

Pay it forward, 2000

2011-11-29T23:30:00.003+01:00

Pay it forward, 2000
Director: Mimi Leder
Cast: Kevin Spacey, Helen Hunt, Haley Joel Osment

Stage: home TV selection on a fine Tuesday evening

Pay it forward in short: Young Trevor McKinney, troubled by his mother's alcoholism and fears of his abusive but absent father, is caught up by an intriguing assignment from his new social studies teacher, Mr. Simonet. The assignment: think of something to change the world and put it into action. Trevor conjures the notion of paying a favor not back, but forward--repaying good deeds not with payback, but with new good deeds done to three new people. Trevor's efforts to make good on his idea bring a revolution not only in the lives of himself, his mother and his physically and emotionally scarred teacher, but in those of an ever-widening circle of people completely unknown to him.

Preps: This is a must see. I have seen it several times and this time I am going to submerge the piece to my critical eye.

Reality: As said, this is one of Hollywood's classics. Most of my friends must have seen this already. It has the most exquisite genuine idea I have experienced again and again as I was watching this for several times. To give good and receive good should be one of the practical views in every person's soul. However, the idea starts with a teacher, brilliantly played by Spacey, where he wants to implement the seed into his young students. What can anyone do to change the world? And not meaning with this to flush the toilet once per day to skip water usage during the day. Or collect garbage. Per se, I do have an example which resembles Pay it forward approach. A slovenian youngster wrote some time ago about the movement, where you collect trash. A piece of trash per day. And more people joined in an instant, than he ever imagined. So we have collected trash every day and crowds are joining the movement. Ergo, we have a cleaner place to live in.
The analogy with pay it forward approach is inevitable. However, this piece describes doing a favor to someone that cannot do this or cannot achieve this by him/herself. Which means the responsibility of the carrier to recognize the things that come in question. And for the receiver not to put it on a silver plate. Normally these things have something in common with our fears, feelings, shameful stuff we don't want to disclose, etc. In some reality examples from this piece we face some prisoners being let go, some taxi drives being made for free, a homeless person getting a meal.. there is a lot of good that this movie spreads and you cannot help it, you need to let it also in your heart.
The side story (by this I mean love between the mother and teacher) becomes pretty irrelevant comparing it to the big deed this pay it forward approach can leave on the viewer. However, the story about a new potential relationship gets also profound, because we are dealing with very damaged individuals that are trying to put the puzzles of the life back together. Also a perspective you will think about when you see the piece.

Still, the main red thin line in the movie and also the thing to think about while and after watching is doing good to other people or live creatures. Finally, a pyramid that works for human wellbeing, as oppose to other commercial ones.

My personal rate: 8,0 (a classic must see. Will make you shiver within your soul at some scenes. And leave a warm feeling you need to do something as well).

Pay it forward on IMDB

The Twilight Saga - Breaking Dawn, 2011

2011-11-29T18:33:00.004+01:00

The Twilight Saga, Breaking Dawn, 2011
Director: Bill Condon
Cast: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner

Stage: Local Colloseum, theatre with a lot of teens at that point. Late Sunday night

The saga in short: The Quileute's close in on expecting parents Edward and Bella, whose unborn child poses a threat to the Wolf Pack and the towns people of Forks.

Preps: As I adore the books, I am one of fans and I need to see it. I love love stories that aren't meant to happen but happen anyway. It's written so well that I need to see the piece.

Reality: wow. I am thrilled to see some genuine romantic shots for a couple that wasn't meant to be but still got to the romantic wedding Edward dreamt of. I love the movie interpretation of some dialogues that I have depicted in my imagination. It is obvious that they followed the scenario (the book) to the smallest details and I am sure that it could have been interpreted differently. Nevertheless, I am grateful it happens in such a mushy way (the way your romantic spirit melts as you watch it). But beware, no place for irony here. I am talking about the mere interpretation of what some authors call everlasting love, love that happens once in life and cannot be broken by eternity.
So, if you consider and accept this, you will love the first half of the movie. The beautiful wedding, a cliche and everything a dream wedding means to a lot of girls. With a perfect honey moon that dawns in a forthcoming birth. Now the dilemma, who is worth more, the newborn that you are not sure whether it's a normal baby or a monster, or the mother. In other words, can a couple decide together what to do (either to lose the child or bear it to its birth), or is it completely up to the mother. And is it egoistic for a mother to insist on having the new life, even though she's clear she's probably not going to survive this? The dilemmas just continue and expand. Can a family influence the decision. Is the newborn something that can separate the poles in one family.. and more important, can a best friend and someone you love, really influence on one's decision? The second half of the movie is the true antipod to the first half, as it brings action, depression, death and birth, decisions that are exceeding one's competencies.. and moreover, it brings also hope. And proves the world's eternal cliche, that still holds in Hollywood movies - hope is all we have and maybe, just maybe everything is going to be allright. As I have read the script, I know what happens, so no drama for me. And a true Hollywood ending. Maybe the author should consider bringing some poison into the development of the story. But.. on the other hand.. this is a world of vampires and werewolves - even miracles are allowed here. A good solid rate from me. Watch it, especially if you liked the previous parts. It's the most romantic and inspiring part of them all.

My personal rate: 8,5 ( I adored it. Could be better in some aspects, but a true version of the book. And a beautiful love story)

The Twilight saga on IMDB

Dave, 1993

2011-11-29T18:31:00.005+01:00

Dave, 1993
Director: Gary Ross
Cast: Sigourney Weaver, Kevin Kline, Frank Langella

Stage: Home TV selection, a nice Monday night.

Dave in short: Bill Mitchell is the philandering and distant President of the United States. Dave Kovic is a sweet-natured and caring Temp Agency operator, who by a staggering coincidence looks exactly like the President. As such, when Mitchell wants to escape an official luncheon, the Secret Service hires Dave to stand in for him. Unfortunately, Mitchell suffers a severe stroke whilst having sex with one of his aides, and Dave finds himself stuck in the role indefinitely. The corrupt and manipulative Chief of Staff, Bob Alexander, plans to use Dave to elevate himself to the White House - but unfortunately, he doesn't count on Dave enjoying himself in office, using his luck to make the country a better place, and falling in love with the beautiful First Lady...

Preps. I just see it's on. I remember seeing this on another occasion, but my memory doesn't serve me that well. Hence I need to see it again.

Reality: Yes, I remember. I liked some parts of it and disliked the romantic feeling you get. The one that can drive you nuts with Hollywood endings, as I like to call them. Is it real that we would get a stunt to fill in the position of the american president, and noone (even the first lady) couldn't tell who it is? We are brought into the politician's world and I believe most of people fall into the trap that they really buy the "we love our president". Come on. Who loves president? Isn't he like the statue of liberty, everyone is used to seeing it and that's it? Would we really feel lost without our leaders?

Sometimes I believe it would be better off without every politician I know, president included. I also pursue the feeling that people we elect aren't any good. In Slovenia, regarding latest achievements from the people we assume to love, I might be very right.

On the other hand, people in government, give us hope and give us certainty. That someone is responsible. Even though they really aren't. Or if they don't do anything. We still watch them, cherish them, want to follow the ideals they seem to pursue.
Well, this piece is about something else. It wants to give polititians a human face. with feelings. Yes, they are human too. They make mistakes. They fall in love. They don't act as if they were presidents or leaders. They are indeed human. In this perticular piece, I don't buy it. But I adore the overview I get when they take the audience behind the curtains. Because I don't have a clue what is reality, this is for certain one of realities I can accept. And maybe we should live in the dillusion the director is offering.

Aside from that, no real energy and no persuasion towards audience. Love? Maybe, but in a long run I don't trust these kinds of movies. They seem like a brainwash for the sheepish audience. In the election time, this is a mere hipocracy :)

My personal rate: 6,0(you won't miss anything, but it gives a good perception on the way they think in government and lets you look behind the curtains of the White house in some way of imagining things)

Dave on IMDB

My name is Sam, 2001

2011-11-29T18:30:00.003+01:00

My name is Sam, 2001
Director: Jessie Nelson
Cast: Sean Penn, Dakota Fanning, Michelle Pfeiffer

Stage: Home TV selection, Sunday issue late at night.

My name in short: Sam Dawson has the mental capacity of a 7-year-old. He works at a Starbucks and is obsessed with the Beatles. He has a daughter with a homeless woman; she abandons them as soon as they leave the hospital. He names his daughter Lucy Diamond (after the Beatles song), and raises her. But as she reaches age 7 herself, Sam's limitations start to become a problem at school; she's intentionally holding back to avoid looking smarter than him. The authorities take her away, and Sam shames high-priced lawyer Rita Harrison into taking his case pro bono. In the process, he teaches her a great deal about love, and whether it's really all you need.

Preps: Also a back-comer; I have seen this beautiful movie several times. Need to take it under the critical eye

Reality: The philosophical question/statement around which the world is revolving in this case is - "You can only be a normal parent, if you are of average intelligence." or on the other hand "All you need is love" approach, which allows doubt in the first statement and lets a parent be parent, even if it has the mind of a seven year old child. Have you noticed a lot of intelligence in 7 year old children? Well, this movie implies they aren't as intelligent we want to expose them.

Anyhow, this is not the direction I want to head into. But the dilemma, what kind of intelligence you need to have to be the best parent a child can get, intrigues me to think about it a lot after seeing this. Is intelligence really a pre-requisite? It seems analogue to the problem most companies face, when they want to employ a graduate, when there isn't a single point of evidence that this person will act better or do better work/job/activities than the one that didn't come to this high level of education. Vice versa, number of cases really show that the characteristics of one person as oppose to one's intelligence will make that person prosper on that position. Still, there are some systems that define ability of persons in this very neandertal way. In this case the parent, Sean Penn takes action on the court of law, seeking justice and fighting against social service standards, which claim he cannot be a parent that a child would benefit from. Michelle Pfeiffer, on the other hand, in a brilliant role of a depressive attorney, never willing to give up or to claim that she is wrong or that she failed in any kind of way. Rushing through her life without noticing the colours around her, she becomes posessed in bringing the young child back into her father's arms.

A story to remember and a story that takes a special place in our hearts, similar to Philadelphia, Dangerous minds, The story of Us, Erin Brockovich, etc. These are all similar movies (if we just look at them from a perspective of a message they bring.). My name is Sam won't bring any proper solutions, I am sure such stories happen on every day basis. Still, spreading the idea in the viral way (and as a media, movie is more than appropriate), will make people think and impact tem in a long run. This is one of the goals of the movie.
Is it pretentious to think that children love their parents and don't care if they are rich, poor, intelligent, witty, etc, regardless of their age and political views? No, I think it's reality. A child at the age Lucy is in this movie, loves a father without prejudice. It's the system that labels him and as depicted, because of the lack of intelligence, even a high-end lawyer cannot help him to get treaded by the system. Under pretentious mask that they are helping what is in child's best interest. Not likely. Watch it and think about it. What could a parent do more than fight to the very end?

My personal rate: 8,5 (a brilliant case, brought to the court, fighting virtues and ideals, what's wrong and what's right)

My name on IMDB

Erin Brockovich, 2000

2011-11-20T22:25:00.008+01:00

Erin Brockovich, 2000
Director: Steven Sodenbergh
Cast: Julia Roberts, Albert Finney, David Brisbin

Stage: Home TV selection, nice Sunday night

Erin in short: Erin Brockovich is an unemployed single mother, desperate to find a job, but is having no luck. This losing streak even extends to a failed lawsuit against a doctor in a car accident she was in. With no alternative, she successfully browbeats her lawyer to give her a job in compensation for the loss. While no one takes her seriously, with her trashy clothes and earthy manners, that soon changes when she begins to investigate a suspicious real estate case involving the Pacific Gas & Electric Company. What she discovers is that the company is trying quietly to buy land that was contaminated by hexavalent chromium, a deadly toxic waste that the company is improperly and illegally dumping and, in turn, poisoning the residents in the area. As she digs deeper, Erin finds herself leading point in a series of events that would involve her lawfirm in one of the biggest class action lawsuits in American history against a multi-billion dollar corporation.

Preps: Seeing this marvellous piece several times, it's an honor to see it again.

Reality: As said, Erin Brockovich is a superb piece, taken after a real story. In the cast selection, Sodenbergh took a wild shot and employed Roberts, who just excells in this. Being on top of the lawyer world and betrayal of a gigantic corporate which is trying to exploit local citizens, I am just stunned. As Julia Roberts wasn't really a character drama actress up to this point, I am more than happy to see her energy, smile, outlook and wits, as she waltzes through the scenes charming everyone and winning everything with her intelligence, strongly supported by her two eminent pair (They are called boobs, Ed - as she claims herself in the piece).

A good learning point on several things - how to succeed if you don't have anything going on for you beside your looks (and you are verbally prostitutized by everyone else that is surrounding you). Furthermore, how to deal with pricks that fall on boobs and other women features. Besides this, how to deal with an international fraud, like this corporate actions seem to be. One more important point - lawyer world is work work work. And rarely fun. Plus, you need to gain trust from those that employ you, in this case, the citizen. This means loads of research and rarely victories, this means falling hard on your ass and crawling back. Julia Roberts as Erin Brockovich does this a lot of times and crawls also in the heart of the viewer of this piece.

Anyone should watch it for several reasons. I am sure that most of the general audience will find something inside for themselves. Plus, a row example on winning the big gigants like depicted here gives you optimism that there can be also justice.

My personal rate: 8,5 (splendid job Roberts did, Sodenbergh won big time.).

Erin on IMDB

Faust, 2011

2011-11-20T21:29:00.005+01:00

Faust, 2011
Director: Aleksandr Sukorov
Cast: Johannes Zeiler, Anton Adasinsky, Isolda Dychauk

Stage: Cankarjev dom, Liffe stage

Faust in short: Winner of the Golden Lion Award at the 2011 Venice Film Festival. Deriving inspiration from Goethe’s eponymous dramatic poem, Faust completes Sokurov’s monumental tetralogy on powerful men.

Sokurov’s Faust is not a film adaptation of Goethe’s tragedy in the usual sense, but a reading of what remains between the lines. What is the colour of a world that gives rise to colossal ideas? What does it smell like? It is stuffy in Faust’s world: earthshaking plans are born in the cramped space where he scurries about. He is a thinker, a mouthpiece for ideas, a transmitter of words, a schemer, a daydreamer. An anonymous man driven by simple instincts: hunger, greed, lust. An unhappy, hounded creature that issues a challenge to Goethe’s Faust. Why stay in the moment if one can go further?

Preps: I have seen many versions of Faust, mostly on real stage and not movie ones. I am wondering about this interpretation.

Reality: The movie starts with a dillusion and you have the feeling you are drunk. The camera is making a blury image, so you think you are dreaming this (or you are high on something). The dialogues don't lead anywhere and it's really painful from the very beginning. I don't seem to find any sense in this piece and I struggle very hard. Faust finds a "soulmate", so to speak and they wonder around in this hungry violent world, seeking for god knows what. I don't seem to find the clue. Besides showing some extreme medical situations and cutting down some pieces of flesh out of the corps, some scenes of people being hungry as hell, which is really typical for that period.. the movie lacks.. well everything. I think someone was high when doing this, or I am really weird.

The conclusion is simple. I observe for an hour and after that I leave the show. Not worth my time. Not worth yours as well. And I sincerely think it is weird in a way it cannot pass even the really tiny audience. Among all the people leaving the room, I am the tenth, a lot of them follow the example. I am deeply sorry to have spent any kind of money on this.

My personal rate; 0,0 (arrrrrrgh. And I payed for this piece of s....)

Faust oon IMDB

The greatest movie ever sold, 2011

2011-11-20T18:38:00.005+01:00

The greatest movie ever sold, 2011
Director: Morgan Spurlock
Cast: Morgan Spurlock, Jeremy Chilnick

Stage: home theatre

Greatest movie in short: A documentary about branding, advertising and product placement that is financed and made possible by brands, advertising and product placement.

Preps: Recommended by various individuals. Some difficulties at download. Still, am curious, though I don't have a clue about the piece. I love the title and makes me expect more.

Reality: Ever thought about all the brands you see in movies? How do the directors choose them. Are they influenced by brands giving them money to have them in movies or vice versa? How much money are we talking about? And what do viewers get besides brand washing from pushing the brands?

Spurlock takes a deep breath to get into this world and dares to challenge major brands to take a part in his greatest movie. Everything the viewers will see will be their brands and it could be a great marketing opportunity for them. As a challenge, the major brands don't want to take the challenge. The interesting part is that the brands that are on the edge welcome the challenge, whereas major brands don't dare to. Spurlock gets the funds in a spectacularly quick manner and most impressive way (a good way to learn from indeed!). Also the way he mocks the brands that don't want to be in the movie, is truly excellent. We can learn a lot from the moves he is making and the way he exploits the shots he made while he had the meetings, to make his documentary. The complete pitch to acquire the brands becomes the movie.

The idea of pursuing the brands in a movie was already taken. Just remember Truman show. However, there we didn't know much about branding and how it's done in the movies. In this piece we have a transparent insight, where the money is coming from and how slick the directors can be. Spurlock in some scenes shows a variety of brilliant ideas that the people that are paying are not willing to take, but he delivers them anyway somewhere in the movie.

I adored it. As a marketing person I am very delighted to see a documentary talking about the added value branding can give to a movie I am watching. Moreover, I was more than satisfied to see major brands getting their asses kicked in this piece.

My personal rate:9,5 (I need to see the real movie :) joking. Loved the intro, loved the outro, the content is accurate and makes another perspective in ways how we look at the movies and the brands within).

The greatest movie on IMDB

A dangerous Method, 2011

2011-11-20T18:24:00.005+01:00

A dangerous Method, 2011
Director: David Cronenberg
Cast: Keira Knightley, Michael Fassbender, Viggo Mortensen

Stage: Kino Šiška, Liffe

A dangerous method in short: In his latest film, the iconic director David Cronenberg goes back in time to the dawn of of psychoanalysis. A look at the intense relationship between the fathers of psychoanalysis, Jung and Freud, and their patient to whose charms they both succumb.

On the eve of World War One, Zurich and Vienna are the settings for a dark tale of sexual and intellectual discovery. Drawn from true-life events, the film takes a glimpse into the turbulent relationships among fledgling psychiatrist Carl Jung, his mentor Sigmund Freud and Sabina Spielrein – the troubled but beautiful young woman who comes between them. Their personal exploration of sensuality, ambition and deceit drive Jung, Freud and Sabina to challenge and forever change the nature of modern thought.

Preps: Well, apart from relationship Jung/Freud, I don't know much other things about this piece. But I am eager to find out.

Reality: The movie strikes me with its energy which draggs me into this world of Jung and Freud - from its beginning to the end. I am thrilled to see how scientists once exchanged their ideas and how once life was. Writing letters for real, not emails as nowadays. Seeing each other once per a month or even longer. Having a relationship for the sake of a marriage and kids, on the other hand, having mistresses and letting everyone know you are pure and prudent.

Plus, an excellent way to describe the turbulence between two friends, in some cases caused by two dividing paths they chose to take, sometimes driven by Sabina, a deluded woman, excellently played by Knightley. I was excited to see her in an unusual not Hollywood-like piece and she did an excellent job. The mimic she used to depict the illusions and horrors inside her soul is extremely good and it gives me shivers. On the other hand, I am sure she must have done hell of a job just trying to get under the skin of this role. I am surprised how well the three characters interact with each other and the viewer can almost smell the fear and anxiety when they show it, can feel the love when it's on the stage and can most definitely take position in disputes Freud and Jung have between each other. The sexual analysis that Freud is pursuing can be a bit annoying (you cannot explain everything in sexuality, or can you?)

What is real love and is something you have at home (just for the sake ofhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif being there and make you a man to admire, because you are a family man)? Do you take what's on the plate in front of you or do you stay clean in front of yourself? This is one of the dilemmas, depicted in this movie and not solved in favour of the young Sabina. She is betrayed, although deep inside aware that she cannot have more than just a romance. On the other hand, Jung doesn't want to get involved, yet he gets involved and he regrets it on the outside, on the inside he would repeat it in a second, and so he does. The love story is sad, because both parties get wounded and not find a way out to make both or at least one happy. As Trier would said.. no true love unless you suffer greatly.

My personal rate: 9.0 (a splendid piece, filled with documentary facts and things that will make you think about this long after you leave the cinema).

A dangerous method on IMDB

Potiche, 2010

2011-11-20T18:11:00.004+01:00

Potiche, 2010
Director: Francois Ozon
Cast: Catherine Deneuve, Gerard Depardieu, Fabrice Luchini

Stage: Kino Šiška, Liffe stage

Potiche in short:When her husband is taken hostage by his striking employees, a trophy wife (Deneuve) takes the reins of the family business and proves to be a remarkably effective leader. Business and personal complications arrive in the form of her ex-lover (Depardieu), a former union leader.

Preps: I was actually going to see the Shame, however the movie was misplaced or something and wasn't running here on this date. They put Potiche instead. So I haven't got a clue what I am about to see.

Reality: well, I am deeply surprised and touched by this piece. With elegance, it strives to outburst as one of the attempts for fight for women rights. It is placed at the beginning of the emantipation fight, in late 70ies, when women didn't have any perticular role in politics, yet alone in the boards of directors or in a role of CEO. The "housewife" takes a deep breath and puts up with a challenge to lead a factory. Which does perfectly, until the husband returns. All the rivalry and bad feelings arise - the same stuff that was flushed down the toilet before, becomes the obstacle between a husband and his wife, and also creates a dispute in formerly united family.

In this sense, I see this as one of true pieces to describe the fight for equal rights and the rise of women on different important positions, like presidents, chairmen (chairwomen) and finally, also as mayor of one city, or a delegate.
In this piece the transaction is done smoothly and romantic, with a fine sense of humour, so that the viewer has fun viewing different scenes and indulging the past or the scent of how it used to be like. I loved also the dialogues, witty and profound, they seize in depths of relationships these people have between each other. With a slight retrospective every now and then, the movie also jumps through time. The plot is simple and the story convincing. Maybe a bit too romantic - we are aware that negotiations usually aren't as smooth as depicted here. Still, a relaxing and fun way of thinking of making women part of what once only the men world was.

My personal rate: 8,0 (a surprisingly intelligent and simple piece at the same time. With a clear message. Women can turn everything upside down in all senses).

Potiche on IMDB

Elite Squad 2, The enemy within, Tropa de elite 2

2011-11-20T17:15:00.006+01:00

Tropa de Elite 2, Elite Squad 2, 2011
Director: Jose Padilha
Cast: Wagner Moura, Irandhi Santos, Andre Ramiro

Stage: Kino Komuna, Liffe. A late afternoon, everything packed.

Tropa in short: After a bloody invasion of the BOPE in the High-Security Penitentiary Bangu 1 in Rio de Janeiro to control a rebellion of interns, the Lieutenant-Colonel Roberto Nascimento and the second in command Captain André Matias are accused by the Human Right Aids member Diogo Fraga of execution of prisoners. Matias is transferred to the corrupted Military Police and Nascimento is exonerated from the BOPE by the Governor. However, due to the increasing popularity of Nascimento, the Governor invites him to team-up with the intelligence area of the Secretary of Security. Along the years, Fraga, who is married with Nascimento's former wife, is elected State Representative and Nascimento's son Rafael has issues with his biological father. Meanwhile Nascimento and the BOPE expel the drug dealers from several slums but another enemy arises: the militia led by Major Rocha and supported by the Governor..

Preps: Elite Squad 1 was one of the more preminent movies on the last Liffe. I am eager to see the second part, it should be an upgrade. Which makes it exceed the competition.

Reality: Well, the movie is filled with anger and action. With corruption and war per se between the locals and the military or police. Between the good and bad. Between bad and bad. Bad and worse. The prospects for people that live in this areas there is no perspective. Either you become a corrupted cop or someone they extort, or someone that fights them and deals heroin on streets. These people grew up on the streets not having a choice and not having any other perspective.

It's a movie filled with a feeling that it must be so and that it will be this way forever. And there's nothing you can do about it. Which made me very sad and pesimistic with the movie and the violence it was showing. Does it show any way out of this, any way to fight it? No. In this sense, it serves as a documentary so that even a person living on another side of the world can depict how it's like to live in a community like this. To people that live in a country like Slovenia something like this can be pretty unimaginable. Therefore I claim the movie has documentary value. Still, I would prefer to hold a position, where it also offers some sort of escape or a way out. Or a historical background. How did it come to be like this and how did all the people arrive on the level of nurturing violence? What does it take to trigger this violence and what does it take to end it? Violence for sure not.

In any case, the images from the cages are spectacular, it really gives me shivers to see this and in no imagination would I want to be there. And after seeing this, even Rio de Janeiro doesn't trigger the same interest to me. A lot of people on the world are posed to similar suffering. I guess this is a realistic South America image and we should all think about it. How to influence all of this? A movie without a call to action. Just closing the eyes won't make this dissappear, unfortunately. As said, I leave the cinema with a pesimistic and really depressive mood.

My personal rate: 7,0 (a true documentary. It will make your cells shiver with fear and disgust).

Elite Squad on IMDB

In time, 2011

2011-11-20T16:43:00.005+01:00

In time, 2011
Director: Andrew Niccol
Cast: Justin Timberlake, Amanda Seyfried, Cillian Murphy

Stage: Kolosej, local cinema

In time in short: In the not-too-distant future the aging gene has been switched off. To avoid overpopulation, time has become the currency and the way people pay for luxuries and necessities. The rich can live forever, while the rest try to negotiate for their immortality. A poor young man who comes into a fortune of time, though too late to help his mother from dying. He ends up on the run from a police force known as 'time keepers'.

Preps: Well, one of the hot ones in the movies. A friend draggs me to the movies. She claims it's worth seeing. Hmm.

Reality: What happens if time becomes currency, you divide people in chaotic casts (time zones) and rich people (filled with time)dictate the way you are going to live? Well, in my eyes, the realistic picture of the world today, being put in the level, where you can take it as a game. With a sub joker, that is written on your hand just above your wrist - the clock that serves as your ticket to another day.

The poor are really poor. Live one day to another, chasing minutes and working double shifts to pass time to people they love and need to keep. Your limit to the given time makes all sorts of discrepancies - namely your mother can still look 25 years of age, whereas your grandchildren can look also the same age you have. The boundaries of age are erased, and physically you can only imagine this. However, one becomes fed up being locked in a body for eternity. What would you do if you had eternal amount of time is very similar to the question what would you do if you had eternal amount of money? And eternal youth is something a lot of directors pursued in some movies I have already seen. Nevertheless, this is one of the more interesting ones, even though it keeps me cold. The scenes (dialogues) are trivial, the cast isn't convincing. There is absolutely NO energy between the main actors and no energy in the other relationships. At least not visible to the spectator.
And as far as the story goes - mix Robin Hood, the Matrix, The fifth element, Men in black - and you will get this piece. Obviously the main villain resembles the main villain from Fifth Element. Unfortunately Justin cannot be Bruce Willis in a million years. So it doesn't really work. The main time keeper resembles a renegade that needs to get his priorities straight. To be good or to confine the law. Two very different options. Can't do both, so he stays in the middle, so does his act.

The music.. not recognizeable. Which means I don't even notice it. But I notice a lot of holes in the movie, as the emental cheese it falls apart. The woman is running half the time in so high heals your knees tremble when I imagine running like that. Or jumping from the roof (in the high heels) and continue to run afterwards. Right. Seconds in this movie seem like minutes (No way you can run this far in ten seconds. But I accept we need to be flexible in our mindset).

As my friend is so thrilled to see it, I am more or less dissatisfied with this version of Robin Hood. If everything was of everyone, noone would work. No production means no goods to buy. No money (time) to spend. Unfortunately we are not designed to work in a world where everyone would have everything. As the animals in the zoo, if you took them out, wouldn't survive, we also wouldn't. True as it can ever be.

The thing that is the most destroying in my rate is the lack of idea what to do. The movie shows no solutions, it just points out the problem. The only solution it poses is give every resource to everyone. When even a teenager can cleary see it's not supposed to be like this. Not nowadays. Maybe in prehistoric time, but not now. So no idea how to solve this unevenness in the world. Plus, if I ever see this image of Lara Croft (or did they want to depict Leeloo from Fifth element?), in the same role, it will be too soon. Unimaginative, unreal.

My personal rate: 2,0 (ehm.. not really worth your time and thinking about it afterwards. Not convincing at all).

In time on IMDB

Izlet, 2011 (A trip)

2011-11-20T16:01:00.008+01:00

Izlet, 2011 (A trip)
Director: Nejc Gazvoda
Cast: Luka Cimprič, Jure Henigman, Nina Rakovec

Stage: Kino Šiška, Liffe. After the superb Listy do M.

Izlet in short: Ziva, Andrej and Gregor are best friends since high school. Gregor is a soldier who is about to embark on a mission to Afghanistan and Ziva is going to study abroad. Andrej is their gay friend who hates everything, himself included. They decide to go to a road trip to the seaside like they did when they were in high school. When they arrive, they get drunk and Ziva and Gregor kiss each other, what brings tension to their relationship, while Andrej doesn't know anything and just makes fun of everything, mostly of Gregor and his army ideals. The conflict erupts when Ziva, in a fit of rage, destroys their tent and tells a secret that enrages Andrej. Only then the true problem is revealed - Ziva is not going to study abroad, she was lying because she didn't want to pity her.

Preps: the slovene movie on Liffe. A must see, I don't care about the plot, the actors, anything. A slovene movie is something we need to support, at least on this international festival. Plus, the brother of one of my friends plays a gay figure in the movie. A must see definitely. Naturally I am curious about it.

Reality: The movie I saw before this piece makes me a bit late. Not a lot, but still I miss the intro and enter the movie as the young people on the scene are pissing from a highway bridge to the cars that pass by. Obviously something you could only do when provoked if being young enough to think it's cool. Cleary the symbol of what the movie is going to talk about - freedom of youth and the everlasting feeling that you can rule the world if you want - the feeling only young people have before the system crashes them down and makes them slaves to the system (we call it responsible adults, but it's the period before you enter family life, careers, pushing for credits, etc. The time you can get drunk in the middle of the week and survive with distinction. The time you aren't tired to death of everything you NEED to do instead doing something you DESIRE.) Clear difference in the mindset, this is what I am going to get.
The movie is a bit pale at its beginning. Static up to a point. Ok, they go to a trip. Stop for two dark scenes; First: Stopping in the shadows to have a break, chatting about life. Andrej expressing his impatience with many things: Germans, Scottish, Spanish people, RTV Slovenia, dogs, dog owners, gypsies, gays. In my opinion, one of the most adorable and funny scenes in the complete piece. The three end up with expressing their inner fears and hatred with demolishing an abandoned car. I hate my father because he doesn't realize who I really am. I hate my mother because she never lets me do anything. Some of the words of young people when kicking the car and making it a wreck.
The other point of depression is running over a cat and giving it a funeral. The girl obviously makes the guys "do the right thing". Touching scene - however contradictory to the messages the guys give. Andrej wearing a shirt (I eat pussies - contradictory to the funeral and the fact he's gay). Gregor, the soldier, only indulging to the girl he hopes to get laid with.

After a non promising start, the movie starts to escalate with depth it tries to make with analysis of friendship of the three. Being at the seaside, the three relax, get drunk, party in the near by city and are depicting every aspect of being young and careless. Something we all strive for from time to time or miss as we were once also like this. On the other side, you can smell something isn't quite right and that they all have their own drama that is being delivered in their heads. Some traumas from childhood you can only imagine, as you smell it from their comments and fun they make out of each other.
As the movie seems light at the beginning, it starts to get its dramatic moment as traumas try to escape their heads and convert a "fun trip" into a revealing activity where the friendship is at stake and they more than once, fall apart and return to one another. Do the bonds from their childhood make them return or the fact that a lot of time has passed and they feel more mature about this. Something they need to leave behind, yet haunts them from the past.
Why doesn't Živa want to get close to Gregor, is a riddle to the viewer. What happened in the wardrobe when some so called schoolfriends stripped Andrej, remains mistery. Why does Gregor act like a jerk towards Andrej, when it's obvious he loves him as a friend. Mistery reveals one by another and we see the depth in which one must seize to reveal it and deal with it. The hurt it brings upfront and how it conflicts with the initial idea to have fun while being on a simple trip.

On one hand, you have the platonic friendship, taking its debt when the deeper secrets sneak out in the open. On the other side, you have deep connections that make friendship last despite these horrible deeds these friends did one to another and survive all the quarrels and doubts. It is obvious that people that are together (or are together on a holiday) for more than one day, quarrel. Or get on each other's nerves. However this was only the trigger in this case to make these young people face their problems.
Is it important to have friends as we depict them in our imagination, or should we take people that love us as they are and make it count every second we are spending with them? In some sense, mainaining a platonic friendship is really trivial. However, if the connections exceed the platonic level, you need to nurture them. Are you a friend if you lie to your friend or someone you are close to? How about if you do it to spare your close ones to pity you? Or to save yourself before anti-gay campaigns? Or just doing it to create a fence, noone gets by so they don't have the chance to hurt you?

A lot of philosophy in this piece, neatly assembled in culmination of events that drive three friends to even deeper level of friendship. Filmed with a digital camera/very moveable camera which made some of the scenes hard to watch. Sometimes you cannot hear Andrej speak, even though you want to know what he said. English subtitles might be in order here. Slovene movies should cross borders. Scenes carefully chosen. And I absolutely adore recognizing the scenery. Ending predictable and finally.. the audience was held until its end and made a good applause. I could also do it. I loved it.

Some words from the director, Nejc Gazvoda: “In filmmaking I am not interested in the stories of common people, as common people do not exist – there exist only people worth telling about and the three characters in A Trip are like that. Although seemingly problematic, bored youths, they are really persons with real-life problems, a lost generation of the 1980s that distrustful of everything occupies its own frolicking world and fosters the illusion that it would always stay young and untouchable.”

My personal rate: 9,0 (a good piece, worth seeing and worth of an applause. A good act, true energy between the main actors and a good point to take home with you.)

Izlet on IMDB

Listy do M.; Letters to St Nicholas; Pisma Sv. Nikolaju, 2001

2011-11-20T15:32:00.006+01:00

Listy do M., Letters to St. Nicholas; Pisma Sv. Nikolaju, 2011
Director: Mitja Okorn
Cast: Maciej Stuhr, Roma Gasiorowska, Tomazs Karolak

Stage: Liffe, Kino Komuna. With the director in the room

Listy in short: Five stories of five women and men intertwine in Warsaw on 24 December. Different priorities, different lifestyles and different things they have lost in their lives. What they have in common is that they all wish for a change. How will each one of them spend Christmas and how it will affect their lives?

Preps: A lot of media fuss around this piece. Obviously, because of the good diplomacy and anarchy we live in in our beautiful Slovenia, local cinemography isn't supported as it should be. Even the prospects like Okorn, don't get the funding, unfortunately. With scientists you call it flee of brains, with directors, flee of good movie directors to another country. To cut the long story short, he got the funding at Polish government, after proving himself with a series shooting in Poland. The movie exceeded 600.000 viewers in its first week of screening. Obviously I am more than a supporter to slovenian movie directors and whenever I am on LIFFE, I will certainly go and see all the slovenian, croatian, bosnian, serbian movies. A lot of patriotism running in my cinemascopic veins, but merely in this area. So I am curious what the fuss is all about.

Reality: Wow. So cute my heart melts. From its very beginning to the end it keeps me happy and curious how it goes on. Therefore I claim it has a flow, a realistic story one can easily embed in his/her own life, regardless of the country you come from. The universal Christmas celebration brings a lot of people together and drives even more souls apart. How come everyone needs to be happy and everyone should be happy at Christmas?
A lot of people just aren't happy around Christmas period. So many reminders to push the true family love spirit and things you should do around Christmas. It isn't a surprise, a lot of suicides happen in this period and if someone measured the depression some people feel being alone in this festive season, there would be a huge surprise I guess in the actual number of people that aren't happy. If you add those that pretend to be happy and have a family, you would come up with a surprising figure. The matter of fact is, rarely people get to be really really happy about their lives and the period of Xmas is the period that inevitabely reminds us about the things one should have to be perfect and to be "human" - among those is also someone to spend the Xmas evening with, waking up with perfect man/woman beside you, having your child at the table when the dinner is happening, spending the evening chatting with the persons you love truly expressing you love them..
The movie in its very beginning shows the true opposite. Not all people want to celebrate, because they feel there's nothing to celebrate. On the other hand, a lot of people are working on this evening, their bosses don't care about their wishes. A lot of people seek work so they would forget being alone on this holy day. Furthermore, when I see someone making a suicide, later on surviving by a strike of luck and trying to convert his unhapiness to hapiness by force (obviously fail in the first xxx attempts, but at the end of the movie - predicteably wins his game). The movie depicts different really sad and real situations, that occur on the christmas day in Warshaw. And tries to convert them into real happening afterwards, that in some cases leads to hapiness, in other leads to more misfortune.
Sane humour inside, a lot of black ironic scenes, where you need to laugh, even though the scene is truly sad. The kids pouring water to turn into ice before the doorstep to make people fall. The man throwing out the TV. St. Nicholas falling down the floor, later on chasing a young man across the store, just to get the hot chick's phone back. The radio guy wearing a frosty costume to make his kid smile while he's working the Xmas eve/night. A lot of others that make the audience shiver with laughter and positive optimism that doesn't end until the end of the movie.

A brilliant movie in its genre, something true and real, yet inspiring and romantic. Something you need to see in the festive period. Something that will make you want to have your own Xmas tree. Something Slovenia should be grateful to Okorn for. I loved it.

My personal rate: 9,5 (in its genre, something so smooth, funny, romantic and excellent you truly need to see it!)

Listy do M. on IMDB

La piel que habito, 2011 (The Skin I live In)

2011-11-17T10:18:00.003+01:00

La piel que habito, 2011
Director: Pedro Almodovar
Cast: Antonio Banderas, Elena Anaya, Jan Cornet

Stage: Kino Šiška, stage of Liffe. Hard and tight seats :)

La piel in short: In honor of his late wife who died in a flaming car accident, scientist, Dr. Robert Ledgard, is trying to synthesize the perfect skin which can withstand burns, cuts or any other kind of damage. As he gets closer to perfecting this skin on his flawless patient, the scientific community starts growing skeptical and his past is revealed that shows how his patient is closely linked to tragic events he would like to forget.

Preps: again, Liffe selection cannot go without Almodovar. I don't have a clue what the movie stands for. But I expect not to be dissappointed, responding to the fact that we are dealing with Almodovar.

Reality: I am excited from the beginning until the last second. Almodovar keeps up the pace and breaths with the expectations I have from one of his pieces. Still, an annoying thought runs through my mind - I have seen The human centipede a while ago and I must say that I am thinking about what was first - the centipede or this one? Or some other piece, on the approximately same topic. As we enter the dawn of movies that need a special thrill to keep the exciting mode on (like The Saw, etc), there have been several movies lately on this topic - a mad scientist (surgeon), living in oblivion or like a normal person, makes some sort of testing on live people.

This movie fits into one of these "Fritzl from Österreich categories. Since the stories about kidnapping some people and keeping them in basement, abusing them, making tests on them, have started to arise in public, also the respect/judgement for these cruel actions has started to reflect on movies. In this case, it's the case of vengeance of a father because a young man, under influence of drugs, seduces and "half"rapes his young daughter. "half" in sense, that up to a point it was an agreement, after that she loses her mind. And in vengeance seeking point, father kidnaps the boy and as a plastic surgeon he makes a woman out of him. Firstly, with vagina input, later on with complete transformation. And as a cherry to a cake, taking her in as his mistress. Now here most of the audience would get some sick signs in their stomachs. Nevertheless, the transformation is brilliant. Banderas in this piece as a great surgeon, trying to find a perfect uni-skin, that could resist to fire and everything that could hurt it. In this "ginny pig" test, he tests the skin on the real corps (breathing new woman called Vera).

There are many ways to depict the surgery. In Human Centipede you can vomit right in the middle of some scenes, if your stomach isn't that dandy. In this case, Pedro takes us on a slightly lighter mission - you can only imagine, what the operations are like, because you see the post effect and are not really there when he inserts the vagina, etc. So in some sense, a lighter version in comparison with others. However, things we depict ourselves in our imagination can be even tougher on soul than the ones that are on a plate in front of us.

Now, what is the father experiencing, is another thing. One sight of him as a scientist, and you are sure, he's in love with his profession. Being with the new Vera, takes us on a tour of a harmed, damaged ego and soul, because sadness and grief is reflecting from every pore he has. The third thing, seeing him as someone that tortures someone else for his sins, makes you convinced that every person can be cruel, if the terms are in favor of being harsh about something.

The middle scene with Tiger coming in, raping Vera, can be observed from a completely different perspective once you realize it was once a man this Tiger now is raping. And gives a dark influence on the complete scene. Do you applaud to the deserved punishment of persons? In this case, you cannot resist the flavor of revenge, because most of us disagree with violence in shape of raping women or men. However in this particular scene you don't feel with the raped man (now woman). You feel as if he deserves to get what he did to a girl. Eye for an eye. However, how severe must a punishment be? That's really up to individual to decide. Here you feel somehow deeply disturbed, and you never reach peace.

Somehow the kid manages to escape and appears before his mother as Vera. I feel that in this moment the movie is not really over, however, Almodovar decides to end it. Shame.. it would impress me to see the story afterwards. Now I only imagihttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifne how a person like this faces the new reality. And the people around it, obviously. A prime piece, worth seeing. And worth thinking about things we do and the way they echo in eternity.

My personal rate: 8,5 (worthy of every second)

La piel on IMDB

Melancholia, 2011

2011-11-16T09:25:00.006+01:00

Melancholia, 2011
Director: Lars Von Trier
Cast: Kirsten Dunst, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Kiefer Sutherland

Stage: Kino Šiška, Liffe, late evening /sold out/ screening

Melancholia in short: Two sisters find their already strained relationship challenged as a mysterious new planet threatens to collide into the Earth.

Preps: a lot of criticism, a lot of good and bad commercial about this piece. However, to my choice of Liffe, it's no brainer. A Von Trier is a must see, I always do.

Reality: What would you do if you had two hours to spend before the world comes to an end? How would you spend it? This is one of the questions arising from the mere predisposition that a planet is coming with a good chance to swallow the Earth and life as we know it. Or bypass it and give us a big scare.

The second topic is the distinction /connection between beauty and death, which is also one of the things Melancholia stands for as a word expression. Trier shows a variety of scenes with unusual elements falling from the sky, a picturesque environment where he shoots the movie and beauty in the perception of young dilluted Justine. She needs to escape from everything she perceives normal and yet, the environment forces her to turn in normal. Which means that she needs an evidence to prove to the society she's also normal. Precisely this is why we have the big wedding at the beginning, yet everything seems wrong about this wedding. Based on every pre-assumption one might have in ways to create a beautiful (cliche) wedding, this would be one of it. The tuxes, the ties, the people being cheerful and elegant.. and the bride, lost and confused, not able to follow her own decision. The break of her inside comes slowly, but surely. At the beginning the audience sees what choaks this young beauty - her veil in shape of grey coat, surrounding the legs, which she is pulling behind herself and suffering while she does it, because it's very hard. It could be interpreted as the burden she's carrying in her soul while being alive.

Justine feels out of the planet, out of "normal" perspective, and she shows so much depression it hurts to see her demolished this way.
The part of the story that is missing is the "normal" component - she used to be a good copywriter. Was this because she's living in her own world and perceived from all others as weird? Or did she had any kind of accident and turned this way? We don't know, and Trier doesn't show us. But the pain, which embraces the beauty is real. Everything else - material things, things that satisfy us for a moment, they are just a dillusion. Pain, sadness, Beauty. I think this goes hand in hand with the plot and the main Trier message in this piece. Longing is the most prominent feature of Melancholia.

The next thing is that Earth is according to Trier, the only living breathing organism in the universe. So the destruction is complete. It's not perfect if everything doesn't go. In some sense, like the extreme beauty - Justine. Every little part fits. And photography is exquisite. You can only stare at one scene for a really long time and not get bored with it. Plus, the music can give you thrills as it is chosen so carefully it rocks your bones. The dialogues are wittily chosen and the irony shows on each step of the way. And the triviality of everything we normally strive for (yet seems in this perspective, quite unimportant).

The movie is constructed in two parts. The first, Justine, trying to fit the unfitted into the system. And the other part, Claire, exposing the "normal" sister to the fact that the life she dearly appreciates, is going to be destroyed. The horrible way she faces it and tries to run, when there's nowhere to run to. To drink some wine, to have a stroll just before you die? Up to individual. This story emphasizes one way to go. And appreciates non - normality.

My personal rate: 9,0 (splendid work .. again I am out of my breath.)

Melancholia on IMDB

Melancholia (about it) - a short interview with von Trier & official page

Podslon (Shelter), 2010

2011-11-11T09:57:00.006+01:00

Podslon (Shelter), 2010
Director: Dragomir Sholev
Cast: Tzvetan Daskalov, Silvia Gerina, Irena Hristoskova

Stage: Liffe, the movie festival. Cankarjev dom

Podslon in short: While they have been changing TV channels, making pickles or discussing politics, the parents of 12-year-old Rado have missed their son's growing up. Now they cannot understand why, after disappearing for two days, he isn't sorry for the nightmare he has caused them and why is he ready to run away from home with the first junkies he has met on the street.

Preps: Seems alternative enough to my taste according to the description. Plus, I don't remember when it was the last time I saw a bulgarian movie.

Reality: This story is based on a biography per se. Which means that the director grew up in an environment like the movie is depicting and must have grown strong feelings in the time he wanted to become like the row model he had back then. The real philosophy of the movie deals with a constant and never too old question - what to do if your teenager suddenly starts to dilude from the path you chose for him?

In this sense, puberty is something all parents experience at some point. Are they prepared for it, is another question, and furthermore, are they prepared if the child starts dealing drugs, runs away, chooses alternative society which empowers him with tools to do some criminal activities, etc. Or if it's just in the shape of listening to a certain band or following some rituals. Do you as a parent get worried, get in the middle of this, do you have the limit in your head (up to where you leave your child wander and experience the world, and when it is that you are going to say stop - it's enough). A lot of dilemmas are revealing in this piece, as you follow the simple plot (child leaving for two days, appearing with some punk friends his parents despise in a moment).

The parallel story about the parents, living their lives pretending as if their child never grew up (seeing him as a young boy he once was) and not acknowledging something dramatic is happening with the mindset of the junior.
The punk couple the young boy brings home represent almost everything the father of the son would never dream of that his kid was about to become like this. He doesn't see it (or put it better - doesn't want to). Therefore we come to funny scenes, like the "lunch", where the observer merely expects that the punk kid will get a slam from the father - the father just staring at him and trying to choak with the fact that this 18 year old boy his own boy admires in such a way, really believes that anarchy is the way to a better perspective, smokes, drinks, looks awful with his haircut, clothing, appeareance,etc. And yet his own kid would love to be just like this. It must be a nightmare to any parents, however, in perticular this couple that never dreamt of having such a problem.

Anarchy puts in perspective everything that is done by work and hard time we are all experiencing. Living on your own, paying and supporting yourself, being independent. To this punk kid, electricity is the benefit of us all, therefore we shouldn't pay for it. School is for dumb people. Learning also. Work also. And yet, this kind of approach leads to living in a garage, on cold, asking for food, stealing from those that live "sheepish - working and being independent".

A lot of personal touch and traumatic moments are embedded in the movie. However, when we come to a some sort of conclusion, the ending isn't where it's supposed to be put. I don't see the ending where the director sees it. In other words, this movie has a shitty ending, which spoils the complete picture and complete mindset that I have made before it ends.

My personal rate: 6,0 (from different perspectives, very interesting.)

Podslon on IMDB

We need to talk about Kevin, 2011

2011-11-10T00:10:00.006+01:00

We need to talk about Kevin, 2011
Director: Lynne Ramsay
Cast: Tilda Swinton, John C. Reilly, Ezra Miller

Stage: kino Komuna, Liffe at its very beginning. The first movie. Sold out.

Kevin in short: The mother of a teenage boy who went on a high-school killing spree tries to deal with her grief - and feelings of responsibility for her child's actions.

Preps: When I bought the tickets, I have already read the description. But as I am sitting in the theatre, I don't remember a thing. I am eager for a surprise.

Reality: Surprise indeed. This piece will open your mouth wide open. A thriller as I haven't seen in a long time. Are we born like a blank leaf that gets filled with information or can we be born evil? This is what this movie is dealing with on one side. On another side the miracle story on how to survive if you have a child that is born not only a menace, but the devil himself. And the third part, guilt, remorsement and dealing with questions like "Could I have done something to change this" or "Would it be any different if..". The fourth, not so obvious thing is, how far can we go to swallow bad things or things we don't like (and not be selfish) on behalf of being brave and accepting what fate has brought.

The movie culminates and the climax is as the horror is revealed. What has this kid done in order for everyone around him to suffer? The director jumps from one period to another smoothly and wisely. Just enough to keep your thumbs up and just enough to get you to be even more curious. Vivid interpretation on how horrific one's life can be because of another human being she's supposed to love forever. Horrible, what kind of debt this takes for the complete family. With the arrival of new child,a new chapter opens - jealousy of another child and the first child attacking everything he knows - psychologically and phisically. The only moment of connection with his mother (when you have the distinctive feeling that this is when something will break and the movie will change to more optimistic one) - this is the moment when everything even gets harder by .. well, beyond any imagination. I just imagine what kind of psycho you get if you need to live this and swallow it all.

Scenes, dialogues, even mere portraits are excellent choice of the director. The story is breathtaking and it keeps me alert for complete two hours. One of the better ones at the moment. Couldn't wait to recommend it. Will make you think about how grateful you should be for "normal" children. Or think about having them at all.

My personal rate: 9,0 (brilliant!!!!!!)

We need to talk about Kevin on IMDB

Disclosure, 1994

2011-11-09T23:46:00.006+01:00

Disclosure, 1994
Director: Barry Levinson
Cast: Michael Douglas, Demi Moore, Donald Sutherland

Stage: Home theatre

Disclosure in short: With his company about to merge, a happily married and successful computer expert is expecting a promotion. Instead the job goes to a woman from another plant with whom he had an affair in his bachelor days. His new boss, not only dangerously sexy but equally dangerously ambitious, has climbed the corporate ladder by exerting undue influence on the CEO. She apparently tries to pick up where they left off but he just about manages to resist. This liaison is soon revealed to be part of her master plan to consolidate power and use Tom as a scapegoat to cover her technical misdeeds. As his position at work comes under increasing pressure he decides to file charges of sexual harassment. This is the last thing the company needs.

Preps: I can watch this on an very awqward evening, as I am thinking about someone getting on your ass over something you weren't a part of. So it seems a nice suggestion someone from TV has made on my behalf.

Reality: This is an excellent piece on getting hit by your own management and your own boss. It is amazing, how (for a change) a guy gets swollen by system and his own weaknesses. A fine learning point for anyone that gets involved with this kind of deal and needs to know what is he/she fighting against. Douglas here is the swollen man by a woman as a superior. To get weak is one thing, to abuse power, something completely else. Defined by a brilliant Crichton script, the movie has its flow, its protagonists and main message - screw or get screwed. Or put it another way - if get screwed, fight back. Don't be a small ant, be the ant with the attitude. Even though Douglas fights, he simultanously loses the game by losing things he feels dear about. Regardless of the outcome of the dispute he's having with the company, he's unemployable, man with a mark, man that will always wear a shadow, and most important, this despute importantly reflects in his personal life.

How far can the company go to cover up for something and find a guilty person among those that don't know they represent collateral damage? And how many people really have time, energy and money to back it up? Put it on the other side of coin - what is worth more, honor or normal life? And, is the life really normal, if you swallow something like that? A very old and still fresh question, fits perfectly into nowaday environment in business.

My personal rate: 8,0 (solid, straight piece. Will keep you to your knees and with mouth open until its end).

Disclosure on IMDB

The Three Musketeers, 2011

2011-11-09T23:04:00.006+01:00

The Three Musketeers, 2011
Director: Paul W.S. Anderson
Cast: Logan Lerman, Matthew Macfayden, Ray Stevenson

Stage: home theatre

The three musketeers in short: The hot-headed young D'Artagnan along with three former legendary but now down on their luck Musketeers must unite and defeat a beautiful double agent and her villainous employer from seizing the French throne and engulfing Europe in war.

Preps: Hm.. another remake. Am a bit curious. Though I don't expect a lot. I might be wrong.

Reality: This must be a joke. A young D'artagnan, running around chasing a dream and something the three musketeers once represented. The dialogues are awful, the costumes look shitty and out of place. Placement seems like taken from another movie, actors likewise. The story isn't believable and it jumps from one scene to another like from one time to another. In other words, it's without a real clue and out of reality. I am not sure what makes directors want to make a sci-fi version of something that once was a good movie with a good theme.

When a "space ship" in the shape of a giant balook enters the stage, that's it. I am out of patience and just erase this. Not worth my time. Yuk.

My personal rate: 0 (don't waste your time, not worth it)

The musketeers on IMDB

Crazy, Stupid, Love, 2011

2011-11-01T23:01:00.004+01:00

Crazy, Stupid, Love, 2011
Director: Glenn Ficarra, John Regua
Cast: Julianne Moore, Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling

Stage: Home theatre

Crazy, Stupid in short: Cal (Steve Carell) and Emily (Julianne Moore) have the perfect life together living the American dream... until Emily asks for a divorce. Now Cal, Mr Husband, has to navigate the single scene with a little help from his professional bachelor friend Jacob Palmer (Ryan Gosling). Make that a lot of help

Preps: I got a hint from a good friend of mine, she saw this one at the movies. Nevertheless, I do watch a lot of "hints" at home.

Reality: A promising start. However this is it. Now, the meaning of searching true love through an escapade of first changing the looks, then start working out, and then all of the sudden women fall at your feet. Cliche. Don't like it.
Are guys really in for making love over and over again, night after night with a different woman? And where is this bar with gorgeous women, that are waltzing around? No such thing. Nowadays, if you go to a bar, not likely that you will meet a hot chick or a hot guy, hitting on you with all the right words.

OK, we go through different steps of transformation of this ridiculously gayish guy. Which village did he come from and how come Julianne Moore is the one that got stuck with him when being a teenager (you just don't let a woman like that waltz away, or do you?) Not enough background in the marriage to see that. However, one of the points this piece is trying to is everlasting love, the one and true love you meet once in a lifetime. Well guess what. Some of us do and a lot of us don't. And that's the reality. No point of making this a big thing on the screen. And if you are making it, why distroy this image with this loap through the wild with the good women chase all of the sudden? The directors could have made up their minds earlier. Either go the true love cliche or go with a stud that goes around dazzling women like James Bond.

Not enough meat. Or if I paraphrase one of the good speaches. My god, you look like you have been photo shopped. The complete piece has been photoshopped.

My personal rate: 5,0 (well, there are good looking persons of both sex. And you will have some laughs with the plot and the complications. Is one of the messages that the world is a small place? Least I buy that).

Crazy, Stupid, Love on IMDB

Midnight in Paris, 2011

2011-11-01T13:29:00.006+01:00

Midnight in Paris, 2011
Director: Woody Allen
Cast: Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Cathy Bates

Stage: Home Theatre

Midnight in short: Gil and Inez travel to Paris as a tag-along vacation on her parents' business trip. Gil is a successful Hollywood writer but is struggling on his first novel. He falls in love with the city and thinks they should move there after they get married, but Inez does not share his romantic notions of the city or the idea that the 1920s was the golden age. When Inez goes off dancing with her friends, Gil takes a walk at midnight and discovers what could be the ultimate source of inspiration for writing. Gil's daily walks at midnight in Paris could take him closer to the heart of the city but further from the woman he's about to marry.

Preps: Oh, the new stuff from Woody Allen. A must see. I don't care what it is, but I am a huge fan of Allen's movies and could swallow them for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Am definitely curious who the protagonist will be and what his main pain will be.

Reality: MMMMMMMMMM, a balsam to my romantic soul. The real question is are we satisfied in the present or are we living somewhere else (with our minds), letting it argue with our present being and just watching the present run away. Are we trying to escape into another body, soul, time period? And how does it conflict with who we are today. Where to stay, in your Avatar or in your present, this is the question this piece is struggling with.

Is Clive Owen the best protagonist you could imagine? Being used to romantic comedies, the genre fits perfectly. However, I am dissappointed in Allen's choice for the main cast. In some aspects, however, it perfectly fits to the purpose. Does he imperson Allen as Woody decides not to break the ice again with playing in his own movie? Probably yes. Is he really like Allen? Well, the character is like Allen, lost, then found, lost again, then dragged away by an idea. So the job, given to Owen, is actualy driven perfectly. Even though I despise his lack of mannly behaviour, I am deeply intrigued by the story. What a great idea, to travel into the world of people you embrace in your deepest desires. And what an upgrade, to find out that once you are in that world, the protagonists or the Einsteins of that time, think that they aren't living in the proper era.

Is this the question we all keep asking ourselves - how would it be to live in something else, someone else's trousers, a different setting, different points of certainty.. and for how long would it last? The main characters in 1920 also want to escape to some other period, just for the sake of being able to live like the people they admire. And after some time, they would get fed up of that time too and give it away for another jump. In some dillusion, it would be great of having the power to jump any time given, to the period that drives you the most at that moment. The inspiration then, must be to live your life the way it could move and switch through different drives we all seek within something else. It's not the neigbour, whose grass is always greener. I think we should find it within our own backyard. And that would be the leading point of the piece.

Brilliant in many aspects. Light and entertaining. And yet, extremely deep. Applause.

My personal rate: 9,0 (truly good plot and way to think about the present).

Midnight in Paris on IMDB