Reviews

Excessively arrogant and more than a little politically incorrect, the titular protagonist is at the heart of the film's story and its contradictory messages.

Apart from obvious technical flaws (the CGI, especially of the tigers and lions, was pretty mediocre) and the mediocre parody-style storytelling, I must remain that I appreciate the film mainly for two reasons: DuJardin's great acting and the film's fearless stance against political correctness and its various forms. It's a form of relentlessly provocative black humour, and I liked it.

Add to that the entertaining action and the film as a whole is quite acceptable.

Neither great nor bad. But acceptable in what it tries to be.

Rarely do films title fit so perfectly. Jack LaMotta, as portrayed in this film, is quite literally an impuslive, agressive, uncontrolled and, most of all, a raging bull. This is perfectly encapsulated by the scene in the prison cell, where he punches the wall as if it would be another contender.

Raging is just one of the numerous adjectives one can adress to Jack LaMotta. In fact, it is quite hard to find a likeable or generally recognizable character trait. Only his determination seems laudable, alltough the cost and psychological consequences of them are negatively palpable.

DeNiro absolutely deserved his Oscar. His acting is marvellous throughout. Especially the phsyical transformation he had gone through for the movie.

A part from that, the directiion of Scoreses is top-notch as usual and the creative decision to film the movie in black and white was a really good decision.

All in all a solid punch of a film.

"Since I can remember, I always knew I wanted to be a gangster."

Being an iconic piece of American cinema and having a royal position in the mobster genre, it is hard not to objectively laud "GoodFellas" for splendid acting, a marvellous soundtrack and a dynmic story with lot's of surprising - mostly violent - twists.

Centering from the view of story of Henry Hill we follow him from the time of his youth until he became a "schnook". It's a story spanning three decades. Scorsese offers us an epic portrayal of the mafia world.

In effect, like Roger Ebert noted in his critic, Scorsese really suceeds at creating a uniquely authentic and captivating atmosphere. The point, remarks Ebert, seems to have been exactly reproducing this conextual atmoshpere: from the fancy suits, to the typical mobster language and the bloody, reckless violence. The aesthethic is palpable. What is also in the back of one's mind is the fact, that the movie really is based on the true story of Henry Hill. This adds an additional layer of authenticity.

"Goodfellas" is simply a remarkable piece of cinema.

Whilst recognizing this I must also note that I think that, after Tommy's death, the movie takes a sudden deviation which I did not like.

For this I will not give as high of a score as others have given it.

Strange humour, agency intrigue and 1970s Paris - a short summary of this film.

The title alone does not indicate any of that, nor does it give space for any kind of specific, belivivable hypothethis on the films content.

What it does indicate though, in my point of view, is a tendecy to absurdism. From the get-go the film bombards us with absurd situations with a humourous framework around it that, luckily, works often.

Recall the way the character of Maurice was treated during the continuation of the story. His point of view proves how absurd and unbelievable all that is developping in front of him just really is.

This absurdity is the movies main strength, apart from the splendid capturing of the 1970s with elegantly dressed people and mature exchanges, but that is a sitauation-linked asset.

The absurd is, parodoxically, what holds the movie together in the sense that it is the constant theme any kind of the films moments and, additionally, serves the viewer a pretty memorable humour.

As said, the point of view of Maurice is really the personification of this film whackness and his charachter treatment is quite hilarious throughout.

To conclude and to myself of repearing the point to much: this French film of the 1970s is absurdly funny and, well, just absurd !

Oliver Stone and his team achieved an absolute and undoubted masterpiece, which is not only highly laudable from a cinematic persepective but most importantly as a historical account on what really happened on that fateful day, November 22, 1963.

On the cinematic front, the splendid cinematography, the fantastic acting, the tense dialogues, rapid as well as creative editing and the general pacing create an utterly enthralling experience from start to finish. It really shows that true cinematic craftsmanship has been at work here. Just for that the movie already deserves praise and a favorable review. Scene after scene just grabs the attention viewers to the point of total focus: the analysis of the shots, the biographical retracing of Oswald, the exchange with Mr. X and so on. Never once does the movie lose the attention. Even in the implausible parts of it.

On the historical front, the movie is a singular reconstruction of the probable if not evident conspiracy against JFK and the establishet of an invisible government going against the core of democracy which is the sovereignity and rule of the people. Sure, it can be dismissed as being conspirational, as the majority of the negative receptions of the films accused it of.

But the movie presents it in a more than plausible way (absurdity of the single-bullet-theory, the assasination of Bobby Kennedy, the preliminary news release in New Zealand). The dedication and effort put in by Stone and, indirectly, Garrison pays off, as seen by the effect it had with the passing of the JFK Act in 1992.

The end speech of Garrison was inspirational as it was powerful, educative as it was frightening. His underlying of truth as the highest virtue of any human society was portrayed so eloquolenty, delicately, thougtful and structured, that it will, hopefuly, stay in remembrance for long.

I can't wait for all the files to be released in 2029. In any case, Stones well-crafted and remarkable masterpiece has already shed a light on the truth.

All in all a superb and fascinating film.

The original theatrical trailer ended with the descriptive words "a tale of urban reality". And "Falling Down" is a tale of urban reality, jumping into the near-dystopian world of L. A. filled with - but it falls short of expectations. I expected primarily an intelligent film with a subtext handling the theme of an ordinary 9-5 white-collar worker who loses control. But the movie turned out rather to be a unsubstantial psychological analysis of a maniac and a decadent city. As a whole it feels extremely trivial, which is shown with the diverse set of "antagonists" which Douglas characters meet: a Latino Gang, Employees of a Fast-Food-Restaurant, a Neonazi and so on.

The only narrative element that gives the movie a noteworthy structure is the detective work of Robert Duvalls character, which culminates to a memorable, yet unasked for ending. Nevertheless, I got to admit that Douglas acting was spot-on.

But as a whole the movie was not to my liking.

In many instances, a movie of this nature can no longer be considered a purely artistic or purely entertaining work. In this case, we are dealing with both an educational duty and an educational work.

Soberly shot, without music and in cool black and white, the film is about political prisoners in a German concentration camp in 1939.

The movie is shot realistically and without much pathos. It shows the typical events of a concentration camp in a shocking and repulsive way: forced labor, humiliation, hatred of the Jews, crematoria, participation of some prisoners and sadistic SS men.

The words alone underline the general cruelty of the time. The cinematic staging, however, translates this amazingly well - to the detriment of the viewer's well-being. But this lack of inhibition, which was surprisingly low for the year 1965, is necessary to fully understand the story.

It makes you feel sick to your stomach when you realize that the hardship shown in 1939 is milder in comparison to the war years.

What I also found particularly striking was the contrast between everyday life and the political events of the time. The final scene illuminates this approach very well. The commander's visit to the pub is set to the gruesome sounds of the concentration camp.

All in all, this is a film worth seeing and one that is aware of history.

The anticipatory expectations one has put into a movie often influence one's judgement- be it for the good, or the bad.

In the case of "The Manchurian Candidate" my expectations were set high due to the referential Episode from "Star Trek: The Next Generation" I once watched. In this thrillingly memorable episode (titled "The Mind's Eye" for the curious) one of the main characters is kidnapped and brainwashed into an assassin. So, as you see, the same synopsis as the 1962 original film.

The plot, independent of its medial treatment, is intensely enthralling.

This made my hopes up, especially taking into account the historical setting: the Cold War in the immediate setting following the very hot, cold war.

As a piece of history, its depiction of the general atmosphere in the "home front" as well as portrayals Americans had about the geopolitical conflict and communism is noteworthy. The attention it has gotten in historical or media science proves this.

I think the theme of mind control is very interesting, as it is discussed here not in the esoterical way one hears about it often, but rather in a scientific way. Sure it's rather pseudoscientical but still very intriguing, especially in light of the CIAs MK-Ultra Project.

Regrettably, though, the structural weakness of the narrative makes for a slightly uneven execution of the thrilling plot. With structural weakness I mean the fact that the film advances unevenly, especially considering the middle section with it's slow pace and unsubstantial scenes.

The film only really gains strength anew towards the end, in the appalling scene when Shaw kills his wife and her father. From there on, the film is very twisty and the suspense does not stop. This might be seen seen as sadistic, but the death of the vile and incestuous Eleonore was quite satisfactory.

The performances are not mediocre but simply solid. Seeing Frank Sinatra as a movie actor was quite different. Still, I think the music business always fitted him better.

Concerning Laurence Harvey: he was either deliberately monotonous or just a subpar actor.

Weakened by the aforementioned unfortunate structural issue, "The Manchurian Candidate" is, summarily expressed, fascinating, surreal, and historically informative.

I think this movie affects German viewers so specifically that it can only be judged from a German perspective. From the criminal trial to the story. It is intended for German viewers. Viewers interested in law and history will especially appreciate this film, as was the case for me.

Highly relevant to history, be it because of the massacre of the Italian villagers or the judicial reform of 1969, the film deals with the question of the limits of justice in a constitutional state and of self-justice. The movie remains fascinating and appealing from the murder of Mayer to the receipt of Collini's letter.

The acting, camerawork and music are all solid. M'Barek is convincing as a fresh and motivated lawyer.

Of course, the film does not take legal reality into account, especially procedural reality, but since it also explicitly smiles at this, I think this is irrelevant for the time being in view of the artistic freedom of the filmmakers.

Overall, the film clearly stands out from the mass of typically average or below-average German films.

I think it is unimaginably hard to make a good movie about Napoleon, one of history's greatest.

It's such a gargantuan task, that every attempt, no matter how formidable it might be, would never be able to show the complexity and scope of Napoleon and his life.

This movie, spanning from the famous Battle of Toulon to the Emperor's most mysterious demise on St. Helena, focuses on Napoleons relationship with his wife Joséphine. The depiction of their sexual relationship was not really necessary, in my point of view.

Phoenix constant depressed facial expression irritated me a bit, as it didn't seem either necessary or accurate. But all in all, he did a good job.

The battle scenes, including the Battle of Austerlitz and Borodino, were well-made and conveyed the epic atmosphere.

But when the movie didn't show nor mention he gigantic Battle of Leipzig, it proved to me that this is filled with massive gaps. Once more, it showcased that it's nearly impossible to encapsulate the Napeolonic Era in a single movie.

The only movie that came close was the Russian adaptation of War and Peace, which spanned multiple hours. It is available on Youtube, it's a must-see.

I think that those who see the movie as a historical action piece will be pleased. It is what I did and what made me enjoy the movie.

Does a movie need to make a point in order to be qualitative cinematically ? Or can a movie focused on a continuation of action be considered qualitative in its own way ?

"The Duellists" felt like a mixture of both, in my perspective. It can be seen as a film about honor and the absurdity of persistent violence but also as a simple-minded follow-up of duels. But with two strong leads and a certain sense of fatalist realism, it is substantial and highly watchable overall. It captivates.

With the release of Ridley's Scott newest gigantic epic "Napoleon", this film seemed like a fitting preparation, as it was his first feature-length film.

But maybe, in a less apparent way, the movie is about justice in a chaotic world. If there is no justice, then conflicts between men, in the larger sense, would always lead to bloody results. Here, however, the sense of justice that perseveres is no justice at all, but rather the victory of the stronger man. But whilst their conflict might have ended, somewhere else another shall start.

But the movie could also be interpreted as the choice a man has to make: between his personal obsessions (here: honor) or personal sacrifice for the greater good (here: family).

But in the end, the interpretation of a movie always depends on the Eye of the Beholder.

The last shot of the film was utterly magnificent. It was simply great cinematography. It reminded me a lot of Kubrick's masterpiece "Barry Lyndon".

Set in one of history's most fascinating chapters, "The Duellist" is a successful directorial debut, although the narrative is not always sure of itself.

In light of the vicious attacks on the Israel state and people, at a time when Israel has to fear for its sovereign right to exist, "Exodus" can not be more fitting.

The topic is fascinating as it is historically relevant. Patriotic scenes especially cause goosebumps due to the current situation.

As the latter, the movie has omnipresent violence, showcasing that Isreal really was "a nation born in blood", as one of the characters put it.

The two scenes that struck me the most were the interrogation of Dov about his time at the camp and the powerful speech held by Newman's character at the end of the film. He elegantly talks about the necessity of peace. A hopeful thought that sadly still seems far away.

Talking about Newman, I must say that I was quite impressed by his charm, uncondinatal confidence, and strong masculine presence.

Intriguing to the end, suspenseful since the start this powerful movie is an important testimony to the state of Isreal.

1945. One of history's most significant dates. The End of World War II after 6 arduous years of unbelievable brutality and animosity.

Berlin, the capital from which the disaster started-a desolated, bombed-out city in ruins.

And it is in this more-than-fascinating context that Steve Soderbergh sets his murder mystery.

Currently, I am reading the well-written "Aftermath" by Harald Jähner tackling the immediate months and years after the war. This pushed me to watch this film, which was situated for a long time on my DVD shelve.

Because, while the war admittedly attracts a lot of attention, cinema has not tackled the immediate time afterwards setting often.

(The obvious exception being the marvelous "The Third Man".)

Therefore, I appreciated "The Good German" in that aspect.

Inevitably, the movie is quite dark. Mass murder, forced labor, rape, and manslaughter are some of the repugnant themes treated.

The characters, apart from Clooney, have strong dark sides.

The plot itself-allow me to repeat myself- dark, too.

A journalist unravels an intrigue after a driver is killed, which leads him to the appalling actions of his ex-lover's men. The plot unravels smoothly and keeps your attention, although it is quite generic.

I enjoyed the artistically deliberate black-and-white cinematography, which is not only fitting but also a delightful tribute to this era of filmmaking.

But, in general, the film rather feels like a good idea done mediocrely. To be completely honest.

Achieving constant tension throughout an entire film is hard to achieve. But when it is, the movie takes your attention hostage. "U. S. Marshals" succeeded in keeping it's tension.

Though simple by nature, the conspiratory plot is quite captivating and the action well-executed.

The plot twist of RDJ's character suddenly being the mole himself was surprising.

The actors mostly deliver a solid performance, particularly Tommy Lee Jones who impresses with his confidence and natural coolness.

Furthermore, the composition of Jerry Goldsmith is noteworthy as it assists the tense atmosphere.

All in all, a straightforward, more-than-watchable 90s action flick.

...is either an indication of a prepostorous movie, a fairytale or a distinctive epic.

Leones' motion picture is the latter.

Based on a real-life book and filmed on international locations, here we have a gangster epic wich treats numerous themes in a time span of multiple decades, without feeling overlong.

The problem I personally have with this movie does not lie in it's length, the impeccable acting by DeNiro or Leones visual storytelling which amazed me througout the film. Nor the story which is perfectly understandable and interesting.

My problem lies with the characters.

A movie watcher certainly should not try to identify himself with the characters. It shouldn't be a prerogative.

However, when the characters are villainous, mischevious and perverted killers the viewer is expelled from any possible emotional connectivity.

Take "Noodles" for instance. He unashamedly rapes two women in the film. This refrained me from having that magical connection that I have otherwise with truly great films.

As a cinephile, I appreciated it a lot though, especially it's graspable complexity and narrative intelligence.

Talking about rape, a more than unbecoming subject, I thougth the movie was slightly obsessed with sex. But, then, humanity, is too. The movie is also strikingly violent. But, then, humanity is too. In that aspect, I think, the movie tries to depict life in all its aspects.

Some of my favourite scenes in the film, are the short, insignificant ones that depict childhood innocence: it includes the scene when one of the gang members finishes an entire cake he initially took to impress a girl or when another gang member verifies if a locker is really closed in the train station.

Morricones music, as alwyas and as is universally known, is ethereal. I adore his use of an angelic female voice, as he did previously in "Once Upon A Time in the West". It adds a certain intimate epicness, to explain it anthithetically.

Fantastically filmed and composed with a sharp narrative, the years of work which Leone dedicated in the making of this epic is palpable. What hinders me from from titling this movie a complete masterpiece, are the characters.

In the future I will have to see the other versions of the film as I have only seen the 3h40 cut.