Reviews

I have problems with comedy genre because too often I don't find big hits funny at all - my favorites were always some off-the-wall, left field forgotten camp treasures that no one has ever heard of and I'm glad to say that for once finally I enjoyed a new cinematic big comedy hit, it is hilarious.

Where this year we have "Kingsman: The Secret Service" that pokes fun at James Bond genre, "Spy" offers different approach - here the main hero (who is James Bond wannabe) is unlikely, plump and clumsy Melissa McCarthy (who is absolutely adorable) head over heels in love with secret agent Jude Law who naturally is not even aware of her. When her object of desire disappears in action, McCarthy somehow wiggles herself into action and creates mayhem everywhere she turns up - more or less all the comedy is about poking fun at her being such unwitting heroine of action but instead of cruel jokes we are actually laughing along with her, because McCarthy shows unexpected bravery and is bouncing enthusiastically at enemies. In the best cinematic tradition, she even gets herself a sidekick who is far clumsier than herself (excellent Miranda Hart) and there are some brilliant parts by Peter Serafinowicz , Jason Statham and fierce, spoiled heiress Rose Byrne. I don't remember when was the last time I laughed so much out loud during the movie.

Unexpectedly entertaining movie - honestly, I assumed this will be just another run-of-the- mill action boom-bang-a-bang but it turned out it was compulsive watching with lots of humor that affectionately pokes fun at James Bond. It has all the ingredients of usual clichés (elegant mentor leading young unknown and green talent trough procedures that would create another super-hero) and it works wonderfully as everybody obviously had lots of fun while making this, specially Colin Firth who for once steps out of the box where directors so often forced him to be just another romantic lover in historical costumes - you can clearly see his joy of being allowed to do something different and here, for a change he is a bad ass who fights, breaks bones left and right and all of this without ever losing his suave posture. His young protégé is Eggsy (Taron Egerton) who metamorphoses from poor London boy in sneakers into another elegant secret agent and has just the right charisma to carry on the rest of the movie. There are also obligatory celebrities (Samuel L. Jackson, Michael Caine) but honestly the movie would work with anybody in these roles. There is no point in taking this movie seriously and trying to find any deep meaning - critics are collectively praising it for being entertaining, funny, full of action and lots of car crashes so it is really a good, old fashioned cinematic action extravaganza that screams for sequels.

What initially was "just a movie" quickly evolved into really strong story about serious moral issues. Does the ending justifies the means we use? Is it correct to torture prisoner? Or is it more "human" not to use torture and risk millions of people die instead? The movie centers around interrogation of a white American Muslim who blackmails the government or else he has several nuclear bombs ready to explode in various secret locations hidden around the country. Its not just some ordinary wacko but the man who was trained with nuclear weapons and has army past, the man who was prepared to get arrested and tortured for his beliefs. All sorts of secret agents, policemen and politicians are circling around him - terrorism and bombs are serious threat indeed - though there are some who won't even take him seriously. What if its all just a hoax? Even more surprisingly, his demands are not demands of a madman, he wants the president to announce that the United States will stop supporting puppet governments and dictatorships in Middle Eastern countries and a withdrawal of American troops from all Muslim countries. Sound reasonable enough, you might say, lots of people would want the same - but government won't budge and they would rather torture prisoner (or get those darn bombs explode) than to change their international policy. The more I think about it, the more I see roles of good and bad guys interchanging here. We also have two main protagonist in soft-hearted FBI inspector and cold blooded interrogator (echo of "good cop,bad cop" routine) running around and screaming at each other while the clock ticks and there are just 24 hours left until bombs start exploding.

As a viewer I went trough several different phases of changing my opinion here - it would be too easy and simplistic to dismiss Yousef as a "crazy terrorist" if we don't understand that this is someone who was willing to die for his convictions, and actually not for helicopter and bunch of money but for world peace. This is something that I personally find incredibly strong point. These are not just empty words, this is my own opinion because during my own war experience it went trough my head that if I could somehow (theoretically) get to "enemy president" and kill him & die than, my death would be less important than peace for everybody. Believe me, I would have done that. However, from this perspective I also understand that aggression breeds aggression so perhaps I would have die pointlessly. Humans are the most dangerous species on the planet and perhaps they deserve everything that happens to them.

Back to the movie - actors are all exceptional. Lots of praises went for Samuel L.Jackson as hard-core interrogator, in my opinion he did a good job but its easy to admire him as we are familiar with his earlier work, he is known actor and people would always take him to hearts simply because they recognize him. Carrie-Anne Moss as FBI inspector has very difficult role in a man's movie because she is basically on everybody's way, Jodie Foster might have been better choice here. But for me the main star is brilliant Michael Sheen who is dazzlingly versatile actor (I remember him from ridiculously varied screen portraits, from Tony Blair to SF Werewolf) and who spits his guts here still getting across as a human and not a madman. Brilliant movie with some seriously important questions camouflaged as political thriller. To my biggest surprise it went straight-to-DVD hell and was therefore marginalized in media, however it deserves to be seen. I can't understand how anyone can watch this and be unmoved.

"Strange love of Martha Ivers" must be one of my all-time favorite movies ever - one of those truly classics that I return to from time to time and watch in awe, always finding new details and enjoying it immensely. It has everything - b&w beautiful picture with lots of shadows, thunders, lighting, immoral characters, beautiful houses, shabby hotels, detectives, criminals, delightful slang expressions of the time, excellent actors and brilliant script. I could live in this movie.

After a long absence, Van Heflin stumbles by accident in his hometown (driving drunken sailor who is uncredited future director Blake Edwards!) where his unexpected return raises alarming suspicion of local big fish (Kirk Douglas in his first movie role!) now married to Heflin's old flame. Kirk Douglas and Barbara Stanwyck live in marriage from hell, one of those strange, sadistic relationships made only for the sake of appearance and their scenes are frightening and fascinating to watch - Stanwyck is cold as ice towards her intellectually inferior husband but he is snake as well. Stanwyck composure falls apart when she sees Van Heflin who is simply amused, while Douglas watches from a side, knowing her too well and understanding she is slipping from his grasp. I won't go into details about the story - it must be seen to enjoy properly - but trough the movie we actually feel a little bit of sympathy for Stanwyck who was caged in this prison of marriage hoping to escape somehow one day.Her role is negative in "moral" sense and still Stanwyck manages to appear human under that cold posture.

Acting is excellent - Kirk Douglas is weak alcoholic bowing in presence of strong wife but cruel otherwise, Stanwyck tough as nails and scared little girl in presence of love of her life, Van Heflin our good-guy-with-a-past who hides a good heart under tough exterior (and he can fight too, not afraid of any policemen or detectives sent to scare him away) and there is a excellent supporting role for Lizabeth Scott who is here as his love interest, balance for cruel Martha Ivers. However, this is film noir so even Lizabeth Scott is not exactly goodie goddie, she also has dark past and her own secrets however Van Heflin is ready to overlook this and take her under his wing the way she is, bruised butterfly and all. For years I have been fascinated with Scott's acting and role in this movie and although she is only a supporting role here, I always loved her. In fact, sometimes I watch the movie because of her - I admit its impossible to overshadow Barbara Stanwyck but Scott is darn close. Great movie, truly a classic.

Since I love "film noir" and Robert Mitchum, I thought this must be one of those chilling masterpieces I should treat myself, so I dived into it absolutely unprepared.

During first 10 minutes I said to myself "wait, this is a very bad movie, what is this, Ed Wood?" - there was something very strange about script and the way story unraveled. And constantly during the movie I saw gaffs and occasional over-acting (scene in basement?) but I still watched mesmerized because it hypnotized me in a nightmarish way. It definitely wasn't what I expected and I am still unsure how to categorize this movie because it definitely is not "film noir" but some surrealistic dream that actually works very powerfully, I mean I still think about it much more than about many other movies. Than I went on line and found out its a recognized classic because of this "bad dream" quality, its not "film noir" at all but a art- movie of first order and everything was done intentionally. Ah, now I get it. Still strange how a thin line makes huge difference between Ed Wood and a classic.

Robert Mitchum is so perfect here as a serial killer (talking to himself and God, hating women obviously and being absolutely psychotic) that its impossible to imagine anybody else in this role. He dominates the story so much that its easy to overlook supporting cast that reminds me very much of citizen of "Frankestein" movies specially Mrs. Icey Spoon who is a perfect caricature of righteous busybody, later a scary monster herself. Shelley Winters does wonders with a fairly limited role but her repressed sexual hysteria/religious delusion is very powerful - there is a scene later in the movie where she doesn't talk at all and this is one of most unforgettable scenes in the whole movie, but I suggest you should see it for yourself. Alcoholic uncle Birdie Steptoe is somebody we expect would help the children and he does, thought not in a way we would expect. And than there is wonderful old-time actress Lilian Gish (star from silent era) in a quite epic role that seems like a perfect continuation of her earlier, sentimental work - it is a rare instance of actress finding perfect character definition of her career in later age. Children themselves are surprisingly good, they are not a cutesy Hollywood children but more like Hansel and Grethel of Depression era.

Visually, the movie is stunning, with true expressionistic look and lots of Freudian symbols all over. I understand it wasn't successful back than but gained a reputation with time and deservedly so, makes you wonder what else would director come up with if he had a chance. What would Hitchcock made out of this?

Inspired by Ernest Hemingway short story "The Killers" turned out to be quintessential film noir and marvel for any lover of the genre - everything happens in half shadows, there is exciting crime story, bad guys (well, almost everybody here is a bad guy), detectives and policemen, sexy femme fatal and enough twists and turns to keep you glued to the screen until the end.

Very young Burt Lancaster is the main protagonist here - typical film noir character, a good guy who somehow gets involved in bad company - and he dies at the very beginning of the movie. From now its up to life insurance investigator to trace the story back in flashbacks, talking to everybody who might have known Lancaster and slowly trough all these stories and memories we get more or less clear picture why was Lancaster killed and why he never even resisted his murder. Its impossible not to feel sorry for Lancaster who was basically a good guy with lots of bad luck, he never had a chance involving himself with this crowd. There is a lot of strong supporting characters, notably Vince Barnett (ex prison cell mate) and stunning Ava Gardner as gangster moll who double crosses everybody and watches Lancaster like a black spider.

Not-so-funny satire of American compulsive consumerism society, based partially on Jack Arnold classic 1957. movie, with several scenes knowingly re-acted completely close to original.

Instead of Grant Williams, here we have Lily Tomlin as everyday housewife slaving for her family and shrinking away, to the delight of media hungry for sensations. Besides being more or less ignored by her family, used that Tomlin simply have to take care of them, she has other serious threats that don't involve cats and spiders but something far more dangerous - humans. Along with quite inane plot, everything is exaggerated: this is not a kind, loving family but a bunch of spoiled brats throwing tantrums, husband and his colleagues are more concerned with profit, Mexican maid is non stop dancing and even neighbors are more concerned about giving interviews than actually giving Tomlin support. Any normal person would pack her bags long ago and run away, but Tomlin - being good wife and self-sacrificing mother - totters on, even as her steps became smaller and smaller. It sounded as a good idea on the paper but is not really funny, perhaps because main character is simply not likable enough - Tomlin is great comedian when given chance to be wicked but as a perpetually serving housewife she is simply annoying (only once, she appears as rude telephone operator "Ernestine" and that minute lightens up the screen). Perhaps great fun for teenagers who delight in obvious jokes but not particularly involving as movie experience and sadly, very far from thrill of 1957. original.

It is actually not earth-shattering as I expected - the main reason to watch this is Robert Mitchum in curious role of a doctor but he had such charisma and presence that I would enjoy watching him in anything.Mitchum and Sean Connery are men I want to be when I grow up. He is somehow drawn into affair with wealthy young woman who naturally is not what she appears to be and in fact she almost destroys him until the end of the movie, but I'm not here to explain or tell the plot. There is very interesting role play between them as strong, silent Mitchum slowly becomes a puppet in hands of initially soft and unprotected woman who (in memorable scene set in a shabby hotel room) turns into tiger. There is a very good cameo by Claude Rains who should have more space because he was excellent and lots of interesting small roles of strangers who more or less dwarf any plan couple has to escape the country. Somehow the final results are not really that brilliant and it turns into two-people stage play but thanks to Mitchum it somehow stands the test of time.

Allen's love letter to Barcelona finds now elderly director transported in a place completely different from his beloved New York and enjoying a romance with this magical town. Shots and characters are "typical Woody Allen" but it all have a new, spicy, Spanish flavor - no wonder, because it is one of the most intoxicating places I have ever visited, there is a strong atmosphere here unlike anything one might encounter elsewhere, be it architecture, history, people or simply combination of it all.

The interplay between two American tourists (Scarlett Johansson, Rebecca Hall) and magnetic local couple who can't live with or without each other is pure Allen that reminds me on his previous movies ("Hannah and her sisters" for example) where close group of people live, love and hate surrounded with class, privilege and comfort - no one seriously works here, its all talk, wine sipping, artistic friends and pursuit of pleasure. Ah yes, this is Spain so we get classical guitar, poetry, paintings and lots of Gaudi. Nothing wrong with that, except that in its heart this is still a tourist's impression of Barcelona - no wonder that work of local directors like Almodóvar, who are inspired with dirt, sweat and blood strikes me as being far closer to home. Allen's world is a different one and he is not interested in anything so prosaic as ordinary people who can't afford to simply flight a plane to Oviedo on a whim.

Javier Bardem and Penélope Cruz are both excellent, true heart and soul of this movie. None of their American colleagues come close to their passion, charisma and presence. Perhaps it was not Allen's intention but where his American expatriates relocated in Barcelona appear spoiled and bored, it is locals who are grounded, firm and determined. However, it is very enjoyable to see director so inspired by new locations and I only wish him to live a hundred more years and making movies around the world.

Falsely promoted as a comedy drama, "Blue Jasmine" is in fact a very dark, serious psychological drama with more than just a passing nod to a certain play by Tennessee Williams and if you thought Vivien Leigh is untouchable, just wait until you see what Cate Blanchett does as modern-day Blanche DuBois. It is not a pleasant experience and not only the main character slowly descends into madness but she is also intensely unlikable person - which makes this a huge acting feast for Blanchett but audience experiences strange sensation of rooting not for her but for her impoverished, working class sister (Sally Hawkins). Cleverly using contrasting joys of ordinary, low-income folks in San Francisco with sorrows and manipulations of New York's jet set, director also points how completely unprepared for "real life" Blanchett is - used to high life and doing nothing except parasite existence, she is horrified and mortally embarrassed to even think about having to work anything that would be (in her opinion) "bellow her".

As always, Allen has a cream of Hollywood at his disposal - and this should not be surprising considering director of his reputation. The one thing missing from a "Woody Allen movie" is a complete absence of any comedy - at least I did not find anything remotely funny here - and perhaps here is a root of basic misunderstanding of Woody Allen as a filmmaker, since he changed already decades ago into a different artist who is perfectly capable of superior psychological insight. Not that anything is wrong with comedies and he can still do them easily, but something like "Blue Jasmine" is after all, mature work. Cudos to Cate Blanchett for biting the bullet and diving into such ungrateful role.

"Midnight in Paris" does not have Woody Allen on a screen - but his alter ego is present in character of gentle dreamer (Owen Wilson) who roams romantic streets of Paris with his obnoxious fiancé and her parents chained to his leg. Its obvious that this is not a good fit and why would they even insist of catching him as a bridegroom when they hardly bear him is not truly explained, but director suggest it would be just another marriage of convenience. "Well, we have lots in common..." muses Wilson "for example we love Indian food..." and as the city gets under his skin, this dream seems to vanish because he can clearly see himself living different, another life far from these materialistic people. What follows is another typical Woody Allen magical realism where characters get lost in time. If anyone else made this, it would be sacrilege because it has already been done - but Woody Allen has all the right in the world to play with his own older ideas and he does it with grace, humor and magic. There is a very interesting question somewhere in all of this, about meaning of "good old days" which are always imaginary Heaven when compared to present time, movie suggest that this is illusion because any time was difficult for people for whom it was present. The movie charmed the socks off critics and audiences around the world and reminded me how much I always loved Woody Allen.

"Margin Call" deals with big, multi-million firm and countless anonymous little fishes who are satisfied with their jobs until disaster strikes. In space of 36 hours the whole empire collapses and we follow what happens to individuals involved in all this - what is the most interesting is how firmly movie keeps our attention although there is nothing in sense of "action" (no explosions, overturned cars, bullets or computer animation), we are glued to the screen by sheer power of story and presence of strong acting. From a recently fired Stanley Tucci who stumbled upon discovery that would alarm his young colleague (Zachary Quinto), to cold blooded executive Simon Baker and finally the biggest fish Jeremy Irons (who arrives in the middle of the night by helicopter and orders immediate meeting) acting is superb and there is hardly a wrong step in a movie - these people are not sentimental when it comes about outside world and what will happen to others, they are concerned about their own wealth and how will all of this affect them. There is a excellent scene where Baker and Demi Moore bicker in the elevator completely ignoring cleaning lady who is in the middle - for them she is invisible, she is perfect example of outside world they don't care about and I doubt they would even notice if she dropped dead there and than. Not so sure about Moore and why exactly she was needed for this movie except for her name power but Jeremy Irons brings everything on completely different level because his presence is so hypnotizing and yes scary, that he completely overshadows everybody else around - we sense this is important man who is completely above other mortals and even when everybody else is scared to death because of collapse of financial empire, Irons stands unconcerned because his own wealth is such that he can just shrug it off as something natural and cyclical. Jeremy Irons is God.

This is something very interesting - a movie recently discovered and restored from Croatian State Archive, the very first Croatian feature movie with a sound. Yes, I know - Hollywood was there already some 20 years before and even neighbors like Hungary, Austria or Italy had their own movie stars and industries while poor little provincial Croatia limped way behind them, however some time in mid-1940s there was enough enthusiasm, energy and inspiration to have this first ever Croatian movie finally made.

The most interesting of all is the fact that this movie was for almost half a century completely forgotten and believed lost. Generations were born and died without ever knowing about it. The main reason behind it was timing - it was filmed around 1943. and had a premiere next year, with biggest names from politics and public life arriving in the cinema. Apparently it was a huge success and people loved it,even for simple fact that this was first local, home-made cinema feature and not some little short documentary. However, as WW2 ended and new political regime took over, everything from 1940-1945 was seen as embarrassment and collaboration with previous enemy-state. From now Yugoslavia started as a new country and in the schools we all learned about the first Yu-movie "Slavica" (made shortly after the war) but nobody had ever mentioned that Croatia already had a movie hit earlier - this movie was finally unearthed and lovingly restored on DVD with some nice extra clips, photos and even short documented newsreels from premiere on Easter 1944.

Apparently the movie had been already screened in cinemas and shown on TV several times recently but I am always away traveling so this is all new to me - I saw DVD on "Interliber" book fair and immediately purchased it, not expecting much from some old historical document. It is supposed to be movie biography of famous Croatian composer Vatroslav Lisinski who is remembered as writer of our first opera and the biggest concert hall in Zagreb is named after him, but to be honest nobody knows much about him beyond this fact. We know the titles of his operas ("Love and Malice", "Porin") but how did they actually sound nobody can tell. So I decided to check it out last night and to my biggest surprise this is what I saw.

Movie is surprisingly beautiful visually - not only considering the time when it was made (middle of WW2) but also that it was basically made by people who had to improvise on each step, overcoming technical difficulties and trying to make something out of non-existing local cinematography. Director Oktavijan Miletić comes across as eager movie fan who valiantly tries to prettify what is truthfully half-baked idea - there are many beautiful scenes filmed around Zagreb's historical old parts (with palaces, squares and churches), lovely period costumes and quaint panoramic views of flowery fields. Unfortunately the script is all wrong, presenting poor struggling artist as a overtly naive, meek and humble to the point that viewers find him annoying little mouse (he constantly worries is he "worthy" and needs to be pushed and poked into action by friend Alberto Štriga who is far superior character in the movie). As for acting, it is all very wooden unfortunately - main role was given to certain Branko Špoljar who looks like Lisinski but can't act to save his life and comes across as poor country relative lost in intrigues of big city. In fact, everybody looks quite unconvincing from today's perspective, except supporting roles of energetic Alberto Štriga (Veljko Maričić) who constantly pushes Lisinski into getting on with composing and lovely real-life opera singer Srebrenka Jurinac as countess who sang and promoted Lisinski's work on the stage (Jurinac later made a nice international career in classical world under name Sena Jurinac). It would be unnecessary nitpicking to list all that is wrong with this movie today - the final result looks really naive and amateurish in many ways, however this is exactly what it was, labor of love for its creators who had no big companies backing them or superior technical gadgets to work with - as a historical document it is however a truly heart-warming little masterpiece that has to be taken for what it was, specially considering that none of the artist (including the director) was later given chance in Yugoslavia when future decades would be focused on WW2 spectacles, heroic sagas about partisans and such. We all grew up watching partisans fighting Nazis, bridges falling and villages burning but none of us ever knew about "Lisinski" and this little romantic biography of 19. century composer. Until now.

British SF drama "Ex Machina" led me here because of charismatic actor Oscar Isaac who was quite unforgettable, so I decided to check out what else he did. It turned out he was not a newcomer, but had already been awarded for his work in this movie directed by Cohen brothers. "Inside Llewyn Davis"is re-creation of New York's Greewich Village music scene in early 1960s but not as seen trough just some any nostalgic, rose-tinted glasses - where others might have chosen to present it as a sunny beehive full of pot, enthusiasm and brotherhood, we see it here as a struggle between young musicians and industry that mercilessly exploits them. "I don't see any money here" says famous producer (F. Murray Abraham) after one heartbreaking audition and just like folk club's owner Max Casella, he doesn't care for music or the facts that musicians are obviously hungry and wet, money talks and folk music might just be the next trend. I happened to like the atmosphere shown here: cold, windy and rainy streets where the snow beats upon starving musicians, underground and coffee bars as the places to warm up, hunt for a friends with couch (or floor) to spend the night... it all feels very realistic and possible, very far removed from idealistic vision of love & peace, camaraderie and togetherness. This is a struggle and constant compromise between art and commercialism (see hilarious studio recording of novelty song that is obviously prostitution but brings some money in).

Main character is Oscar Isaac and he is brave enough to be unlikable. That he might be great talent is almost besides the point, he refuses to be nice to people, insults them and lash out of frustration when hosts expect him to sing after dinner. Time and time again we quietly root for him, though odds are really against him and at the very end, on the same night when he is supposed to finally get a break, we get a glimpse of another performer, a certain guy from Minnesota and this is when we understand Isaac might be just another hopeful who perhaps never made it. For every successful star, there were thousands who slipped in oblivion or simply gave up the fight with the windmills. The rest of the cast is mostly used as cameo roles (excellent John Goodman, unexpected Justin Timberlake and sweetly green Stark Sands) and there are lot of people who find inclusion of the cat as something symbolical, though I am a bit wary of searching for deep meanings since the movie is quite heavy already.

I guess to many viewers today, Bergman can be difficult to approach as he lived in his own world and did not follow any accepted cliché - the budget is fairly limited, there's nothing flashy or bombastic, not even a background music, the focus is entirely on story, actors and their faces. Myself, I watch all of this with amazement and thrill, but to my greatest sorrow and disappointment, this enthusiasm is not shared amongst my friends who have accepted movies as entertainment. I still remember the first time that I encountered "The Seventh Seal" and what a mind-boggling experience that was, I wanted to stop VHS tape and write down the phrases coming from the movie. "Virgin spring" mesmerized me at first because of its scenery - medieval Sweden, simple farm with lord and his wife, house help and world where old pagan religion has still not completely replaced with Christianity. Than there is a story itself - faith, guilt, sin, crime, punishment - full of close-ups of people's faces, terrors and fears. Lots of time we don't need any dialogue, everything is clearly shown on the faces. Come to think of it, it does feel like a silent movie occasionally, which in my eyes is even bigger achievement, like theater director working on a silent movie actually. Unforgettable.

Again, seeing something so truly original, powerful and artistic but apparently my enthusiasm is not shared amongst the people around me. I love my friends dearly, but something I do feel like alien, to realize our ways of thinking differs so much. It is very interesting - I was born and raised here, so what on earth made my perspective so different? I guess life experiences, travels (real and imaginative) did made some differences after all. Perhaps I just continued to grow in my own, particular direction, just like they did.

"I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang" (1932) turns out to be one of the best movies of that era and its a darn classic. Set in stone. Not only its well made for this early times (with human touch Frank Capra would be proud of), immensely popular at the time of release and very important in changing public opinion about prison circumstances but its kind of grandfather of all prison movies. One of those old black & white movies that still have power to glue you to a screen.

Paul Muni was nominated for Academy Award for this role and he should have probably got it for his portrait of ordinary, decent man swept away in circumstances. He is truly perfect for this role, with his sensitive face and honest eyes, basically a good guy who upon returning home from war with his medals finds himself restless and changed - he rejects murderous routine and stability of his previous factory job and wants to get out and "find himself" (very modern notion for 1930s!) ending in really heroic but ultimately depressing and dangerous situations. Trough the movie, again and again he is rising up just to be brutally crushed down and its impossible not to root for him since he is really the only nice, positive character around. Circumstances in his prison are not so much different from some later Nazi camps and its all shown with a very strong, effective cinematography (audiences must have been shocked) - hence the real circumstances of story behind this script raised public uproar and the real guy who was inspiration for Paul Muni character (Robert Elliot Burns) eventually got pardoned.

Its amazing when you realize almost everything in the movie actually happened - this is not just some fluffy Hollywood melodrama but re-creation of Burn's true life. Thanks to this movie chain gangs had been outlawed in Georgia.

This is where I decided to have a look at Charlie Chaplin and his famous "Modern times" - we are all familiar with scenes in a factory but honestly there is much, much more happening later and it truly surprised me that film turns into a such epic saga. Another example of things I just assumed I know. It charmed me instantly, of course, because Chaplin was a true genius and magician - his creation, "Little Tramp" is easily understood to anybody no matter what background and we love him dearly, for all his sweetness, clumsiness and old heart. This story apparently happens in Metropolis-like factory where work, machines and buttons are parodied mercilessly until we (audience) roar with laughter - I was honestly surprised that something filmed almost a century ago was still so fresh and funny. Basically, everything after the first start on the fast track was new to me and I laughed and laughed, until I found myself rewinding scenes and enjoying them again. What a genius!

Once Little Tramp looses his job - there is a whole unspoken atmosphere of unfairness, poverty and depression around - he quickly ends up in a prison, from which he doesn't even want to leave. However, he gets Cocaine in his salt, (Charlie Chaplin on a Coke!), saves policemen from escaped criminals, meets minister's wife (very funny scene) and gets release from the prison, with job recommendation letter. And this is still just a beginning of the movie! There is much, much more coming up later - it really goes on forever but its wonderful, heart-warming and joyous to watch. I almost forgot everything about myself and my whereabouts while I was so deeply lost in this masterpiece. Film is so immensely rich with characters, stories, little details and magic that I honestly think its one of the best things I have ever seen.

Deceptively simple, yet breathtakingly masterful "My Dinner with André" tumbles the whole conception of the "movie as entertainment" on its head and boldly presents film as a thought- provoking medium. Far from being a dry technical experiment, it actually glues a viewer to the screen, not because its delicate camera work or some visual flourish but because of what it was said, how it was said and what kind of unspoken communication goes on around the table. There is a pure, serious magic going on here and its experience quite unlike any other movie I had ever seen.

Since we are all brainwashed that movies have to "have a story" the whole idea that we can watch two hours dinner conversation sound somewhat absurd - not only it works, but it leaves one head buzzing for days, if not for weeks. In a nutshell - two friends who have been close but drifted apart trough the years, meet for a dinner and talk. Not your usual superficial chit chat, but real, intelligent conversation between two grown up persons about meaning of life, search of one's purpose, the difference between dreams and reality, choices in life and such. That one is a sensitive dreamer and another firmly locked into material world just makes the conversation flow more fascinating. To my own surprise I found myself completely drawn, almost hypnotized into this and feeling that I actually understand both of them. Perhaps it is too early to say and I might need to see it several more times before I finally made my mind about this, but maybe - just maybe - we could keep our own gentle, dreaming André inside and live outside lives as Wally and his simple joys, electric blanket and all.

I am perfectly aware this is not a movie for everyone, for the simple reason that lots of people don't have any point of reference to all of this - surprisingly big number of them don't even know what is a conversation like this. That there were individuals like André Gregory, Wallace Shawn and Louis Malle leaves a huge, deep impression on me. Honestly, the next movie I see will just appear superficial. We are now used to nonchalantly watch crime as entertainment and it makes me sick already, I mean how many killings, rapes and cut throating scenes can one watch in life? "My Dinner with André" was a real eye-opener. Loved every second of it.

The story is a classic today - a man accidentally passes trough radio-active cloud (or is it the other way around?) and as a result starts to shrink. At first just discreetly, than becomes newspaper sensation, goes to children's size and continues getting smaller and even smaller. At this point the story goes truly fascinating because he is suddenly in all sorts of danger. If as a kid I was probably gaping watching normally sedate kitten harassing Grant Williams, now as a grown up man I truly squirmed watching his fight with darn spider. Sure, the movie is an old classic and time had long eclipsed those special effects, but this is what it gives this special warmth and charm. One does not approach movie like "The Incredible Shrinking Man" in search for depth or a life philosophy (although there IS quite philosophical finale, which completely went over my head as a kid since I must have been too excited about the cat and spider), this is a pure, good-natured classic entertainment and I guarantee that once the story gets going, any kid would be glued to the screen. And if you still treasure the kid inside, chances are you might enjoy it again.

Helen Mirren was the main reason why I went to see this one and it was delightful. It turned out to be just right combination of ingredients (food, France, good actors, bittersweet story) that works for me - some complained that it was too nice and predictable but if you ask me, I am well and truly saturated with cinematic violence, brutality, explosions and all that meaningless murders/detective/police clichés and welcomed this cute, little slice of real life like a breath of fresh air. How refreshing to finally experience something that is sophisticated enough that deliberately brings message trough light-hearted approach without being preachy and avoids ugliness - everything looks beautiful, food is juicy, scenery magical, little French town is inviting, actors are attractive and charismatic, it leaves you uplifted and feeling good. I have no problems with feel-good movies and if this is cinematic comfort food, please bring more of the same.

The story is cute: displaced Indian family in search of the new start gets stuck in the middle of little French town and they decide to open restaurant right opposite of snooty competition, where Helen Mirren rules with iron fist and leads her own classy, upscale dining heaven (awarded with Michelin star). Before long it turns into a war between newcomers and those who hold on to the tradition - nobody is truly evil here and both sides show delightful humanity that finally brings everybody together. Even if it does feel predictable occasionally, it is still a wonderfully warm-hearted movie that benefits from excellent cast. Both Helen Mirren and Om Puri are absolutely adorable.

Australian director Jennifer Kent toys with atmosphere similar to the one in "The Others" while adding her own twist to it. Its "us" against the world, familiar things that turn into demonic and crippling fear coming from our own living spaces. Very simple in cast that counts only handful of characters, the movie focuses only on single mother and her little son who are slowly sliding down into danger that lurks somewhere from inside this house. Avoiding the simplicity that would result from simply pointing at one focus of demonic possession, Kent plays around with it, suggesting all kinds of explanations and ideas, cleverly keeping our attention all the way trough. What personally I found most interesting is the relationship between parent and the child used in Horror context, which was rarely if ever been so well used like here. Actors are absolutely brilliant, though in retrospective I am not so happy in using little Noah Wiseman for this kind of movie, because I wouldn't like my own child to be exposed to such disturbing things in such tender age. Call me over-sensitive but I am very protective towards what we are putting in kid's heads while they are still growing up and soaking everything in. We are dealing with all sorts of taboos here.

The movie starts with statement that these guys sold more records than The Beatles, The Rolling Stones,The Beach Boys and Elvis together - but nobody has ever heard of them. Therefore it looks like interesting glimpse in music industry where people in the background are forever in the shadow, while only selected few have spotlight, fortune and fame.

Motown's own home-band The Funk Brothers played behind every hit single that company had ever produced and backed singers, stars, wannabees and everybody else along the way, creating soundtrack of 1960s for not only US but for the rest of the world as well. Musicians paid attention but majority of audience never heard of these guys names since they were "only studio musicians" and were accordingly constantly changing line-up when needed. Contrary to what journalists assumed, it wasn't the studio, floor, walls or air in Detroit but the chemistry between musicians that created this particular magic - when asked now, decades after the fact, they all claim that anybody could sing in front of the studio microphone but it was themselves who provided setting first and perhaps they are right (however, I must say that those voices were excellent and instantly recognizable, full of character and just pop enough to break into large market). When company became too large and Berry Gordy decided to move to Los Angeles, most of these guys were either left behind or did not find the footing when transplanted far from familiar surroundings. As much as its fun to see still surviving musicians joking, talking and enjoying the camaraderie, there are always skeletons in the closet, those who got sidelined with alcohol and drugs, those who did not survive. And a very interesting story about the dangerous night in the late 1960s when Detroit burned in the middle of racial protests and violence, where these black musicians took care of their white friends.

What I didn't particularly care for were tedious clips from live concert celebration of the band, with current generation of singers performed classic Motown hits and naturally almost nobody (except Chaka Khan) can hold a candle to original artists, no matter how hard they tried. It could be that original recordings are now so much part of our consciousness that I simply won't accept anybody else singing them. Youngsters are naturally awed when talking to elderly musicians but Ben Harper is a bit much when he claims that Motown introduced soul music to audience - yes, it gave deserved prominence to black artists but it was never as gritty, sweaty or dangerous as James Brown, for example. Motown was a excellent, polished pop product and dance music of its time but if you want soul, you go for "Stax" or "Atlantic" or elsewhere. Those people did not learn how to walk and how to wear white gloves.

From the very first, legendary opening lines to the very end this is one of the cornerstones of a cinema history, but where some other old movies are simply, well old, this is something gripping and involving, truly magical, Gothic and strangely faithful both to du Maurier and Hitchcock. Even if director himself was not completely happy with being under someone else control (David O. Selznick was simply not a man to ignore) it has his signature all over the screen, from complicated characters hiding secrets from each others to evil lurking in the shadows, morbid fascination with death, innocent heroine (it never occurred to me earlier that she is never called by her name) lost in the imposing majesty of Manderley to twists and turns of a fascinating story itself. And - the best of all - this is a movie with Mrs. Danvers (magnificent Judith Anderson). Now I can finally admit that I always found her the true owner of Manderley and if anybody asked me, I would drown both Joan Fontaine and Laurence Olivier, in my version Mrs. Danvers would live on and on forever, bringing fresh flowers in Rebecca's bedroom and occasionally even try those silk stockings and underwear made by nuns from convent. (What kind of nuns knew how to sew sexy underwear?) Hitchckock would have been amused to find that audience of the future find the villainess the most appealing character in the movie. I got a lot of fun ideas involving Mrs.Denvers and me but will keep them for myself.

Where the book has completely different focus, movie is tailored all around its star Judi Dench - a strange re-thinking of the subject, almost like making Dr.Watson main character in movie version of Sherlock Holmes. The elderly veteran (Philomena from the title) is an old Irish lady in search of the son that nuns took away from her long time ago, when she was still one of the infamous laundresses. Movie is basically a odd -couple journey to Washington with Dench being sweet, old fashioned grandmother and journalist (Steve Coogan) acting as director's alter ego, educated, worldly and cynical. Their interaction - not the horrifying, true life story - slowly takes over the movie, with Dench easily stealing our hearts with her good-natured naivety, simpleness and clinging to religion, while journalist watches her with cool detachment of superiority that he thinks his privileged and moneyed status has. While story does pull at viewer's heartstrings and we can't forget this is a true-life story, it does feel a bit condescending and patronizing at moments - it suggests that deep inside, dear old Dench is true heroine and people around her cold-hearted merchants ready to sell her story for a sake of sensationalistic success and profit. As good as Dench is (and she does excellent job of being dowdy sweetheart) her character is too darn meek and forgiving as contrary to cold-hearted Coogan who is at the end filled with righteous anger about injustice of it all. Nuns at the convent have of course not given any reasons or explanations why they behaved they way they did and director is not even interested in showing them as human - though some will accept this point without questioning, personally I find it too black-and- white and one-sided. We came in 21st century not only with decision to close those convents but with enough courage to ask the questions and hear some answers. Stephen Frears manipulates sentiments without giving clerics any voice, except right to be bad guys filled with venom. From the bottom of my atheist heart, I feel this is all wrong, nothing in this world is black and white.

Made from a novel by Irish writer William Trevor (whom I need to check out) "My House in Umbria" is about a group of train passengers who survive bomb attack.None of these people knew each other from before and as they recover in Italian hospital, gentle eccentric romance novel writer Emily Delahunty (Maggie Smith) decides to take this little bruised group in her Umbria house - she lives alone in a beautiful country side house and loves the idea that perhaps nature and silence would heal the wounds of this unexplained, brutal attack. Her naturally strong imagination is inspired by these new friends and who they might have been before they boarded the train. There is an old general (Ronnie Barker), German journalist (Benno Fürmann) and a little American girl (Emmy Clarke), all of them lost people who traveled with them - the little girl is in fact mute now from a shock of losing her parents.

The cast is excellent but it is Maggie Smith who stands head and shoulders above everybody else as her character (sweet, lonely soul tormented by memories) tries to help people who only yesterday were strangers on a train and suddenly had turned into friends connected with survival. Smith is very much like Blanche du Bois in a sense that she refuses to see bad things in life and focus only on positive. Her own life was all but romantic as we slowly find out, nevertheless she writes love stories with happy endings and creates her own reality, believes in dreams and astrology - the character of Thomas Riversmith (Chris Cooper) is her direct opposite as American scientist who has different outlook at life, laughs at her little eccentrics and in general has no patience for people like her. As Mrs.Delahunty slowly finds more about her guests, we also find more about them and about her - all of them in their way help to each other but its Italian countryside that truly heals everybody. What a beautiful, beautiful movie.