Reviews

I must admit that I didn't go into "Colony" with very high expectations. While I was very fond of "Lost", its writers and creators have lost a lot of my goodwill with that show's ridiculous final season and, frankly, everything from the "creators of Lost" since has been pretty bad, with maybe the exception of Damon Lindelof's "The Leftovers". J.J. Abrams, meanwhile, is still pumping out the same, derivative-to-the-point-of-indistinguishable action/sci-fi puree – even the flying silver letters of the title sequences have rarely changed since Lost.

Here, then, we have a new sci-fi drama executive-produced by Carlton Cuse, with some Lost alumni actors. I expected to give it one or two episodes before I could predict the rest of the plot and get bored from the same-old aliens vs. humans stories with a little bit of soap opera sprinkled in. But Colony would turn my expectations inside out a bit – even the flying silver title lettering has been inverted! Here I am four episodes in, giving it a pretty strong recommendation (four episodes is what I suggest you give the show in order to get an idea of how its plot develops).

Colony's twist on the old War of the Worlds scenario is that the invasion is over by the point we join the story, a part of Los Angeles has been cordoned-off by the invaders, and although we don't know much at all initially about the world beyond those impenetrable colony walls, things don't look good for humanity. What the invaders' plans are is just as mysterious. No one seems to have ever really spoken to them in person, or even knows what they look like. Their presence is marked mostly by automated flying drones that seem to observe everything, and in some instances enforce lethal action. The actual force of the oppressors, on the other hand, is represented by humans – previously regular inhabitants that now serve the invasion force. Their reasons are various, and we get to learn a few of them over the course of the episodes, but most wide- spread seems to be a sense of futility and self-preservation. Keep on their right side, and maybe you'll be spared come whatever their ultimate plan of action entails.

In particular, the show follows the Bowmans, a family of five, with one of their sons having been on the other side of where is now the colony walls. Apart from surviving, reuniting with him, or at least finding out whether he's even still alive, is their driving motivation. The first episode outlines how these goals put the family members in a difficult situations, and leads to drastically changing allegiances with the different powers in the Colony.

For a U.S. network show, Colony is surprisingly daring, and that is a very good thing. While most other shows have their lead actors as good audience magnets with fixed contracts, letting you know implicitly that some basic things about the plot scenario, and constellation of characters, will never really change. Colony is more bold in this than most American shows; not to the level of U.K. shows, with their self-contained mini-seasons where absolutely everything can happen, but a good way towards it. This is why I suggest you put in four episodes if you're going to give Colony a shot. It gives you a nice impression of how little the writers want you to take for granted.

What four episodes will also give you a good idea of is another element of Colony that I've grown to really like: the subdued way in which it reveals crucial details about the plot and world. It's another thing that bugs me about many U.S. shows: the urge to explain everything literally, often repeatedly, and usually also ham-fistedly. How many times during the average episode do I feel like some characters are talking to me as a viewer rather than other characters in the story! There is much less hand-holding in Colony, and if you don't watch attentively (yes, this is also directed at all those shows that want you to "tweet" and "discuss" live as the show is running) you will miss big, big hints about what is actually going on in the show's world. Some details that change everything about your theories on the invaders on the Colony are nonchalantly hidden in minor side plots and not mentioned again for quite a while.

My third U.S. show gripe, overdramatisation to the point of ridiculousness – there is some of that, but I'm far more willing to forgive it considering how daring Colony is with a lot of other things. Forgive me for still feeling the need to draw comparisons to Lost, but while it doesn't have the epic feel and scope of that show, it's one of the few in a very long time that stir up some of the same kind of fascination in me. The scenario is presented in an interesting enough way to make me really enjoy coming up with theories and bets on what is actually going on. If they don't cop out with the writing, or turn it into standard fighting back the aliens nonsense, it might end up being a really solid end-time show.

"Love Matters" is an anthology series, following different characters and plots in each episode. In this case, both the style and quality of episodes were extremely varied. Because there are only 6 episodes of 20 minutes each, I decided to do a quick overview in one series review, rather than 6 ultra-short episode reviews.

The series started out with "30 and Counting", a comedy about a very unlikely group of three flat-sharing young men. There's the nerd with seemingly no love life of his own, and the recently separated bloke who can't get over his ex. Together, they manage to convince their flatmate, who wants to give up on dating entirely after a streak of bad luck, to give online dating a try. What follows is a nice, but a bit over-the-top story about ideal partners, and issues of on-line dating. All in all, it was one of the better episodes of the bunch.

"Officially Special" is another comedy, about a 30-something woman with commitment issues in all aspects of her life. It's a simple one, but I enjoyed it nonetheless thanks to some good acting. In contrast, I had no love for the musical sugariness of "Miss Wright". The slightly surreal story about two female co-workers with very disparate ideas about love, and one's pursuit of it, was not interesting enough to make it worth sitting through the singing bits.

I had difficulties adapting to "Aphrodite Fry", which was the first episode I wouldn't call a comedy. However, it won me over in the end. It is a wonderfully simple story about two very different people, and the nature of relationships and sex. It put a smile on my face in the end, which probably makes it my favourite episode of the bunch. "A Nice Arrangement" is the other non-comedy offering, and deals with inter-cultural relationships. Satpal has been with his girlfriend for two years, but kept her secret from his very traditionalist Sikh mother, who he fears might disapprove of the relationship. He struck a deal with a Sikh woman in the same situation. The two pretend to be lovers in front of their families, but see their actual partners on the side. That Satpal didn't tell his girlfriend about this arrangement turns out to have been a huge mistake. Not a lot happens in this story, but it was quite sweet and enjoyable to watch.

Finally, "Kitten Chic" is easily the worst episode of them all. It is one overly long exposition depicting the life of an unpopular, sugary teenage girl whose new crush at school turns out to be gay. The uneventful first 15 minutes of set-up are not worth the pseudo-shocking payoff at all. There's no problem with the story itself, it was just much overdone and overly long, making it very tedious to watch.

So there you have it, a very mixed bag indeed. If you get the chance to watch just single episodes, definitely avoid episodes 3 and 6. If you want to see just the best the mini-series had to offer, stick with episodes 4 and 5. While these are very nice stories, they don't offset the really bad bits enough to make it a series worth recommending overall though. If you can only get the entire series, there are many better ones out there. None of the good episodes are so exceptional that they'd make you forget the worse ones.

I was very skeptical of this show to say the least. That's because I can't remember a single hospital show that I liked, ever. Monday Mornings ended up being a pleasant surprise. Maybe pleasant is the wrong word—the show is neither for the squeamish on the visual nor the emotional side.

One preview I read stated that Monday Mornings was special because it showed us a side of the medical system that we haven't really seen before in other hospital shows. I rolled my eyes a bit at that, because what it usually means is coating the topical parts of the show with some completely unrelated melodrama elements to show the "human side" of it all. Well, Monday Mornings does show the human side alright, but not in the way I would have expected.

The focus and unique element of the series are the eponymous Monday morning meetings of surgeons. The main topics discussed are cases of patients who died while in the hospital's care—namely those where the decisions or conduct of the surgeons might have been a factor in the patient's death. These meetings are highly dramatized for the sake of television, but they drive home the point of what immense pressure lies on a medical professional's almost every decision. And how hard these situations are for them personally, even before they have to take professional responsibility, and justify their decisions.

It's a part of the medical system we don't very much like to think about. With all the research, high-tech equipment and drugs marketed as miracles, a good deal of eyewash makes us want to believe that in our day and age, no one needs to die if we just have the technical means to heal them. But when we first decide to seek medical assistance, when we are diagnosed, how accurate the diagnosis is, if the doctors make the right calls at the right time, and whether they react correctly to the way we are responding to treatment—at any imaginable stage, the human element is a huge factor and source of error. Portrayed in other shows as the "gods in white", Monday Mornings makes it a point to show that, for doctors, mistakes being a matter of life and death doesn't change the fact that they are human beings who occasionally will make them. It's an uncomfortable truth that who treats you can make a crucial difference in your life. But medical science so far wasn't able to make us clairvoyant. Judgement calls, and bad judgement, are an everyday part of it.

While there are some stereotypical characters, they're less cringe-inducing than on most shows. There's the workplace sweethearts, but their relationship (so far) hasn't overshadowed the actual plots. There's the tyrannical supervisor who, just barely, manages to not turn into a caricature. And the Asian overachiever is actually funny ("What's the worst that could happen?" – "Dead. Worst is always dead." – "Have you done this before?" – "Once." – "How did it go?" – "Dead.") The first episodes averted more cliché lines than they gave in to, opting instead for more honest and realistic conversations. Going by genre alone I expected it to be painful to watch, but it really wasn't.

There is only so much you can do to keep hospital routine, even from such a different perspective, fresh enough for a television show. Monday Mornings has yet to show if and how it will manage to do that. Most other shows just add so many personal and relationship plot lines for the medical staff, that the entire show essentially ends up being a random soap opera in front of a hospital backdrop. Others... well, actually, the only other one I can think of is House, M.D., who borrowed from crime shows to become more of a thriller. I'm curious to see whether Monday Mornings will carve its own path. But so far, my verdict is that it's definitely worth having a look at.

Of all the epic History serials I've seen so far, I liked this one the least. It is a daunting task to retell the entire history of human civilization, but a lot of the potential is destroyed through a very unsympathetic presentation.

It begins with the tediously dramatic narrator, who puts so much emphasis on every single sentence that before long you wish you could tune him out. It doesn't help that most sentences are kept extremely short, which is at first irritating, then starts to feel condescending. You'll wish the narrator back, though, once you start to meet the interviewees featured. Not only are many of them completely absurd picks for the topics at hand (a Navy SEAL? A writer? A news anchor?), but a couple of them are downright annoying to watch and listen to. They couldn't find any historians, archaeologists or anthropologists who could give well-founded information—without all the theatrics?

The parts I disliked the least are, surprisingly, those I usually hate most in documentaries: the CGI scenes and reenactments. The reenactments work remarkably well because they're not overstated and, funnily, not overly dramatized. At least their pathos fades in comparison to that of the narrator and "experts". While reenactments usually feel like a very cheap and childish part of a serious documentary, those in Mankind were not at all bad. Similarly for the CGI scenes, which somehow seemed way less cheesy than the usual fare. They're allowed to be dramatic, and there's a few ridiculous ones, like for instance the Sphinx at the end of the first part, but overall they knew their place and were pretty well done.

The story is, no doubt, a fascinating one. What might be a matter of personal preference is that I felt the series spent too much time on the latter stages. I would have preferred the final 4 parts compressed into 2, leaving more room for detail in the earlier chapters. But all in all, if you're not just looking for the next History box-set but have an actual interest in the topic, and considering that this 9-hour behemoth is a considerable time investment, there are many better alternatives out there.

A few minutes into this film, I was quite determined that I was going to dislike it. It was only towards the final quarter that it started to grow on me, so much that I turned a DVD rental into a purchase. From skimming some other reviews by fellow IMDb users, I seem to be far from the only one who experienced it like that. So let it be said right away: even if you find it difficult or impossible to relate to the characters, stick with them, and you will probably be glad you did by the end.

You could call the teen angst genre a guilty pleasure of mine. I'm long out of the target demographic, but it fits well with my obsession for anything 'noir'. But like the rest of my cinema, I like these films to be, for lack of a better description, deep. They have to be honest and meaningful, deeply emotional, real, and kind of mature. You could say I like "teen" films, but not "teenie" films. For much of "Keith", I was sure to be watching one of the latter. I was wrong.

The main reason were the characters. I found the title-giving main character to be extremely annoying and unsympathetic. Of course I realised that this was kind of his point, and that the whole plot hinges on these unlovable character traits of his, but that didn't make me enjoy his presence any more. It all pointed towards your regular hip kids vs. nerds story that we have been fed every summer since at least the 1970s, and I felt like I saw the end coming from very early on.

In its last breaths though, the story turned around, and as the pieces were puzzled together I was left with a very different impression. It was more character-driven than I had thought, and the plot turned from superficially cliché to heartfelt and poignant. By the time the credits rolled, my opinion of the film had, compared to the beginning, turned almost 180°.

Apart from the fact that it is produced well, and it profits from the rare feature of rather talented teen actors, I was particularly pleased at how much it dared to step beyond the bounds of a regular teenie feel-good movie, especially in how it didn't feel the need to spell out everything that has happened. We can read in the characters' actions, expressions and dialogues what has happened or what is going on, and we don't need a token character or superfluous scenes to drive home the point. That way, many of the final scenes felt so much more powerful, because they were not interrupted and watered down by trite continuity fillers. It stays true to its initially hard-to-see but ultimately evident dedication to characters, not bland stories. Characters who, sometimes, seem to overact, act out of character, or turn to stereotypes; but beneath that betray true-to-life motivations, emotions and reactions.

The characters stay with you because their situations are realistic, and their behaviour less out-of-order than it seems for much of the earlier part of the film. These characters and the events they went through leave a lot for you to keep thinking about for long after the film has ended (another advantage from the decision to omit all the usual "and then this happened" formalities). That doesn't hold true for particularly many teen flicks. "Keith" dared to tell its story straight, resisting the commercial urge to sugar-coat it.

An absolutely atrocious attempt by ABC to get a piece of the whole "young single parent sitcom" pie. Unfortunately for them, 'Raising Hope' remains the only show to get anything funny out of it.

However, I won't judge a show based on its premise. Lack of originality does not have to mean lack of quality, after all. But in order to write a good sitcom, you need some writing talent with a sense of humour and, well, writing. In 'Baby Daddy', none was involved.

There was not a single gag or line in the pilot episode that you couldn't smell coming a minute in advance. I could discern not a single original thought or punchline during the entire episode. Worst of all, the jokes that the writers copied from anywhere and everywhere were not even coherently combined into a narrative, or put in the context of the show. It was nothing but a parade of the most hackneyed, unfunny one-liners and clichés. Even the most bland comedy pilots usually manage to get at least one or two chuckles out of me—this show failed to do even that. It was especially cringe-worthy in that, while the clichés it uses are so old that not even lampshading them would be very funny anymore, the writers quite apparently decided to play them perfectly straight.

In the end, everything you need to know about the quality or originality of the show is already said by the promo images depicting its cast. Let's see: we've got Jack "Babyface" Everybody, a lead character that is so bland and uninteresting that he definitely won't bother anybody. We've got two pretty blondes that are allowed to pop by and smile. They even made it a plot point that the main guy clique of the show only even bothers with one of them because she is "hot" (when she didn't use to be, so yay for her). It's as insulting to women as it is to men. Then you've got the borderline developmentally challenged jock, as well as the token-foreigner and token-homosexual rolled into one. Oh my, whoever saw that coming!

I'm quite positive that I wouldn't have been able to come up with a more derivative, unoriginal premise and cast if I tried. This is the kind of show you and your friends make up while at a bar, when you try to make fun of stereotypical U.S. sitcoms; but turned into an actual production. So bad it's not even worth watching for trash value anymore, and I say that as a proud devotee of cult trash; there's a limit to everything.

I want to make it a point that I do not give out extreme ratings lightly, and that giving this show the lowest possible one represents my absolutely honest impression of this production. The funniest thing about it is that it was promoted as an "original comedy".

What holds our interest in late 19th and early 20th century "actuality" footage today is that they allow us to take a glimpse at everyday life as it was 100 years or longer ago. Among the surviving films I find those most interesting that feature city street scenes, or just people going about their daily business, oblivious to the fact that over a century later some bloke in front of a weird electric device would take an interested look at those couple of seconds of their lives. That being said, there are still differences in quality. Especially the Edison shorts often have an awfully composed frame and not much happening at all, making them a pretty boring watch, despite all their historical value.

American Mutoscope & Biograph's 1904 series of the Westinghouse factories are a mixed bag in that respect. Many offer an exciting look at the industrialism of the time. Others are 3 minutes of repetition in a static scene that isn't really that interesting to watch, although some of them feature funny little accidents or routines that seem to have been orchestrated especially for the camera. My favourite Westinghouse short however is this "Panorama of Machine Co. Aisle".

The interesting fact is that the camera has been mounted to a crane several metres in the air for the shot, and the crane moves along the aisle towards the back wall of the factory hall. The camera was pretty close to the workers in most other films of the series, leading to people reacting to the camera, which is sometimes funny but takes away from the "documentary" value of the shorts. The workers are, however, mostly unaware of the crane-mounted camera in this shot, and go about their business as they would every day, although the light shining down on them from the lamp that gave the necessary illumination for the camera must have been pretty noticeable. One particular lad leans against a machine in a very leisurely pose and does not seem to plan on helping the other workers out anytime soon. A man in a suit rushes around a corner and bumps into another employee, who seems to be taking this pretty personally, as he throws a mean glance back at his hurried co-worker. You can almost hear him mumbling some insult. It is really fascinating to watch and re-watch these few minutes and discover all these little incidents.

The scenery adds the last bit of perfection to the film. I watched the copy taken from the Library of Congress print available for download from their American Memory archive, which has been nicely restored and has a very clean picture. It's just what you would imagine an early 20th century industrial plant to look like, as if taken from some Steampunk fantasy. As another commenter already mentioned, you can almost hear the machines working, so lively is the picture. Slowly, the darkness in the back gets illuminated as camera and lamp draw closer, and you approach one of those tall, windowed brick walls that you have seen countless times from the outside, and wondered what is or has been going on on the other side.

This is a tough picture to review, although I can really only come to one conclusion: you have to watch it for yourself. Jim Jarmusch based it on the idea of making an "action movie without action", and I think that's pretty accurate. The film follows a mysterious man around Spain, where he meets with even more mysterious contacts and exchanges secret messages. Clearly he is on a mission, a dangerous and illegal one. But what is his job? Who does he work for? These questions will keep you on the edge of your seat. All the ingredients of a frantic crime thriller are there, yet the film keeps a slow pace. What exactly is going on here?

Never has it been so thrilling, beautiful, and entertaining to watch a man walk around. The audience never knows what to expect, everything could be significant. In contrast, the mysterious man never hesitates, everything he does is carefully planned and executed, according to plan. Clearly, someone is pulling the strings. Someone, somewhere, is "in control". The camera, however, focuses on this man, one cogwheel in a large machinery. You're always aware that you only see part of the picture, that everything would make sense if you could just zoom out and know a little more.

"The Limits of Control" plays with a lot of established film clichés, and it teases you with your expectations. You are familiar with the form Hollywood movies have converged to over the past decades, how they are put together and what they have in common. Mainstream productions carefully avoid surprising their audience because after all, some of them could be disappointed or irritated. You think you know what you're up against, because you've seen it before. But "The Limits of Control" will fool you. It does not care about conventions, it tells the story it wants to.

However, this means that the film actually expects you to have been spoiled by the countless movies you've seen. It helps to know a few things about film genres and eras, but it is downright essential to have seen a number of common spy movies, action flicks, mystery thrillers. If you're not familiar with the narrative conventions used in movies, you will most likely not get the point. This made me wonder whether it is acceptable to recommend a movie if it cannot be thoroughly enjoyed without having that kind of film experience beforehand. But in the end, movies are always about one thing: whether you will have a good time watching it. And I think it must have been years since I last left a theater so delighted.

The thing is that this wouldn't be the movie you show your friend who is only just starting to develop an interest in films. For those who have been devouring movies for some time, who know a thing or two about their strengths and weaknesses, and the way they tell stories, this film is an incredible piece of art. In any case, it does however require an open mind because it might initially be hard to "keep up" with the slowness of the movie. But if you can cope with anything more sophisticated than a Michael Bay movie, you should do fine. Just don't expect to have the story and all the explanations shoved down your throat. Half of the movie takes place in your head, because you are trying to make sense of what is happening.

In more technical aspects, De Bankolé gives a breathtaking performance. At first it might not seem like he's doing much, but then you realize how perfectly every move, every look, every word, spoken or unspoken, fits the scene. The film's mystery is built on his presence, and it must have been a terrible pressure to carry so much responsibility for the atmosphere of the movie. The result is a lead character that is several times cooler than any babbling wiseacre (à la Pulp Fiction) could ever be. I was also amazed by the appearances of Tilda Swinton and John Hurt. Not only their characters, but also their lines which are symbolic for the level this movie works on.

You know how movie reviewers sometimes have to look for that perfect moment for a screen capture? A frame that is beautiful to look at and, without any motion or dialog, is able to give readers an idea of the movie's style? It must be a hell of a task for this film, because you could take such a frame from almost any of the scenes. It is in this consistently high quality, in any area, that the experience of Jarmusch as a filmmaker really shows. Every moment, every scene is carefully set up, perfectly composed and just beautiful to look at, like a picture in itself. Every word spoken is deeply meaningful, almost every sentence is a one-line word of wisdom or food for thought. Sounds are carefully used, as are the minimal musical snippets. Often, there is just a very poignant silence.

I suppose that if you are trying to decide whether you are going to watch this movie, having heard what people say about it, you wonder whether you will be disappointed in the end, whether it will just be a succession of pointless scenes. This was also my concern, but I promise that you won't feel cheated in the end. I don't care for posh movies that try to be as "artsy" as possible just for the heck of it; "The Limits of Control" is genuinely entertaining, and it is as much a part of traditional cinema as it is a reflection upon it. It is a minimal thriller, a mystery feature in the true sense of the word. You will think, you will theorize, and you will simply enjoy taking in the sights and sounds. The dream-like feel, the questions, the thoughts will accompany you for a long time after you have left the theater.

"The Truth About Charlie" is a completely unnecessary remake of the classic "Charade" (1963). While the thrilling espionage and deception plot of the original has been largely carried over, the few adjustments that were made to the story are implausible and arbitrary, and most of its favorite and memorable moments were omitted. The locations around France do create a charming atmosphere every now and then, but the actors keep the presentation even from reaching an average level. Although in the actors' defense, I have to say that anyone would have a hard time making such ridiculous dialog come across realistically. The interesting and fascinating character of Peter Joshua (portrayed in the original by Cary Grant) was watered down to a completely flat and dull figure that will bore you to death, and what Mark Wahlberg does with it is more helpless impersonation than it is acting. One of the other few strong points that I noticed was the soundtrack, which fits the mood nicely, incorporating tracks by artists such as De-Phazz, Asian Dub Foundation, and Gotan Project.

Looking at it as just another movie, it receives a personal rating of 2 out of 10 points. But considering that this travesty calls itself a remake of "Charade" really tempts me to rate it even lower. However, it is not fair to relate a film to other works, so based on its own strengths and weaknesses, it has earned the second point. I was surprised to see such a weak production coming from Jonathan Lemme, who gave us titles like "The Silence of the Lambs" and "Philadelphia".

I watched "The Truth About Charlie" because I'm a big fan of the original, and I was wondering what they did with the material. Now that I have seen it I can tell you that, should you feel the same urge, you can safely ignore it and just re-watch "Charade", which has not lost any of its charm in the last 40 years. The remake might in some way make you appreciate it even more, but it is not worth the two hours of your life that it will cost you.

"Statue of Liberty" is exemplary for what was wrong with so many of the Edison short subjects of the time. It shows a complete lack of understanding of how to create an interesting actuality film, ignoring any of the strengths inherent to the still relatively new medium.

The Lumière brothers, thanks to their background in photography, at least knew how to frame and compose an interesting picture. In an even stronger contrast, at the very same time Georges Méliès was constantly pushing this new art form to its limits, combining jump cuts and multiple exposure with stage tricks in order to create one stunning effect after another, really measuring the potential of motion pictures.

But there are also many interesting actualities in Edison's own catalog. Depictions (or reenactments) of important events with famous people, that allowed the audience to get a glimpse of historical moments they were not able to witness in person. The maker of "Statue of Liberty", however, obviously put no thought in his choice of subject at all. People already knew what the statue looked like, and pictures in a newspaper were far more suited for the purpose. As another comment already pointed out, it offers absolutely nothing over a single photograph. It wastes hundreds of frames where one would have been sufficient. To make matters even worse, the camera being fixed to the boat makes the statue slowly drift out of the frame.

There are so many interesting films to watch from the 19th century, if you can find them. Even the bad ones are usually worth watching today, simply because they give you a glimpse of life as it took place over a hundred years ago, or because they give you an idea of what that society was interested in, how they thought about the issues of their day. None of this is true for "Statue of Liberty", and I cannot help but suspect that back then, people found it just as pointless as you would find it today. The irony? That reading about why you should not bother watching it probably took you longer than it would have taken you to watch it and find out for yourself.

I do not want to talk too much about the good aspects of the movie. Have a look at the ratings, awards and comments, and you'll see that this is probably a movie you shouldn't miss. So why only 7 stars from me? Because of it's length. The movie seems to be trying to resist starting to move. I am not talking about the slow pace of the scenes - anything else would not have done the story justice - but that in the beginning, there are too many of them. Sixty minutes of exposition is not art anymore, it's just too much.

I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that this is probably the most touching movie you will see (or have seen) in your entire life. And that's why it hurts me even the more when I think about how many people gave up on it during it's first hour, missing out on everything it has to offer later on. I feel like the first 60 minutes could have been boiled down to about 20, taking nothing away from the feel of the movie, but making it more viewable. If it got a director's cut, it should be considerably shorter in its earlier parts.

If the 7 stars I gave it were distributed along the time-line of the movie, it would have gotten 5 or 6 of them in its second half. So don't take my rating for a reason not to watch the movie. Take my comment as an insurance that even if you feel the urge to stop watching, don't. If you are into movies with any more soul and emotion than Rambo, you owe it to yourself to watch this.

It's a wonderful work of art which just doesn't live up to its potential, because it is 40 minutes too long.

I already knew that I loved the works of Hiroyuki Tanaka before seeing this movie, but could still rate it unbiased because I didn't know that it was by him until the credits were showed.

It is mainly a film telling you much about life, and how it can turn on you. Its messages are very close to reality although most viewers won't experience them the way the protagonist does. But I found it very touching, especially the interesting dream monologue. I like that kind of movies, with their underground shabby feel to them, not trying to always show the greatest action scenes and effects, but letting you really get into the character(s), feel with him, pity him, then hate him, then wanting to help him again, and even think about him and his story for weeks after watching the film.

I think Shinichi Tsutsumi did a great job in portraying the character of Yamazaki, the emotions felt very real to me, and he knows how to play that helpless guy. The quiet, uneventful scenes are an important part of the movie to give you time to think, and are well realized, but still a bit too long sometimes, when you can see him walking through the city for over a minute and nothing happens, he just walks. But Sabu did great on the confusing part, never really telling you what's real or going to happen next. But although the moldy look is a part of the movie too, I think the picture quality could have been less miserable at times.

Unlucky Monkey is one of the movies you can watch and immediately know that what you see in front of you is a great piece of art, even though you can't really describe why or because of what elements, which is why I won't further try to. You will just have to watch and rate it for yourself. I suggest you look for a DVD of it somewhere. The movie has not been synchronized, only subtitled, but you'll see that this was the only smart thing to do with it.

One of the Top Asian Movies there are, if not one of the Top Worldwide.