Reviews

Poor Glenn. She's trying but to what use when the film is so dour, so flat-wood lifeless and so on-the nose; Not much is left to the viewer's imagination. Everything is so cutesly packeged, from the aerial shots of stockholm, to the multitude of useless close-ups of all characters, terrible editing, and terrible use of actors' faces who are made to look worse than they really are. Zero chemistry, idiotic dialogue that none of the actors believed for one second when they were uttering, such two-dimensional representation of pryce's character, nothing organic, nothing raw. It reminds me of the current trend of French movies, like Marguerite and others of the kinf, where technically everything is great and where everything that is about the heart and magic and just simply life is totally absent. The director totally out of his depth. Poor godard, lynch, cassavetes, malick what must they be thinking watching this?

Try watching a film like breaking the waves and than this. It's just soul-crushing.

Melancholia is an imperfect film. And as it's the case with most masterpieces they are perfect in their imperfection. I believe that a great work of art is one that transcends, one that defies rules, one that is both modern and conservative in it's approach. Melancholia is one of those.

What separates the greatest films from the good or the average is that when they tackle themes like depression, cosmic influences, death, hope, they manage to take the viewer to the extremes just like a shrink would probably make you face your worst fears before you can feel liberated.Most films do only the first part, lacking the cathartic feel at the end. But the again that is the most difficult thing to achieve. In Psychology, doctors have techniques. In Art though, this is not an easy task. As an artist not only do you need to find the right tone, but also to find the rhythm of your narrative and that develops through work and work and work. And I think this is where most artists fail. They become too preoccupied with their obsession, their fears, and fail to give it a value when they translate it into art. Sometimes you need to distance yourself from things to get a better view. For many years I thought Von trier was in the latter category, too self indulgent, having great ideas, great themes, and yet not getting the technique right. In Melancholia he is bang on.

And even if the first half is slightly over the place and not in the same category with second chapter, I would still rate this film a 10 because sometimes these things are not important. When you see someone has a heart, you forgive that person all their clumsiness. I thought for long if the first part, the wedding, was necessary. Probably not, but I am not the director of this film. However, what I do think that was needed, was the introduction of Kirsten Dunst's character outside the larger context presented in the second chapter. Her performance is one of the best of 2011. And even if the first chapter is uneven, without it, her understated performance in the second part of the film would never pack a punch as it does now.

This film reminds me a lot of Bergman's 'Cries and Whispers' or Tarkovsky's Stalker which employ the same techniques as this one. If you like this one, check Bergman's and Tarkovsky's films too. Also check my list 'My favorite movies, recommend others' for other films in the same vein.

Other films I enjoyed in 2011 are: The Tree of Life, The Skin I live In, Certified Copy and Poupoupidou.

Rarely has someone achieved such strength and vulnerability in a motion picture than the maverick Michael Haneke. His films spoil nothing in the trailers. Actually watching the trailers of Cache or Funny Games one couldn't think much of the special charisma and power his film unveils. I for instance wasn't won over by the teasers of Cache. Had I not known who was behind the steer I would've said: Pass!

But the spectators of Haneke films are pretty much the same victims as his characters. We are slowly but powerfully led into contemporary Paris which has little surprises left for the modern tourist. It's the Paris we know from the French Coursebooks or postcards: the den of the modern bourgeois! In this Paris the tragedy unfolds: and once it starts unfolding we remain still in our chairs mesmerized by its beauty.

Cache is not lukewarm like most of this year's films! This film is not the platform for ongoing sociological, political nor ideological debate material. It's simple and shocking because Haneke deals with human beings and not ideas taken from books! We do understand its levels which are social and political but that's because every masterpiece is open to interpretations.

This is the best film of 2005!

"Funny Games" is the rare kind of picture one could watch even in the 22nd century! This film is Bunuel's macabre satire "Le charm discret de la Bourgeoisie" turned into a horror!

I was shocked and outraged the first time I saw it, fascinated and mesmerized the second time and every time I watch it I never cease to find surprising elements that bother my mind and challenge my imagination!

First of all I was surprised to see that a lot of people saw in this picture just a very convincing anti-violence manifest! This "cat and mouse" film/game embodies the ruthless critique of a social class that ceases to ACT OR THINK and eventually loses its instinct of preservation.I found it to be no critique of a certain society: American, Canadian or Western European but the critique of the bourgeoisie which lives within each and every individual and ultimately the critique of the Modern Man (No Hero, No Villain but a passive element part of a system).

Secondly I was also puzzled to find out that many people considered the interaction actor/viewer to be a shortcoming and eventually spoiled their pleasure to live the drama of the 3 victims.

Well...as long as we accept the film to be a metaphor with no real vivid characters I see no reason why we shouldn't accept this convention too!

We are given a CONVENTION and we accept it.It's the same in theater: we know that not a real drama unfolds in front of our eyes on the stage but a re-enactment with some characters; nevertheless we still experience different emotions: we cry we laugh...in one word we accept the illusion!!

Not a film for everyone! My vote 10/10

Cristi Puiu brings out onto the screens a perfect picture which depicts the drama of a 50-year-old Romanian "bugeteer" who struggles to live in a society which no longer abides by any scale of values!

One mere conversation in a restaurant represents the synthesis of virgin society which makes no clear distinction between democracy and capitalism! It's more than life...it's essence of life! The conversation is brutally cleaned of any metaphor and the plot swiftly develops to an unexpected ending.

The twist of the film reminds us of the old "Laurel and Hardy" gags which make us laugh and cry at the same time.Life is merciless for all these kind of characters.

A bravura performance from Victor Rebengiuc!

Those who have seen "Underground" have probably noticed that we are not watching one film but a collection of at least 10 films in one single masterpiece!!

I watched with great enthusiasm the work of Kusturica after "Underground" in films like "Arizona Dream" or "Black Cat White Cat" films which prove to be more elaborate and "smoother" in terms of direction (brilliant works as well!!) but none of these films could ever equal the "nerve" and strength of a very young Kusturica at his best! One could see the passion and boldness that is at stake in this motion picture. It's as if he gambled his own life doing "Underground"

How else can you describe this work of art if not a mixture of devilish and holy images that take the shape of a flawless piece of theater-dance!!

The actors speak, dance and create (more than interpret) with a vigor rarely found outside the Balkan Circle!

In terms of theatrical aesthetics the film incorporates Stanislavski( realism at its best), Brecht (at certain points the actors step out of their roles and mock at themselves) and Artaud (they are flames more than humans)

Needless to say more!

Shocking, raw, heart-breaking!!

One of the most beautiful I have ever seen! 10/10

I always watch with immense pleasure The Oscars as they proved to be the most important and influential event in the film business. Producers, directors, screenwriters, actors all around the world wait for their work to be acknowledged as a sign of recognition of their talent, commitment and inspiration!

TALENT, COMMITMENT AND INSPIRATION!...Key words! They are the essence of true art; it's like Soderbergh so nicely put it (on winning the much coveted Oscar)that we should first of all thank all those who take a pencil and create a piece of canvas or write a script before thanking friends and relatives.

You can imagine my surprise with last year's Oscar Ceremony:Lord of the Rings won 11 out of 11 nominations... a film that otherwise lacks both talent and inspiration but unfolds as a continuous futile effort to shock and amaze!!

Nevertheless I have to give Peter Jackson credit for his commitment(the only key word that applies for the production)to put an end to this long, long sometimes too long struggle to adapt(very poorly!) a book which conquered the hearts of millions of children and adults worldwide!

But is this the true purpose of The Academy? Do we still have to praise films which are beautifully "dressed" like an artificial Christmas Tree with impressive decorations but eventually lacks branches!

I'm not Minghella's number one fan but "Cold Mountain"was the best of 2004! Not by far though! Perhaps Cold Mountain's best merit would be that it respects truthfully the golden rule of Hitchcock's films: the real villain is never shown! We can sense it in this raw and brutal environment, we can feel the presence of ravens floating above the reddish snow but we are never told precisely what forces govern the destiny of two main characters! (Well done for Law, Kidman and Zellweger)

Anyway here are MY Oscar winners for 2004:

Best Picture: Cold Mountain

Best Director: Fernando Meirelles (City of God)

Best Actor: Sean Penn (21 Grams)

Best Actress: Charlize Theron (Monster)

Best Supporting Actor: Tim Robbins (Mystic River)

Best Supporting Actress: Marcia Gay Harden (Mystic River)

Best Foreign Language Picture: Good-bye Lenin

Best Animated Feature: Finding Nemo

Nevertheless a poor year for the Oscars! My vote for the 2004 Ceremony 7/10

I found "In The Bedroom" to be the one of the best films made in the past few years: an amazing script, beautiful direction, extraordinary acting!

Todd Field actually managed to create a powerful drama of love which boils down to the eternal quint-essence of human drama: true emotions are difficult to be expressed in words! That's why the film reduces to few lines, a rather simple plot but ultimately a volcano of human feelings: love, hatred, desperation, redemption.

The film actually evolves around one of Alexander Pope's lines: "Ripples last longer than splashes" The first part of the film is used as a pretext for what is to follow( like the French would say is just the "intrigue"). We are lured to believe that the key couple could be Tomei and Stahl, with Spacek and Wilkinson as mere supporting cast. The murder is committed and like in the Greek Theatre we are witnessing what's happening offstage. Wilkinson and Spacek become the protagonists of our"second part" trying to cope with the loss of their child. Their drama unveils in front of our eyes like layers of an onion!We are slowly but powerfully led towards the unexpected ending of the film which completes the whole vision of the story.

Resembling to a certain extent the same techniques used in Wong Kar Wai Cannes-Winning "In The Mood for Love" and Andrei Tarkovski's much-applauded "The Stalker"(long shots framed by one single camera like in an Italian Theatre Box) Todd Field creates a brilliant "mind-boggling" interior drama which gives a lot of space for reflection!

A Top-Class Performance from the trio: Spacek, Wilkinson and the supporting Tomei under the coordination of Todd Field!

A big hand for The Academy for taking into consideration this motion picture (rather surprising!)