Reviews written by registered user
|26 reviews in total|
The movie shows with excruciating detail the personal drama of one of
the most influential characters in world history. Without Alexander
there would be no western civilization since the Greeks liked keeping
their culture for themselves only.
This picture is not for the faint of heart since it depicts the flaws of a real person and the way he really lived. As for those who expected to see a Gladiator movie... Well they are not Alexanders... But nations like the American nation were built by founding fathers who had the heart of Alexander the Great.
Kudos to Stone
The fact that this movie is freely shown in theaters is evidence that the
American nation is a truly democratic nation, a direct continuation of the
Athenian democracy of the Classical Era.
It doesn't matter whether a person is pro or against the Bush administration to appreciate good political criticism. Michael Moore has never being elected president so I am sure he can't possibly know all the complexities and difficulties associated with governing a country. It may be the case that while his facts are true his criticism is not fair because of many other issues which he may not be aware of. It may also be the case that President Bush may be one of the most competent that ever lived in the White House.
What matters is that this movie presents some criticism on the current administration in a thought-provoking way and can be used for initiating dialog between politicians and parties about what went wrong (if anything went wrong) after 9/11 and how we can fix things. It is this kind of thought-provoking criticism that keeps democracies alive.
The Passion of the Christ is true to the Christian Dogma. However, it makes
the terrible mistake to depict Jewish authorities as single-minded buffoons
who only cared about eliminating blasphemy with death. It may be the case
that the Jewish authorities of Jesus time were exactly like that. It may be
the case of the opposite as well. What matters is that the Jewish people
have been persecuted over two thousand years by people who used the Passion
narratives as an excuse to accuse them of deicide.
Passion is brilliant movie in the way it represents the Christian dogma. However it should have been made approachable by people of all faiths. At least a postscript distancing the movie from wrong interpretations would have been appropriate and polite.
I saw this movie and was really disappointed. Not because Bakshi's version
was not a good one. I thought it was great. I was disappointed because I had
thought that Peter Jackson had done great original work with his treatment
of the subject. Now that I saw Ralph Bakshi's version I realized that
Jackson looted Bakshi's film in the most shameless, preposterous and highly
There were so many scenes taken directly from the Bakshi movie that I could not believe such thing happened. The beginning narrating the events associated with the forging of the rings and the last alliance, the falling of the ring from Golum's hand, the presentation of the hobit houses with their round windows and doors, the Bilbo speech at the party, the flow of the adaptation omitting the Tom Bombandil events, the first encounter with the black rider, the idea of presenting the events discussed at the council of Elrod (such as the imprisonment of Gandalf at Isengard) in their correct chronological order, the Moria and Argonath scenes, the parallel telling of the stories of Frodo/Sam and Aragorn/Gimpli/Legolas after the breaking of the fellowship etc... were all ideas taken from Bakshi's film.
Now, since there is no single acknowledgement for Bakshi's efforts by the makers of the new films, I am filled with sadness for their attitude. More disappointing are the comments made by viewers who compare the two films without thinking that the first was the basis for the other. Jackson's film looks so nice. Why doesn't he give credit to the film his picture is heavily based upon?
I am not a Tolkien purist and so I found the movie to be very good. Not as
good as the "Fellowship" though. The reason is obvious. The "Fellowship"
developed the characters and set the story. It introduced us to a new
mythology and by doing this it created cinematic awe. The "Two Towers" book
mainly describes action. It describes who goes where and who does what. It
was expected that a movie describing the events in this book would not be as
exciting as the first part. For this reason director Peter Jackson added his
own "inventions" into the story and by doing this he made mortal enemies
among the J. R. R. Tolkien fans.
I would say Peter Jackson's effort was fair enough. However, what he could have done was to invent a totally new cinematic style for telling the Tolkien story in the big screen. The new cinematic style would help him adapt the book without any alterations. Instead Jackson followed the well known action style of the Star Wars and Braveheart movies. I do not know if the outcome would be better if Peter Jackson had done differently. Perhaps his choices were right on target. Bottom line: Well done. Let's wait for the "Return of the King".
A very funny movie, "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" captures many habits and
customs of the Greek American community in a set of hilarious events. The
movie is both pro-Greek and pro-American celebrating cultural diversity in
the US and the Greek culture at the same time. Sorry, Europeans you may be
displeased but one can find the best Greek food in Chicago and New York
rather than Europe!
One should not expect to find any deep analysis on the Greek culture in this movie. Every custom or habit is treated superficially but the point is made. When you visit a Greek family you hear a lot of people talking loudly and at the same time, offering you loads of well cooked food. Some of them may hate Turks as well, at least only in a superficial way. But these people wouldn't hurt anyone. Being a little familiar with the customs of the Greeks and other ethnic communities myself I found this movie amusing and refreshing. Kudos to the makers.
This is a movie about the beauty that exists in the world and how the
is lost in the "process". I do not believe that the American dream is that
bad as portrayed in the movie. Just that one has to live the American
with a little caution. The movie is about what the heroes really want to
and about what they are forced to do unwillingly so that they project the
right image to the society.
There are many different little messages in the movie but the main one I think is said last. That we should feel enormous gratitude for every little moment in our stupid miserable life. And that we should feel happy and satisfied inside ourselves no matter what happens around us. We should appreciate little things in life and success after all is not everything. Lusts are pure once we understand them and identify the reasons why we have them. Emotional void is the real problem; However there is no reason why we should feel in such way since the world around us is so beautiful.
The movie had an excellent script, was brilliantly directed, and had a very touching score written by Thomas Newman. The performances of all the main actors were great. And let me tell you my favorite quote: "My job concerns mainly masking my contempt for the a**holes in change and at least once a day...". Brilliant!
If one wants to portray Jesus as a man and God at the same time as the
Christian scriptures say one must imagine how his personality would have
been. Clearly Jesus had one of the most intense personalities that ever
walked the earth. This is the reason why he was put to death at so young
age. I liked Willem Dafoe's performance in the "Last temptation of Christ"
because he was portraying Christ as a tormented genius. He was the Son of
God but also a man who understood that in order to defeat death he had to
die willingly. Willem Dafoe, with a brilliant performance, conveyed this
Dafoe was a laughing as well as a suffering Jesus. My problem with this movie is that Jesus does not suffer very much. Only laughs. Perhaps I have seen the movie only once. However the movie has some redeeming values. For example, a nice depiction of the temple! Also, nice retelling of the political aspects of the Jesus story. Clearly Pilate was the most responsible individual for the death of Jesus. He did not want to save his life. Only to show that his death was not his responsibility, as shown in the picture. Acting was fine. If only Willem Dafoe was there to shout: "I am the end of the old Law and the beginning of the new one".
I thought some of the reviews made on this movie were biased. I looked with
awe the way middle earth is recreated in this picture and forgot the fact
that the journey of the hobits through the forest is shortened. This does
not mean that hobits are pushed into the background. Not at all. Frodo is
the main hero and he is important because he is not affected by the evil of
the ring. This is very clear in the film.
Of course there are little differences here and there but for the better of the adaptation. Summary: I can't wait to see the two towers and the return of the king.
I thought that the criticism against this movie is unfair. The love story
was correctly portrayed as the chemistry that is created between a boy
growing to man and an older woman. He is full of enthusiasm, she is
sceptical and pragmatic. The dialogue was not stupid, and definitely not
boring. There were many interesting and memorable quotes, such as, that Jedi
are trained to feel unconditional love. The Phantom Menace, which I do nor
consider a bad movie, had many interesting lines too.
As for the whole look of the movie. Well, it is Star Wars. It does not try to be better than the other movies overall, not worse. These movies represent the saga we all grew up with so going to the theater for the new installment is like paying homage to our childhood.
|Page 1 of 3:||  |