Reviews written by registered user
|1599 reviews in total|
the house. and the performance of Judith Anderson. the memories after first meeting with this film who remains interesting proof of Rene Clair genius.a classic Agatha Christie adaptation, it remains source of a lot of surprises because the atmosphere and its construction, the perfect angles and the nuances of performance, the tension and dialogs are pillars for a solid artistic work. sure, many crime movies are more fascinating but, in this case, the details are key for a special image and the science of director to use each by each the possibilities of novel/script are remarkable. a film for each season/age/artistic taste. short- a kind of gem. and not ordinary one.
a dark Utopia. mixture of white and tension. a splendid final image. at first sigh, it seems too slow and ambiguous. in fact, it is only ambitious early project of George Lucas who preserves the entire map used for Star War series. but in case not the story, who can be obvious technical impress, but the acting. fascinating work of Robert Duvall, the great performance of Donald Pleasence, the basic recipes of story and the atmosphere. nothing new but useful for a realistic portrait of a closed world. a film who has the virtue to remind the roots of a great director and to reflect old daily fears. in same measure, a reflection support about society and religion, truth and right decisions. a Sci. Fi/black Utopia. not an ordinary one.
for its images and for the delicate soul of story. for acting and for few magnificent scenes. the necessary tribute - martial art moments and a sketch of love story are present as tools for seduce the public, a not very inspired idea in this case. all is beautiful. but something missing. not the good intentions or artistic virtue but the courage to walk in deep essence of story. it seems almost superficial or only a sketch. because , after Mongol and a solid bibliography, the force of subject is generous. Genghis Han was not a statue or a character of novel. and Taoism has a lot of halls who can be bricks for amazing movie. but for director, the high ambition was to create a correct film. is it enough ? maybe, not at whole.
the fairy tale. the inspiration of Frank Oz. the delicate seduction. and old fashion atmosphere. a film who can be splendid alternative to each blockbuster or explosion of special effects. because it is seductive and dark, romantic and touching, a form of lesson in wise nuances and admirable exercise of imagination and right work. more than a film, it is a piece of memory. more than a nice animation, it is vehicle for generous idea. so, it remains fresh and a new discover of it represents almost magic meeting. far to be perfect, it is really fascinating. that is its virtue. a couple and a mission. and the end as useful revelation. a film for every season/age/expectation.
final part of series, it is a basket with answers after the first parts questions. in same measure, it is a good political movie, far to classic recipes but really convincing to discover the novel. it is almost unrealistic in many scenes but it has the rare gift to seduce and to have the force to give inspired skin to a remarkable story. Noomi Rapace use each possibility of her role and the crisis of Millennium team is presented in inspired manner. in same measure, it is a film about Sweden system and that makes the difference by American crime genre. because, far to be only an adaptation, it represents a portrait of a country. and this fact is real significant - the rules, the democratic lines and limits, the role of silence and the justice , the force of civil society. a beautiful series. and , maybe, the most inspired form to adapted a success book.
the basic problem - the high expectations. result - impression than after first part, the entire magic is off and the film is only one from many others. but all is the same. the beautiful performance of Noomi Rapace, the portrait of Blomkvist, the music. only sin - the lost of force intensity. far to be a mediocre movie, it is not the best adaptation. the cause can be the hurry. or the perception of novel. short, it has not the convincing virtues of first part. but it has same tension and same mark of Millennium series. maybe, it is not enough. but , far to represent a disappointment, it is a good film. sure, not remarkable. but nobody is perfect
sounds strange but it is more than a good adaptation. it is a splendid cinema show in which light, performance, the angle, the music makes a great result. powerful, seductive, different. and all seems be to clear for a crime movie who reminds old manners to construct the tension and to give force to each scene. the success of novel is only part of the film axis. it is the wise science of Daniel Alfredson to use the sensitivity of viewer and to have the best actors for build the right atmosphere. it is the virtue of actors to select the right technique to walk on a fragile bridge. and, sure, it is the chance of viewer to discover a remarkable movie mark of thoroughly work.
a film of good intentions. that is all. and it is not correct to search a guilty or to imagine a better version. because it represents only a demonstration of a period sensitivity and manner to realize a decent Gothic film. sure, the script seems have many possibilities and the acting is far to be high. but the good intentions are obvious. and the desire to translate on screen the nuances of story in the best manner. but this ambition is the cage for movie. so, after the long chain of disappointment, remains only the beginning and the end as reasonable parts. because the confusion is heavy mist and the clichés are so many. a film for fans of genre. that is all.
for the science to use the novel, for the science to give a new version of story, for the moral content and transformation of horror rules. not extraordinary for our time, it remains convincing. that is its virtue and key for who is not just another horror. the secret, in part, the Peter Cushing performance who explores the scientist passion in a special manner. a film loyal in spirit to Mary Shelley work but original for the windows who opens it with clear courage, force and wise tools. the images, the story, the details makes the difference. and makes seductive an old film, a very old theme and a cast who creates new dimensions to horror genre. a movie not exactly for delight or fans. but an admirable lesson about making a not common film.
not for distance of time but for the mixture of high performance, exotic atmosphere and correct love story. it could seems be silly today, to pink or childish but the technique aspects, the construction of characters, the ambiguous aspects of Dietrich role and the precise references to classic stories are the good point.a seductive film for its special flavor and for the role of part of a image about Africa, different by Casablanca but important for the sensitivity of a period, mixture of romanticism, ambiguity and heroism, sacrifice and great love. a film for each time. not only for its documentary value, but for the quality of source of nostalgia.
|Page 1 of 160:||          |