Reviews written by registered user
|8 reviews in total|
I believe that the comments of a solicitor (see earlier reviews) are
completely true and the series is far from being realistic. But am I
enjoying watching House (being a doctor of medicine myself) because it
is realistic? Lol. Of course not, if I would judge it from realistic
side, time, diagnostic, budget and ethical constrains we have in real
life, House is an annoying and superficial series, turning medicine
into a tragicomic theater - but I choose to relax and enjoy the show.
Same applies to Silk.
Like House, the fun of Silk lies mostly in its dialogs and, to some extent, non verbal communication and narcissistic characters (in and out of the court). Note I agree Silk lacks building of the characters. We only learn about Martha. We are becoming almost obsessed with her, as the camera frequently stays on her face for loooong time. Thus, not much place left for others or to put in some more of a story. However, I need to disagree with the previous reviewer about Clive Reader character. The comment about him was: "When he is not being a jackass, he's as nice and loyal as a puppy." Emmm .... This sounds like a stereotype of a successful alpha man and I definitely know a few like him (unfortunately not that cute to be worth making use of it).
I am a bit puzzled how some characters (Kate Brockman? - I thought she was allowed to stay?) disappear completely out of series as new ones get introduced. We miss the old ones, too. Am very puzzled over John Bright character as well. We are allowed to glance at his stunning and gorgeous appearance in almost every chapter, never to touch under surface - I wonder about his work and why is he sitting in the office ... Acting is good, but many times slightly exaggerated (theater style) - an example would be Jake Milner character. Pushing it a bit too far (but cute anyway).
The series seems underrated to me at IMDb. I promise it wont insult your intellect if you understand the concerns I raised above and have no expectations of any realism. It will give you an interesting drama, tension and sublime interactions. I love it, even though it looses its way at times. I think it is very enjoyable, much more than any other series I have seen.
Thank you, Ariel Dorfman, for being able to speak for the Dead. I am
sure they would be proud and honored by Dorfman's voice in this movie.
It has been several hours since I've seen this documentary, but it just
doesn't let go of my thoughts. Not only Dorfman is a witness, a story
teller, an intellectual in an exile, he also provides a humble, yet
interesting criticism of his own survival of the coup: "Maybe I should
have gone there, expose myself and get killed. But I was a coward." He
made his self-preservation fear justified by his work and testimony.
But this story is beyond accusation of the political injustice and violent regime. It is also beyond history. Dorfman doesn't need to point a finger, although the story has to be told for the Death he is representing, for the people that "vanished", for the dead bodies, that have been, by making them disappear for their family, "deprived of their own death". The death has been unofficial for them. So was the story of his grandma - Dorfman has to face the guilt of being abroad and the pain of being "deprived" of her death. I also love the fact Death and the Maiden, his most renown work (besides this movie?) is included, because this work is ubiquitous and timeless. You can apply it to any crisis, any abuse of human rights and - any country in the world.
Nemo propheta in patria: Dorfman admits the exile has given him many multicultural dimensions, provided a different perspective for him. He visits his homeland to later return in the USA. A friend of him explains why this is needed, both for the USA and for Chile: his voice needs to be out in the world.
Another turning point in the documentary: in a spirit of true democracy, Dorfman would fight for the rights of Pinochet fans to express their opinion. Puzzled and shocked by Pinochet's heart attack, Dorfman explores the temptations of revengeful feelings, only to reject them instantly: "I don't want anybody's death, not even my worst enemies'. I want him to be prosecuted." Similarities with Milosevic, anyone? Am I the only one who sees the man is a Nobel prize material?! I LOVE IT and am looking forward to see it again at least twice. The messages in it are too strong to be neglected and overlooked. Furthermore, you will not be bored for a single moment. This is emotionally loaded, well timed movie. I did not rate it 10 just because I empathize politically, I strongly believe this is an excellent made masterpiece.
Nowadays every band needs a movie. I went to see this one because I really like their music, I find it fascinating and (even in the times of globalization) very exotic. This movie offers some postcards from the trip to Cambodia, some comments about two different cultures (but if you read the plot, that's about it). It has absolutely no background, no focus, no intention and - even as a road-movie - no specific geographical placement. See it if you want to enjoy the music from their postcards from Cambodia. Any knowledge of the country is given a bit superficial and in a rush to the next performance. Some people therefore left the cinema, but since I didn't have big expectations, I just relaxed and enjoyed the music.
This is a narcissistic try of Vivien Lesnik Weisman to make a "big
documentary". Although it includes great political issues, that need to
be put out in the light and discussed, she makes a crucial mistake: she
makes it all about HER. Her voice is unnatural (in narrative mode),
artificial. We see that when she speaks in the scenes, her voice is
actually normal and calm, without unnecessary grandiose manner. When we
get interested in people she is portraying, she cuts it and pulls it
back to ... herself. It is like looking a family album, wanting to know
more, much more, while she keeps interrupting our questions to be able
to point at herself at the photos. When visiting interiors, the bigger
amount of time would be spent on camera chasing her (in a nice dress)
than showing the place itself.
I am sure the issue of this movie is extremely important, it is becoming more important every day, when Cubans are literally left in starvation and poverty, but Lesnik Weisman just didn't make a good job. She apparently also never understood her father, nor his humility, energy, cause and the idea of revolution. She concludes the documentary claiming she is able to understand him now, come closer to him - but abuses this claim to steal the media cameras from him and focus them - you guessed by now - on herself.
Other than that, the structure of the movie suffers greatly, the shifts between the scenes and happenings are many times too rough, the monologues are left too unfocused. She tries to fit everything in this movie: politics, Cuban life, American life, both of the languages, lots of violent history, family life, political opponents, terrorists and herself. Overcrowded.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Unlike many cineasts, I was not fond of Kurosawa's early works. I think
I even LEFT at one. Sorry. Since I've read this movie is different and
doesn't contain the horror stuff that chased me away before, I luckily
gave it a chance.
I love the movie's tempo: there is enough detail put on each of the characters. A traditional father figure as a bread winner is dissolving. Other traditional roles are vanishing as well. Surprisingly, we find the strongest, central figure, to be the youngest family member. Unlike quiet, pulled back and distant children, portrayed frequently in movies as innocent observers, accompanied by cheesy music, we face a surprisingly strong character, a decision maker and the only one who takes constructive actions to achieve something, in spite of many obstacles. Regardless of this child's effort, the entire family is shattered in a fairly short time into something that seems impossible to put back together to the viewer. Identity crisis, age crisis, economical crisis, marital crisis, a pile of broken bones and some ink to take the fingerprints at the police. Some death (I wonder if the glorification of a suicide is really necessary, therefore I don't give it a 10). Great drama and interesting humorous perspectives, discretely intertwined in a story. There is no doubt this is a masterpiece. Don't miss it, you won't regret seeing it!
what we saw was a "very dark copy" of a movie (some of the scenes are
extremely dark and we almost saw nothing happening there). good
photography, maybe too close to the protagonists (the viewer is
constantly pushing their intimacy, which is a cheap trick when you
don't have strong story so you make one based on the faces of the
actors - sometimes it works out OK).
the core of the story and it's resolvability is too weak. there is nothing but (social) darkness. very emile zola style. no hope. nothing changed. the movie, in which characters don't change - think about it - that is the ground necessity of the movie, to change its characters so you get some message, so you learn something, something calls for action inside you. everything is extremely apathetic and slowed down in the misery here so you also become that way. yes, you can feel some compassion, but there is nothing you could do. there is no solution and no message (except its the story about "hard working people from the edge").
bottom line: Mike Leigh is so much better in making the same point and he won't leave you with nothing to take home. so if you are craving that kind of movies, seek elsewhere.
ready for something beyond bizarre? this movie will attack your sense
of moral issues. it will break your boundaries. i am too compassionate
not to leave the cinema feeling a bit sick in my stomach, but if you
like that kind of things, this movie is to be highly recommended. you
will not stay indifferent. be ready for a lot of noise, though. people
will leave the cinema constantly. (uh, well, i saw one pregnant woman
leaving - please, this movie is really really contraindicated for
pregnant women!) Dumplings are dark cynical-comedy-horror-society
criticism. it is a subtle movie about cages (social roles, personal
desires and state policies) women (and maybe even men) in our times are
locked into. if you are familiar with the work of Susan Greenhalgh you
will notice some small inconsistencies in the movie, yet the message is
very clear. and please, are you really guessing what is the main
ingredient here? that is clear in the first seconds.
OK, i really felt like vomiting after C'est arrivé près de chez vous (1992) and i must say i'd leave the cinema then if it was my choice, but i was with some people (who, obviously had more enduring stomach than i do). i see many parallels between the two movies. yet they have a totally different stories. they both touch some sacred moral values. they both shamelessly show you something you find absolutely disgusting. are you brave (weird) enough to take it and understand both the allegory of the message and its directness? i am even not sure myself cold see this movie at any day. i do not know a single person i'd recommend this movie to. yet i still think it's a masterpiece. and much, much better than that 1992 unplugged artsy balloon. the use of sounds and photography is brilliant, as is the act of the main protagonists.
i was surprised to see the cinema still quite full at the end. i guess we shouldn't underestimate the average viewer. or are there so many weirdos around? well, what do you know.
this movie glorifies maria de medeiros and her acting capabilities. it
makes you feel the characters, you are sunken within the photography of
it, within the beauty of maria, closeups of her face, glittering of the
tears in her eyes and her fragility. it is based in a dream-like city
surroundings within a fictitious family of two brothers and a suicidal
can brothers be strong enough to protect the sister from herself? can their love be big enough to fight the opposing dark powers in her mind? instead of stability and normality the three of them soon connect to their own circle of pathological interdependence. you envy them for their relationship, even though it's sick. as far as i am considered, this movie is one of my favorite ever. there is not strongly structured story, the movie is grounded more on expressionistic scenes.
i've only seen it once, but it stays inside of me for years, i frequently remember it. i doubt you can leave the theater without being really touched inside after seeing it. i am absolutely amazed by how little attention it got worldwide. and - no comments on IMDb after all these years? wow. this cannot be true? even though the movie is dark and a bit depressive, it is also subtly cathartic. it will not put you in a bad mood, yet it will awake something melancholic inside you, something you 've forgotten exists there.