Reviews

Like it or not, Nikos Kazantzakis has had a decisive influence on Greek letters and the intellectual life of modern Greece. This is probably why it makes me wonder how was it possible for such an experienced director as Smaragdis to present a work so superficial and profoundly dull. We were waiting for a thrilling biopic, but instead of that we got another cliched fairy tale.

Everything in this film is based almost entirely on overused platitudes, idealizations and simplifications. And it's not the cast's fault. All of the leads here are accomplished actors and are honestly doing their best to get something good out of this whole cinematic mess. But the dialogue is so pretentious and the direction so naive that the viewer gets more puzzled and frustrated by the minute. And, by the way, who had the bright idea to have Zorba dance literally every time he's on his feet? It's cheesy and unfair for somebody whose character had had a profound impact on the protagonist's life. The same thing happens with the poet Sikelianos, as he is caricatured as a conceited odd fellow.

Kazantzakis as a writer deserves so much better! This unnecessary idolization doesn't really serve any purpose.

I really have no comment on professional and amateur critics who frown upon the film, just because it's not historically accurate. Some of humanity's greatest visual and literary masterpieces were pure works of fiction, that doesn't diminish one bit of their priceless value.

And how can you not like this film, since all the elements here are in perfect harmony with one another. There's so much beauty and lyricism in this film, that you can't help feeling a little emotional, as you watch it. The music and the way it's used to accompany each scene reaches the standards set by Forman's Amadeus.

Apart from Oldman's impassioned interpretation, I would also like to give credit to Jeroen Krabbe, who plays so vividly the puzzled, but faithful Anton Schindler. Ter Steege's emotional performance is also worthy of note. On the whole, there's hardly a character that doesn't work.

I could go on and on about the film's merits and artistic achievements. It may be fiction, but, until something else appears, it still stands as one of the most interesting works around Beethoven's life and music.

One of the things I really liked about this film was its overall tone and atmosphere. Another thing that really impressed me was the excellent chemistry between Sutherland and Martell. We see these two characters bond slowly, but steadily and nothing fells forced or out of place. The dialogues are quite realistic and all the supporting cast does a fairly good job.

It's a great pity that the last 25-30 minutes were (in my view at least) so inferior to what was happening until that time. Normally, the last part is the part where the actual horror takes place and everyone expects it to be suspenseful and interesting, but it sadly isn't so. The film gets weaker by the minute, it loses all the suspense that was so carefully building up and everything evolves in a perfunctory, to say the least, manner. My humble explanation for that is that the creators probably wanted this to be something more than a tech horror film and tried to stress the dramatic elements a little bit more. This kind of backfired, at least to my way of thinking, and, as a result, we end up with a totally anticlimactic finale. Maybe I am wrong with this interpretation, but that's what I understood after watching it.

It's really a pity, as I already wrote, because the film features some very good performances and has an interesting cinematography, things which are sadly overshadowed by the mediocre ending.

It's worth a watch, all the same.

This is one of those films that try to make a political commentary and tell a coherent story at the same time.

While the film is very good at depicting the dire state of the romanian society in the last years of communism, it somehow fails to prezent Eva's story in a clear way. There are plot holes and unanswered questions, while some aspects could have been explored even more. To paraphrase the old proverb, this film chased two rabbits and came very close to catching both of them.

However, the film's biggest highlight is admittedly Dorothea Petre's performance. She plays the enigmatic Eva with great skill and ability. Through her calm gazes and stoic attitude we get a very clear glimpse of what it really felt like trying to survive under such an oppressive regime without sacrificing your dignity and integrity. It's not just a social, but also a personal drama.

A very interesting film, to say the least.

When I entered the theatre back in 2000 to see Crimson Rivers, I was already feeling sorry for the money I had just spent on the ticket. After its first ten minutes I realized that I was wrong. This thriller had everything. Mystery, dark atmosphere, clever dialogue, shokingly realistic fight scenes and two leading protagonists that were a pleasure to watch.

The only thing that stops me from giving the film a 9 or a 10 is the fact that its plot gets way too complicated towards its final section. I know that directors always look for the great plot twist that is going to take the viewers' breath away, but here I think Kassovitz took it a little bit too far.

In any case, I highly recommend it!

Visually this film is a real pleasure to watch. We see beautiful landscapes, luxurious palaces, impressive sets and anything but cheaply made costumes.

It is a pity that all these interesting things are irrevocably cancelled by the film's infuriatingly slow pace, tiresome scenes and poorly written characters. The leading duo, especially, is totally unconvincing. There is no spark, no chemistry between them, not to mention that some of the lines they exchange are downright silly. The supporting cast fares much better. In fact, I dare say that the supporting characters may be the only reason to keep watching the film after its first hour. Guinness and Mason show their remarkable skills and class, but the film's revelation is undoubtedly Christopher Plummer. His role as mad Emperor Commodus is largely caricatured, but Plummer plays it with so much emotion, that you almost feel sorry for him in the end.

But the film's biggest problem is probably the lack of focus and meaning. Despite its dramatic title, the film can't give us a clear answer as to what it's actually about. Is it about personal and political decay? About romance triumphing over every adversity? About peace and the devastating consequences of war and hate? About loyalty to a leader, even if this leader is clearly incapable? Or maybe it has something to do with embracing change and different cultures? In an attempt at being all of these things, the film sadly winds up being none of them. And all we are left with, in the end, is confusion and boredom.

I do admit that it makes an honest effort to highlight some of the key issues that troubled and ultimately sank the Ancient Roman Empire (such as leadership problems, rampant corruption, insubordinate military, petty ambitions, inequality, increasing hedonism and public indifference, incursions of foreign tribes), but there can be no doubt that the film has no idea how to approach those issues cinematically, so the end result is an extremely long and overly didactic epic that fails to engage us emotionally.

If it hadn't been for Ted Danson's charm and talent, "Mr. Mayor" would have never gone further than a pilot episode. He is like the cavalry coming over the hill, when things get difficult and, believe me, they get difficult (as well as awkward) quite a few times in this rather weak parody of local politics.

I very much want to like it, but, sadly, most of its jokes fall flat and the characters don't seem to have any believeable chemistry whatsoever.

I am not sure whether the problem lies with the writers or with the cast, but something is definitely missing. I guess we will have to wait a few more episodes, before we pass judgment with certainty. In any case, "Mr Mayor" needs a great deal of improvement. You can't expect Ted Danson to carry the show on his own forever.

This particular show was one of MEGA Channel's most successfull comedies. It ran for four full TV-seasons (not a very common thing for Greek television) and featured Gerasimidou's most popular TV character, Parthena, the good hearted Pontic Greek woman who cared deeply for her family and friends. Being a little young to get the humour, I used to snub this show back in the mid 90's, as I thought it was one of those dull comedies for 40-year olds.

Having watched a few of its reruns over the years, I feel obligated now to retract the word "dull" and use the term " arhaic" instead. While there's no doubt that the scripts are written with the best of intentions and all the actors are commited to their roles, the fact remains that "Emeis ki emeis" is a hugely outdated show.

The biggest factor that makes it look so out of fashion today, in my view, is that, in relation to other TV shows of the 90's (like Aparadektoi, To Dis Examartein, Dyo Xenoi), "Emeis ki emeis" never crosses the boundaries of conventional humour. It avoids becoming more sharp or daring. Everybody plays it safe. This was probably enough to raise a laugh back in the 90's, but nowadays it just makes the show look dated and cheesy, while other sharper comedies produced around the same time (and lasted fewer seasons than this) remain as fresh as ever.

Although I belong to the generation that this series was supposedly representing in the early 2000's, I hardly recall any of my schoolmates being a great fan of it. I guess it was one of those shows you'd happen to watch, if there was nothing else on TV. Neither good nor bad. Simply passable. It had some very recognizable actors and some funny guest appearances (especially by Zuganelis), but that was it. On the whole, I think it was conventional and condescending. The humor was well-intended, but not really original. The plots were more or less predictable and in later episodes, when the kids grew up, there wasn't much reason for a teenager (or even a young adult) to continue watching. It's a mystery that such a mediocre show lasted three years and it continues to rerun up to this day.

With a few notable exceptions, the 1980's were artistically a disaster for popular Greek cinema. This particular project exemplifies the shallowness and superficiality, with wich most films were shot back then. Caricatured characters, ridiculous script and mindnumbing humour are only some of the problems to be found in this so-called "quirky" comedy that, sadly, generates more boredom than fun.

Although there have been many great adaptions of the Robin Hood Legends over the last century, I think that this is the one that really stands out. Let's admit it, it's almost impossible to talk of Robin Hood and not think, even for a fraction of a second, of E. Flynn. It's become part of our culture.

This film is probably the best artistic creation the swashbuckling genre could possibly offer. Everything is in its right dosage: the heroism, the humour, the drama and the romance. There is excellent chemistry between the members of the cast and the dialogue is superbly written. You don't have to be an expert to realize the skill, the passion and the effort that was put into this project. Surely it is no coincidence that the film is considered now a point of reference in Holywood filmmaking and up to this day its artistic value remains perfectly intact.

A truly great adventure film that gets even better with age.

The way I see it, Seinfeld became such a huge success (and quite rightly so) for two reasons.

1) It's anything but didactic. While most shows treat their material as if there is always an important lesson to be learned, in the neurotic universe of Jerry Seinfeld and his friends all morals are off. We have no catharsis, no particular character development. Our heroes are slaves to their impulses and obsessions. They commit gaffes because of them, they get in trouble because of them, but they never let go of them. I will agree that it's disheartening (if not tragic), when people refuse to learn and improve themselves, but, as Seinfeld so greatly shows us, it can also be quite hilarious. And I am not talking about mere Schadenfreude. Sometimes people don't change. It's a fact of life and humour is pobably the best way to come to terms with it. As far as I am concerned, I was greatly amused by our heroes' neurotic lifestyle and their almost inherent inability to function socially. I can hardly recall any other ensemble being so unbearable and adorable at the same time.

2) It takes our big-city routine life and ridicules it to unprecedented extremes. Those of us who live in urban areas know very well how hectic the pace of life can be in a big, faceless city. Luckily, Seinfeld is here to remind us that, if we pay close attention, we will gradually realize how crazy and ridiculous our daily realities can get from time to time. So, instead of going constantly through the roof about it, we can take it easy, embrace the ridiculousness around us and life will take its course for better or for worse.

Having watched the first season, I must say I wasn't impressed. Hypocrisy, abuse and corruption in mass media are usually great drama material, but this series somehow manages to turn them into a complete snore-fest. Season 2 wasn't any improvement, as most plot lines were total misfires (especially when they had to deal with Covid etc). I read that the show has reached its fourth season. I don't know if it's worth so many seasons, for me it is a totally superficial show.

As far as I have watched, the series seemed to be completely incapable of involving me, the viewer, in the emotional action. There is too much drama, when you least need it, and no drama at all when everything points to that direction.

The main cast, although impressive, can't save the day either. Jennifer Aniston may be a very beautiful and successful woman, but her acting skills are fairly mediocre. She tries really hard here to be convincing, but all she can offer in the end is a little angrier, darker and twenty years older version of Rachel Green. As for Rees Witherspoon, I don't think she acts to her full potential in this show. Maybe because she is given very little to work with. Steve Carrel is a pozitive surprise, but it's clear that he is somewhat uncomfortable in his role. And, finally, we have Mark Duplass and Billy Crudup who make an honest efort to keep things interesting, but they can't work miracles. I won't comment on the other actors, as I think that the characters they impersonate are pretty much indifferent and not worth analysing. They are so immersed in their elitist microcosm, that after a point we simply can't find any reason to keep following their schemes and secrets.

And, by the way, this constant arguing and shouting in every episode is really getting on the nerves. Not every one can write quality angry monologues like Aaron Sorkin. The creators have clearly overdone it in this respect. Just because you have your actors shout and rant, doesn't automatically mean that their characters are less shallow.

To sum up, "The Morning Show" has some interesting cinematography and a shiny cast, but the end result is not as satisfying as expected.

This movie's ambition is to cauterize the life of a small island community, full of petty backbiting and rampant hypocrisy, in a comical way. It starts rather dynamically, but it runs out of steam very soon. In fact, once the basic setting is revealed, the movie dispenses endlessly one cliche after another.

If not imaginary, the humour is dull and corny. There is not a single line of witty dialogue throughout the entire movie. All we see is hysterical chases, unnecessarily loud conversations, out-of-place swearing and gags that have already been performed a zillion times better in other (and, needless to say, far greater) comedies in the past. Even the naughty scenes are lazily written.

I admit that the story is based on a very clever idea, but that's as far as it goes. After the first twenty minutes it becomes pretty obvious that the creators haven't really figured out what to do with the plot. The movie's finale is a ridiculous circus, which hardly comes as a surprise, as almost every Greek comedy in the last decades can't be considered a real comedy, unless it ends in a more or less absurd fashion. And, by the way, the constant breaking of the fourth wall shows lazy writing, not sophistication.

It's a shame, because the actors that appear in this movie are all very able and talented, but in this case they are given absolutely nothing to work with. I, for one, wouldn't judge them (or their performances in this project) too harshly.

In any case, this movie sold so well that it was (un)lucky enough to get a sequel, the utterly boring and not even remotely funny "Nisos 2".

Personally, I am greatly disheartened to see how contemporary Greek comedies continue to rely, rather obsessively, on raw humour and vulgar jokes, especially at a time when there are so many other interesting paths to be explored.

Let's hope that things will improve someday!

Of course, you can't expect super quality from this Romanian police drama, especially when you know that it was shot during the Ceausescu years (a time of oppression and strict censorship).

However, it has many saving graces. The story is solid. The characters are surprisingly interesting. The propaganda is there, but not so obvious as to make you stop watching. The chases between the Inspector and the Iron Guard are well directed and great fun to watch (especially the staircase and the theatre sequence). It could be argued perhaps that the film is a bit longer than it should be, but, fortunately, the rhythm of the action is good and you don't get too bored.

All in all, Nicolaescu proves one more time that, despite all difficult circumstances and artistic limitations, he is a great cinematographer.

I happened to read an article from 2006 claiming that the series made a botch of Cumali's book (on which is based), by abandoning its original plot and distorting some of its heroes beyond recognition. Although I haven't read the book myself, I don't' believe that taking some liberties with it is the main reason why this series fails to impress.

This show severely lacks tension. This is a serious problem for a series that is supposed to describe the conflicts that plagued the Balkan Peninsula during the first half of the 20th century. I, for one, see it as a very sloppy approach to the Balkan world and its ambiguities. Most scenes seem contrived and the dialogue is stilted at best. The actors are more preoccupied with seeming real rather than acting real. This is particularly the case with the show's protagonist. From his first to his last scene he seems incapable of making us believe that he's actually going through whatever his character is going through. The same goes for the supporting characters too, many of which come across as wooden and static. The dubbing makes matters worse, as it utterly destroys whatever shred of originality and surprise could be found in the dialogue.

In addition, the series could have been far better visually. I am not an expert on cinematography, but my humble opinion is that the directors could have done considerably better, as far as sets, lighting, costumes and colours are concerned. Unfortunately, the shots and the images produced here don't add any depth to the story. Instead they make it look even phonier. There are scenes that look like cheap documentary re-enactments or, even worse, fancy dress parties.

Moreover, the series doesn't really excel in combating Balkan stereotypes, despite its promise for objectivity. On the contrary, it fully accepts and reproduces them with an air of western european snobism.

The music and the beautiful landscape help sugarcoat the pill a little, but, for its most part, the series cannot even remotely involve us emotionally in the dramatic action. This is really a pity, because it could have been a very interesting mini-series, if the subject had been treated with the attention and respect it deserves.

I am amazed that a film such as this went down so badly with the professional critics. Without meaning any disrespect to their judgement and experience, I think they panned a fairly good film. I agree that there is a great deal of forced melodrama, as well as too many convenient coincidences to further the plot. I also agree that the visuals could have been better handled. However, none of these things can stop us from thoroughly enjoying it.

First of all, the story itself is very interesting. I don't think there are many films (Hollywood or non-Hollywood) that examine so closely the challenges and the hard work that comes with the writing of a dictionary (in this case, the monumental Oxford Dictionary of the English Language). In addition, the film should be commended for the manner in which approaches contrasting themes like insanity versus logic, redemption versus damnation, open-mindedness versus prejudice etc. Both Gibson and Penn give extremely solid, if not powerful, performances and so does the rest of the cast, even if the script sometimes feels noticeably weak. Despite the cliches, the dialogue is quite convincing and this is how we get real-looking, three-dimensional characters to whose ordeal and suffering we can relate.

In short, "The Professor and the Madman" is a very satisfying and enjoyable film. It is certainly worth watching, if not for the story, then for the excellent acting skills of Mel Gibson and Sean Penn.

This film is visually a masterpiece. The same thing can also be told for its haunting music. Sadly, these two elements are hardly enough to make this war drama a memorable film.

Politically speaking, Voulgaris tries his best to overcome his leftist biases and take an objective outlook of the civil war that devastated Greece from 1946 to 1949. His effort, however, falls rather short and the reason for that is not so much his implicit sympathy towards the Left as his exaggerated enthusiasm to maintain an equal distance between the two camps. There are times that Voulgaris becomes so keen on being objective that he actually neglects some other basic elements of the film, such as plot, character development and dramatic conflict (not to speak of historical accuracy or authenticity). Of course, when you make a film of this nature, the last thing you want is to be accused of trying to manipulate the audience. However, telling the viewer at every step of the way "I'm not taking sides, I'm not manipulating you" is also a sort of manipulation and it ultimately kills the dramatic tension on which this picture hugely depends.

History and politics, however, are not the main flaws of the film. In my humble opinion, the reason why this picture fails to make an impression is rather an artistic one. First of all, the characters come across really shallow. No real depth to make us empathize with their cruel destiny. Wooden and non-realistic dialogues play also an essential part in creating a huge distance between us, the viewers, and the dramatic action that takes place in the film. Furthermore, there are problems with the script and the contrived storytelling. The story is mainly based on the "brother against brother" cliche. This is not necessarily a flaw. In fact, it starts as one of the film's strongest points. It's a pity that, as the story progresses, the film doesn't seem to know how to handle it, in order to explore its full dramatic potential. This is also the case with most of the film's themes. They are executed in such a rushed and heavy-handed manner that the viewer ultimately loses all interest in the story. As for the sound and the visuals, they are both of the highest quality. Nevertheless, good photography and music cannot always make up for weak storytelling, especially when we are talking about a war drama.

With these in mind, is no real wonder why the film was reproached by many with being melodramatic. With no solid characters, uninteresting sequences (with a few exceptions) and a rather weak script, a melodrama is all you get in the end.

However, one should not forget that the Greek Civil War is something that still stirs up painful memories in Greek society and trying to make a film about it, takes undoubtedly a certain degree of courage. Voulgaris took a risk where others wouldn't and that does him credit. But, for better or for worse, not all risks pay off.

There is no denying that this film has some obvious shortcomings. It moves slowly, it has rather weak dialogue and some of its parts lack authenticity. However, it triumphs in an area where almost every other Greek patriotic film has failed and that is the detailed depiction of the inner conflict between the protagonists' personal feelings and their commitment to the national cause. In films like "Papaflessas" or "Souliotes" we see the heroes talk of self-sacrifice so many times and so pompously that everything looks unreal and unconvincing. Here we are faced with the human emotion as it really is. These men know they are going to lose their lives, but they decide to go and fight. They know what they leave behind, but they are determined to aid their compatriots and they march on. They are plagued by feelings of doom, but they still continue with their perilous journey. This inner conflict is depicted masterfully in the gloomy faces of the heroes, their stoic silences, their raw reactions, their melancholic movements.

In short, "Exodos 1826" is a decent project and a fresh approach to the Greek patriotic film genre. It is not perfect, but it is undoubtedly a step forward.

Watching "The Dragon" one can very well understand the reason why greek audiences took a dislike to it back in the fifties. The film was anything but the sobby dramas or the shallow comedies of the time. It was shocking, dark, daring, deeply political and heartbreaking. It held a mirror to the troubled greek society and naturally people were alarmed and confused by what they saw. But nowadays there is little doubt that Koundouros's melancholic satire defined greek cinema, by iniating fresh and more daring ways of film-making in Greece. Six and a half decades after its creation, the artistic and cultural value of the film remains intact.

This wannabe family comedy makes an honest efort to be entertaining. However everything falls apart, the minute we see Y. Moutsios playing the valet in a blackface makeup. From that point on, the film simply exploits one stereotypical, if not racist, joke after another. Of course, certain allowances have to be made, given the fact that Greece was being run by a military junta, nationalism was dominant and a native African actor would probably have not been considered acceptable for a family comedy (let alone the fact that a native African actor was very difficult to find in the Greek society of the 70's). But even if we make these allowances, the end result remains poor. It should be clarified, however, that the actors that appear in the film were all extremely talented and everyone revered them. In this case they had to deal with a mission impossible: make an incurably cheesy script seem believable. It's not their fault that the effort fell through.

No disrespect to the honorable intentions of its creators, but this film is far from being a satisfying experience. Whether you are an aficionado for historical films or just a regular cinephile, you can't help but feeling a little irked by the film's mediocrity. No matter how impressive some palaces or costumes may look, they hardly make up for pompous acting, cliched dialogue and tiresome scenes. On television it could have made a fairly acceptable soap opera. The big screen, however, is a totally different story.

What's more disappointing is that major historical figures of Romania, such as Bratianu, Averescu, King Ferdinand, Prince Carol (future King Carol II) and others are depicted as poor caricatures of themselves. The same goes for personalities like Lloyd George, Woodrow Wilson and Clemenceau. While it's common knowledge that cinema is definitely not a history class, we simply can't overlook the fact that the way in which the film adapts historical facts and characters to its narrative is an injustice to a whole era, both historically and artistically.

There is no depth, no other dimension to any of the protagonists. Apart from the leading lady, presented in a rather messianic light, the film overflows us with dozens of supporting characters and the minute we start taking a slight interest in them, it flatly abandons them.

Roxana Lupu seems to be more excited about getting to play the role of the queen than about the role itself. She tries her best to look convincing, but, being so heavy-handedly directed, she does very little in making us truly empathize with her character. A case in hand in this respect is the pompous manner in which her character (the queen) repeats throughout the film how much she loves Romania and how proud she feels to lobby for her country's interests. In my humble opinion, if you are making films and you want to convey certain feelings and messages to your audience, this ought to be reflected in your cinematic approach as a whole, not in just a few lines of dialogue (which in this film is infuriatingly repetitive). Cinema is, after all, a very powerful medium and, if one posesses the skill, one may be able to convey a thousand messages in just one frame without anyone having to speak a single word. However, making your actors repeat the same things for two hours and in a such overblown manner, is dull, uninspired and a little insulting to the viewer's intelligence (not to mention that it adds to the characters' artificiality).

All in all, the film leaves a great deal to be desired and that is really a pity, because an important figure such as Queen Maria and a major geopolitical event like the creation of Greater Romania deserve much better than cheap romanticism. I am amazed that, having such a great material in their hands, the creators of the film could offer nothing more than a series of heavily used clichés. They may be the safe option and guarantee tickets, but, at the end of the day, all they leave behind is an audience addicted to low-quality filmmaking and, on a second level, a number of misconceptions regarding Romania's modern past.