Reviews

All the other reviews on this site seem to be delighted by this movie. I don't agree. Perhaps I was watching through western eyes, but it did not strike me as a good film.

The topic is very serious: corruption, police brutality, repression... I generally like movies about these things. So what is the problem? Well, everything has a steady Bollywood feel. The bad guys are soooo rotten. The good guys are simply angelic. Everyone on screen over-acts. And there is a subplot about some prostitutes which I would almost call exploitative. No real nudity, but almost.

This is my first Egyptian movie, and also the first one I saw by Chanine. I know that he is a renowned director and I intend to see more of his movies; I hope that the older ones are better...

Serafino lives an idyllic life in his little village. All he needs to be happy are daily adventures with local women, and they find it hard to resist him.

This plot does not seem very promising, but as the movie rolled on I found myself attached to this simple character and very much amused by the movie. Note that, contrary to expectations, there is absolutely no nudity in he movie. However, the viewing requires a good translation (if one does not speak Italian) to enjoy the juicy dialogues.

Once again I am convinced that searching for less known movies by Pietro Germi pays off immensely. Most people are acquainted only with a few of his best known (such as "Divorzio all'italiana"), but he had produced several more true gems (I recommend "In nome della legge" and "La città si difende", among others).

At this time this TV series can be seen for free on the official site of RTV, so this is a warm recommendation to see it. The main reason is the bounty of powerful, emotional scenes. The spectator gets to live through characters' disappointments, humiliations and treasons and feel it all with them.

This is an adaptation of a novel from Aleksandar Tisma, perhaps the best known Vojvodinian writer outside Serbia. It is quite faithful. The only drawback (other that the title that I dislike) may be that it is a few episodes too long; it slows down around a bit 9th or 10th episode, but picks up the pace again in the finale.

The acting is very inspired from most of the crew. I want to single out two actors that may not be so well-known yet, but who (I feel) made the performances of their careers so far. The first is Bojan Zirovic as Patak and the other Ivan Djordjevic as Stepanov.

Whether this movie will be interesting to anyone outside Serbia, I do not know. For me, its main appeal is the fact that the protagonists are several people important for Serbian history. Let me say just a few words to try to describe what I mean.

Most of the movie takes place in Novi Sad. The main square of Novi Sad is (unofficially) Miletic's Square, dominated by the statue of the youngest mayor of the city in history. Almost each time you want to meet someone in the city center, you meet at Miletic's. Jovan Jovanovic Zmaj was one of greatest poets in Serbia, excelling both in children's and adult poetry. The most famous street in Novi Sad, reserved for pedestrians, starts from Miletic's square; it is called Jovan Jovanovic Zmaj Street. Milica Tomic, Miletic's daughter, was one of the most prominent women in the political and social life of the time, and one of the first fighters for gender equality. Herself, Jasa Tomic and Misa Dimitrijevic also have important streets in Novi Sad named by them. So to watch their lives unfold should mean much to anyone from Novi Sad, especially knowing about their deep mutual connections. It is nice to compare this to the biopic of another Serbian poet, Laza Kostic, filmed several years ago, where some of these characters also appear significantly.

Now for the movie itself: I must admit I liked it very much. Like most Serbian historical movies, it has a sort of sterile look about it. What I mean is that much attention is given to costumes, scenography etc.; perhaps it all looks too perfect, not real-life like. However, this is annulled by great acting from some of the cast. First of all, Ljubomir Bandovic simply becomes Miletic, and his transformation toward the end, as the character deteriorates, is fascinating. Also, Zarko Lausevic excels as Zmaj, just as he did in most of his earlier roles. And the story itself seems to be quite faithful to the truth, possibly with one exception: it seems to me that Dimitrijevic is made a bad guy, while in reality he was also an important figure of the time; he simply took a more moderate path, which sometimes gives better results than the radical one.

To summarize: for anyone in Serbia, this is well worth watching. But it may be that this story will appeal to others as well.

This TV movie follows the extremely successful TV series "Vratice se rode". Unfortunately, it is very, very bad. It seems like someone decided to make a New Year special 10 days before, the writers had no time to come up with a script, so everyone just improvised. The only thing resembling a plot is about a new character, Ekser's buddy from the orphanage, and it makes no sense whatsoever. To make things worse, it lasts for over 2 hours and 20 minutes. It is a pity, since there they had some great actors with already developed characters. However, one needs at least a shred of an idea to make a movie.

This is an early Benigni showing his great comedy potential. There are four stories, connected only by the main actor. The first is also the funniest, with Benigni as a clumsy shepherd babysitting little Jesus Christ for a night. Full of blasphemous moments, and still quite innocent, the story offers an alternative origin of many moments from the later life of Jesus. The second one is an allegory of married life, with a few twists. Also very amusing. The third one may be the weakest, about a man getting a loan from the bank. However, it seems to me that quite a few jokes were lost in translation; I only managed to decipher a few. The last story is about two watchmen guarding the eternal flame beside Altare della Patria. Benigni is bored and bothers his mate with childish and silly jokes, bothering all of us in the way... To recapitulate, it is a funny little film, and Benigni fans won't be dissapointed.

This is a very nice complement to better-known "Santa Maria della Salute" by the same director, made 30 years later. It begins about the time "Santa Maria" ends, with Laza Kostic married, but many more prominent people in Serbia needing help to survive, neglected by the autocratic king Aleksandar Obrenovic. Milan Savic devoted much of his life to helping them, and he was one of the best known Serbs of the time. The movie is very well done (in my opinion, better than "Santa Maria"), with many great actors bringing their characters into life again. Especially enjoyable is the scene depicting the attempt to marry Jovan Cvijic to a rich heiress, with hilarious Mira Banjac and Drago Cuma. Funny and tragic at the same time...

Such variety of styles, paces, technical devices... Everyone who is not looking just for cheap fun should be able to find something for himself, yet I am sure nobody will like all the segments. On the other hand, every segment will be a favorite for someone... I read the Soseki book just before watching the movie and I highly recommend this order of moves. Each story is only a few pages long. However only the Ichikawa segment is more-or-less straight adaptation of the second story; others use the stories only to begin with and develop their own visions of them. The eight segment is another extreme: at least I could not make any connection with the barbershop story. Some segments are creepy, some just funny. What is common to all stories/segments is that they are philosophical, each addressing one universal topic of the human life.

This movie leaves so many various impressions on a viewer, it is impossible to form a final opinion. To begin with, it is a British western, with two great British actors in the leads. Then, there is the actress, looking quite like Bardot. And then, even the atmosphere reminded me of "Et Dieu... crea la femme" in certain scenes (Bogarde called it camp, and you can see why). During certain scenes you are thinking that it will go the way of other movies with similar plot ("Satan never sleeps" is an example), ending in infinite praise of the religion, without measure or sense. But then it turns the other way and surprises you. And in the end you come to see that even some deep religious deeds can be interpreted as acts of latent homosexual love... I know it sound bad but, somehow, unlike modern movies, the topic is introduced subtly. Anyway, you should see it yourself and decide whether you like it or not...

Given the money being invested in TV shows nowadays, it is unlikely that most viewers will be swept away with "The Forsyte Saga" from the very beginning. Although the acting, costumes and scenography are good, some of it seems modest compared with the likes of "The Crown"; for me the weakest side of it was the aging of characters: some of them look the same in the beginning and 30 years later. However, once you get acquainted with the characters you are drawn into their world. The beautiful thing is that you can sympathize with all of the main personas, share their dilemmas and misfortunes. Especially distinctive is Soames, being portrayed far more human and fragile than in the novels (at least as I remember them). The last two episodes are among the most emotional stuff I have seen lately.

Nikolai Stavrogin is a person that tries to prove his freedom by believing in nothing and mocking everything and everyone around him. Unfortunately, he is also a handsome and charismatic man, influencing many people. So, "the devils went out of this Russian man and entered into a herd of swine..."; his eloquent (but meaning nothing to himself) speeches leave deep marks in others and cause a lot of suffering and even death.

Although Stavrogin is the central character of the Dostoyevsky's novel, in this movie it is not so. He disappears about half an hour before the end. Instead, the movie is focused on Shatov, the only character one could possibly identify with. I guess Wajda wanted us to see the story from Shatov's viewpoint.

Some parts of this story are transferred to screen nicely; however other important parts are only touched or completely missing. Many important characters pass unnoticed. I guess the natural thing to think is that such a complex and long novel can not be faithfully dramatized. However, having seen a theater adaptation in Narodno pozorište in Belgrade, I can testify that this is not true. I would probably think much more of this movie if I haven't previously seen the play.

I wonder whether someone who hasn't read the novel could follow the plot. My impression is that they couldn't, and that the movie addresses mostly those who have.

There are also other minor objections. For example, Isabelle Huppert gets first billing although she appears for less than 10 minutes. Nevertheless, the movie complements the book fine and I feel that Dostoyevsky admirers should see it.

The core of this film is a girl's sacrifice, a motive familiar from the better-known Lagerlof adaptation "The Phantom Carriage". It is perhaps interesting that this story was also previously adapted as a silent film by Victor Sjostrom.

The movie is quite faithful to the book. There are only minor differences, where Sirk uses nicely advantages of visual presentation; for example the scene of committing perjury at the beginning is followed by a close-up of a woman's hands, twitching in fear of witnessing a deadly sin. Also, several references to supernatural things are added, which is a nice nod to other Lagerlof works (a short story about an elf guarding farmers' houses; unfortunately I don't know its English title).

All in all, enough reasons for lovers of classic movies / adaptations / romances to see this one too.

This is a very faithful adaptation of one of Chekhov's best-known stories. Although a Yugoslav movie, with some of the all-time best Balkan actors, it was directed by a Romanian director, Lucian Pintilie, who later made quite a few films that were very successful at film festivals (Cannes, Venice).

The plot touches many questions that have been bothering the humanity throughout centuries; there are citations from Marcus Aurelius, Diogenes and other classical philosophers. What is madness? Can one be in control of his own destiny? Is there any meaning to existence? Of course, we don't get any specific answers, but are left wondering and even (after 90 minutes of listening to the excruciating soundtrack of the movie, resembling the sound of a train) questioning our own sanity.

To conclude, this is not a movie anyone will enjoy, but certainly one to give you something to think of.

This movie is loosely based on Nobel prize winner Ivo Andric's short story "Put Alije Djerdjeleza" ("The Voyage of Alija Djerdjelez"). However, many events are added, and the main character is considerably changed: he is not lust-crazed but haunted by the blood spilled in his many military campaigns.

The title means "ghazi", a distinguished Muslim warrior. Indeed, at the beginning we see Alija as a fearless warrior, respected by all. But, just like Shakespeare's Coriolanus, war is his all life, and he is not able to deal with other people. So many hate him, and even he loathes some of his actions.

In the movie you can also see a reconstruction of life in Balkans under the Turks. There are many fine actors in minor roles as well. It is certainly a worthwhile viewing.

If you saw other Italian "historical" movies from this period then you know what to expect:

-Terrible acting,

-Beautiful girls,

-Awful dialogue, and

-Brain-insulting twists in the story.

I guess all the positive things (apart from the ladies :)) about this movie are what is taken from the book, so I guess it would be better to look for another version.

Just to make one thing clear: I am a fan of classic movies, and this being old is by no means the reason for disliking it. It is simply bad.

I like many things about this movie. First, the story. Although it certainly has flaws, it is very interesting. All the time I was watching the movie I was trying to decide if the British and the Cyprus people were portrayed objectively or not. With the exception of few scenes (boys with a knife in the beginning and the character of Hagios) I think they are. For most of the movie Bogarde is not a nice guy at all. This only goes to show the wide variety of roles he embodied.

And I must say that I don't understand other people's negative comments about Susan Strasberg, I think she was great here. And most of all, she was gorgeous, in a natural way.

If only the plot was relieved from a few clumsy turns, it could have been a great movie...