Reviews

One of the first scenes shows a man sitting in a car watching a house in the distance, rain is falling, a voice from the off says something about the time 5 a.m. and how this is sleeping time for most people but for some it is working hours... With this tribute to the film noir such as "The Naked City" (1948) the mood is set. And so it went on with tributes to pictures and movie genres. Epic films like "Ben Hur", Esther Williams with synchronised swimmers, Western movies, dancing sailors that have Gene Kelly written all over it. It has it all. Someone had already made a reference to Woody Allens "Radio Days". I agree. This has a similar feeling. The Coen Brothers, however, look at it in a satirical, not to say critical way and show the square and bourgeois way of life in the 50s. Illegitimate pregnancy or homosexuality are fatal for a career in the studios, and there is of course a reference to the McCarthy era. It is a great joke, though, that the screenplay writers who had kidnapped the movie star (Clooney) are indeed upright communists. And Clooney, typically cast as the idiot in a Coen picture, ends up studying Marx' "Kapital" with his kidnappers. The comedy in "Hail, Cesar!" is rather subtle, and the actual story is not at all complex and quickly told. Instead there are scenes, such as the aforementioned dancing sailors, that don't drive the plot forward at all. Maybe that's a reason for the mixed reviews. It didn't bother me. I enjoyed "Hail, Cesar!". A lot.

Okay, I admit that I only watched the pilot, but life is too short to watch more of it.

The plot fits on the back side of a bus ticket. It is all about the erotic aspects of a women torn between her 20th century husband and an 18th century Scotsman.

I have absolutely no desire to see the next episode. This is nothing but cheap and boring entertainment, far from being anything interesting, appealing or thought provoking. How does an emancipated woman of 1945 fit into the 18th century? How could she make a profit out of her advanced knowledge of science and technology? The screenplay authors couldn't care less about those questions.

What we are left with is a simple erotic story. I appreciate that this is what part of the audience are looking for, but it certainly doesn't deserve a 9.0 score on the IMDb scale. This is just an insult to the really great achievements of cinematographic art.

I understand that Cousins Northern Irish accent takes some getting used to. However, trashing his work because of the narration is too harsh a judgment. I actually watched the whole thing. Twice. I was fascinated by a documentary that tries the impossible: a history of world cinema. The first two episodes alone deal with the era of silent movies. Try to find something else that goes so much into detail! It requires concentration and attention but I kept watching because I learnt something.

The Story of Film is a very personal take on the subject. Cousins often uses phrases such as "perhaps the greatest film ever made" or "perhaps the most innovative film..." And often such phrases refer to a Japanese or Iranian movie that I have never heard of. I am sure a lot of people would disagree. I don't have a problem with it. In the opening sequence of every episode, he says that he follows the Odyssey of film makers who are not driven by box office success. If you want to see the history of Hollywood Blockbusters, "The Story of Film" is the wrong program. If you want to know what kind of films were made in the 1980s behind the iron curtain in Eastern Europe, now you are in the right theatre.

Leaving all criticism on Cousins narration, possible inaccuracies or highly subjective opinions aside, here is a man talking who has probably more forgotten about movies than most people ever knew about the subject.

I don't want to get into a discussion whether the explicit display of sex - the term 'soft porn' comes to mind - is a good or a bad thing, or necessary or not. I don't mind. The movie starts with a good idea and promise. The teenage son of the family is caught masturbating in school. The mother takes it rather easy and doesn't make a big deal of it, but she starts to think about her own sex life and that of her widowed father in law. I thought that this would lead to the uncovering of suppressed sexual desires of the parents and grandfather, and that this could cause some frictions or maybe hurt feelings somewhere. It holds vaguely with some of the characters involved, but the only real forward going story is that of the son having his first time experiences with a girl from school.

Unfortunately, there is not much left of the film when you take the heavy breathing scenes out. You can write the entire plot on the back of a postage stamp. For almost an hour and a half, the movie shows a family of three generations in which most of them have a rather fulfilled sex life. This is nice, but why do I have to watch them doing it?

The movie's love story between the blind-since-birth Lilly and the just-gone-blind Jakob is adorable, cute, lovely ... and totally predictable. Other characters like Lilly's mother and sister are only briefly shown as somewhat weird people whose behavior is mostly following clichés or otherwise leaves a lot of questions with the audience without exploring it further.

Fritzi Haberlandt's acting is superb. This is about the best thing about this movie.

Having worked in a social project with blind people, I could not help to think throughout the movie that the plot was quite flawed. Lilly walks around with her white stick in a neighborhood she has never been to before. She asks her friend and mother to just leave her alone at some desolate gas station/restaurant in the middle of rural Russia. "C'mon, get real!", I wanted to shout. Only a suicidal blind person would do that. And no decent person with eyesight, let alone her own mother, would do that to her.

The movie was trying to get the message across, that going blind is not the end of your life. That there are still many things you can enjoy, if you only make the effort to attend special training, re-organise your life, and learn to "see" the world in a different way. Agreed. What the movie completely fails to show is the reality that without a guide person a blind man or woman is completely lost outside his/her familiar surroundings.

There is one scene in this movie that says it all: Perseus finds the annoying tin owl from the 1981 picture in a box of junk. He takes it in his hand, looks at it, and throws it back in the box while saying something like "We don't need this." Here, this production shows nothing but disdain towards the brilliant original production. This pretty much sums up what you have to expect from this "Clash of the Titans".

State of the art CGI stuff, but otherwise annoying and shallow characters that fulfill all the clichés you could possible think of. Good vs. evil at its simplest. The plot drags on without much suspension. This movie is once again proof, that fancy special effects alone don't make a good movie.

I understand that most people won't get too excited about this movie. There is a lot of subtle humor in it that requires some knowledge of how life was in East Germany, what things like "Mondos" were for instance, in order to appreciate the jokes. One may argue that the movie has overdone some of it. I think it was highly unlikely that two East German guys walked up to the immigration officer at a New York airport and state that they are communists. People in East Germany knew that this wouldn't be a smart move. But, hey, it is also rather unlikely that a US official asks a German bluntly if he was a Nazi. And there are a few other details that might be historically incorrect. Whatever! Getting into this kind of discussion does not do justice to the movie. I had a great time watching it. Many things reminded me of my own first trip to the states mere months after reunification. Besides, it is a road movie with beautiful pictures and sceneries from the American province. And the ending with its twist is indeed quite strong. It turns out that the movie title "Friendship!" is not only a reference to the official greeting within the communist youth organization in East Germany. This picture is also literally about friendship.

I only comment because of it's rating of 8.7. #56 of the top 250??? This is an insult to the 194 movies with a lower rating. The story is not genuine at all. A special agent gets out of control, his agency is out of control too... What else is new? The action scenes could be impressive, but you hardly see what's going on. The pictures are cut in such an swift sequence that you can barely follow with your eyes, let alone your brain. Besides, what is it with this fashion of shaky cameras? Is Parkinson's decease now a condition of employment for camera men. Or are they all alcoholics who didn't get a drink in days? If you need to waste money for watching it in a theater, take the very last row or you will get splitting head aches, and don't forget your aspirin.

In the western world Shostakovich was always said to be a faithful soviet communist composer. Shortly after Shostakovich's death, Volkov (a friend of Sh.) emigrated to the US, having notes of endless talks with Sh. in the luggage. Volkov published the "memoir's". In this book, Sh. appears the other way round: a silent dissident, a man who fooled the communist authorities, but also a man who suffered dramatically from repressions. Obviously Sh's family and soviet officials took all measures to "prove" the book was a hoax. And even western experts had doubts too. It was not before Sh. son Maxim emigrated, that the discussions about authenticity got new fuel. Today, Volkov's book is widely accepted and trusted.

Back to the film: This was a brave move to make a movie based on this book. There is not much story, just episodes. Perhaps the experimental habit is the only way to approach this challenge. Overall, not a bad effort, but certainly not the big hit. I am not too sure as to whether Ben Kingsley was the best choice, but who knows how Shostakovich really was? In my opinion the music selection is the weak point of the film. Obviously, only the most popular bits and pieces have been used (e.g. symphonies no. 5 and 7, the great pasacaglia from the violin concerto etc.), but this was not in all scenes appropriate. I found it rather disturbing to have this music always in the background, let alone the omission of other important works. The movie focuses on the relationship Shostakovich-Stalin: certainly the most fascinating part of Sh's life. At the end, the movie has an episode on the 13th symphony, which bases on the poem "Babi Jar" by Jevtushenko. This was the only big trouble Sh. got in the time after Stalin - not because of the music but the poem! This episode should have been dropped.

My final verdict: an interesting movie, interesting views on Stalinism and maybe a good approach to Shostakovich's music for people who never heard his music. But, make sure you had enough sleep or there is enough tea or coffee available when you watch it.

I can strongly recommend the book. It is much more enjoyable than the movie.

What??? More than 15000 votes yield 8.1 out of 10??? Ranked 131 of the best 250 films ever???

I am utterly shocked, loosing my faith in the IMDB audience.

Lets face it: this movie is entertainment. I have seen it with a bunch of friends, and as the film went on, we had good fun, couldn't help laughing at the worst ever seen acting. We kept on taking the p***. ("Next time you'd better bring a piece of paper to draw a flowchart. Then you might have a chance to understand something.") I have a feeling that we will remember this film for a long time, as the weirdest, strangest, most incomprehensible, in one word: worst movie.

Everybody here seems to admire this movie; hence, I am probably at the wrong party here. What was his name? David Lynch? He doesn't mean anything to me. However, I think that I am not hopelessly spoiled by average Hollywood flicks though. I have a strong feeling Lynch was inspired by French-Spanish movies of the 1960th (Luis Bunuel? Dali?). And yes, I enjoyed surreal movies that miss a plot, that are a series of non-linked scenes. But in contrast to Mulholland Dr, the scenes build a picture like a mosaic that one can understand. With all respect, Mulholland Dr is a pile of broken glass, worth nothing.

This all was supposed to be real stuff, but ABC turned it down? I would have loved to see it shredded rather than making a movie out of it.

One more question: How many magic mushrooms need to be in your soup until you appreciate this as art?

It is not precicely a B movie, but the attempt to be sophisticated failed. Sorry folks, can't give it more than one point.

I wouldn't say this film is great outstanding art, but there is something about it. The way it is poking fun at the entertainment business (good to see Rowan Atkinson taking the p**s out of himself!)? The way it doesn't take the musical "Elephant" serious? Does the film take itself serious? I don't know really.

The story as such is not worth a comment. The movie is hardly more than an array of hilarious scenes wrapped in an average love story. Though the love story seems not to be the major message, I was on the edge of the seat all the way through. There are so many clever jokes in this plot, at short intervals at that. Perhaps this makes the difference.

Jeff Goldblum is doing well in this European style comedy (didn't expect him to). Emma is doing great too. The music is well chosen from the 80th Britpop charts... Only the ending goes a bit flat, but I can live with it.

Finally I can't resist to comment on the sex scene. I was rolling on the ground, couldn't stop laughing. The best of its kind, by distance.

Another romantic comedy with Meg Ryan. Why not? I like it. But I can hardly say more. A harmless entertaining flick, but something you will not remember for long. Hence, you will enjoy watching it again. And I bet it will be on TV every now and then.

Unfortunately, this movie uncovers something else: Meg Ryan doesn't get younger. She should consider looking for different roles. Her times of great romantic comedies like "Harry and Sally", "Sleepless in Seattle", "You've Got Mail" and all the rest of it are over. She just doesnt look no more like the girl looking for a boy. Meg, look for new challenges, go for it!

Kate & Leopold is not very accurate on details. I dont think that a bloke who just got transferred to the future by more than 100 years, would ride in a Taxi like him, ie. as if he'd done it thousand times before. But do I care? This doesn't do this film any serious harm. It is still worth watching. There is one thing that cant be excused though: La Boheme was released in 1896. So how could Leopold know about it when he claims to be from the 1870th????

Anyway. Well worth a 7 out of 10.

I admit that the special effects are outstanding, remarkable effort, but the plot ... as greasy as the oil paint that the characters walk through.

The family who ends up in heaven is beyond real - a bunch of saints even before they are dead. Mr Williams does what he can do best: He gives an overwhelmingly loving and caring husband and father. I can hardly imagine another actor in this role, but this doesn't make it bearable.

The heaven that his fantasy has chosen to create is quite over the top. Do the Academy Awards have a category for best cheesiness? Here is my recommendation. I'd better live forever or make sure that I'll go to hell if heaven is like this.

I was attempted to make use of the remote to end this tragedy when the breaking news came in that the wife is in hell because she committed suicide. (I mean the one in the film, not my wife obviously!) Well, might this flick pick up some speed? Will the movie finally get a problem that the characters have to work on? No. To assume that Mr Williams' trip to hell and back would become an India Jones type of adventure was asking too much. Instead I got tortured with reviews of heart-tearing moments in a psychiatric clinic, whatsoever, and more vows of everlasting love. Give me a break!

The appearance of Max von Sydow is a waste of talent. He must have had a moment of insanity (or an urgent call from his accountant) when he signed on to this project.

The visual effects are worth a glance, but don't expect good entertainment.

Thanks for your time.

The movie opens with one of the characters saying "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture." I haven't heard such an inventive statement in a Hollywood movie for ages. It caught me immediately.

There are different plots going parallel and they appear not to be connected with each other, until near the end... And, honestly, thats already quite complex for Hollywood. However, I first thought that this is not going to be a too exciting story. Wrong assumption. I admit that the stories are not really new, have seen it all before in numerous movies. At the end however, I felt a good bit of satisfaction because the stories become really touchy, thanks to a well performing cast.

Sure, Mr Connery will hardly spoil a movie. He's just great. But others who have been nothing but meaningless movie starlets to me made me throwing this prejudices out of the window. Especially Angelina Jolie delivers an outstanding performance. Her character is bizarre but she manages to make it credible. That's worth a lot! Compliments to Gillian Anderson too.

"Talking about music is like dancing about about architecture", and the girls reply is: "Talking about LOVE is like dancing about architecture." Well, this movie proofs her wrong. It is two hours talking about love and it does it very well.