Reviews

Encountering the films with the title character of Hercules Poirot, I must admit that I was not very much acknowledged with the stories. First, my wife and I enjoyed some long evening watching DEATH ON THE NILE, EVIL UNDER THE SUN filmed in our beloved island of Mallorca, and other films with Peter Ustinov in the main role. Great tension and some vivid moments that aroused our interest but the moment we discover David Suchet as the famous Belgian detective, I say: THIS IS IT, the character as penned by the author that all fans of detective stories know: AGATHA CHRISTIE.

A lot of reviewers actually focused on different aspects of the films, their different strngths. I would like to emphasise solely the main character, Hercules Poirot and the absolutely fabulous portrayal by David Suchet without whom the films would be just pale and easily forgotten.

A lot of different stories, lots of action, mystery, profound characters' development are just a few aspects that make the film with David Suchet a true embodiment of what the author meant and how she imagined the character. Mr Suchet supplies Poirot with charm and mystery, provides viewers with moments of doubt and disbelief and subtely brings us all into the world of his detection. No matter what episode you start with, you are soon into this specific world of suspense and mystery when you just wait to see what will happen and who is guilty of a crime not met before. His gestures, his voice, his facial expression, his typical moments of realizing when he suddenly knows the key to the riddle - simply awesome.

That is why I heartily recommend anyone to see these films simply because when the performance is top notch, some little flaws might be forgiven.

I.

Directed by Michael Lindsay-Hogg and written by Ken Hughes, the episode SECRET WAR appears to bring the story slowly to an end game. As more a close-up than a holistic view, the producers and the director occur to wonderfully grasp viewers' interests on characters - dramas of some and glories of others, simply the roles change, just faces change among those who find themselves in this very unique position where they can hold the European history in their hands...

The first scene of the episode sets the tone of the feeling that seems to remain throughout: the feeling that eagles are already sickened and weak. We see Kaiser Wilhelm (Barry Foster) among his counselors and advisers insisting that it is not him who wanted this war and aims at absolute victory for Germany. Soon, however, the story is set back in Russia where the revolutionary ideas seem to go wild among the people and being loudly cried in the Duma, the Russian government. The "holy man" a lunatic who delured the imperial court is already dead. However, there are two obstacles for the revolutionary Bolshevik monster to evolve: one is the tsar still alive and, seemingly, still in power and the other one is the fact that the pioneers of the revolution are not in Russia but in a faraway Switzerland. How to bring them back is a scheme, quite a plan of those whose secret war goes along secret profits and benefits.

Some men seem to lose their power and the tsar no longer appears to represent the simple people, speak on their behalf. Asked to abdicate, in an emotionally unforgettable scene, he does not consent to that proposal saying a very memorable line that seems to resemble the way all Russian rulers have thought: "I am not used to being a sovereign who reigns but does not govern" I would ask a viewer to consider this scene in a more in-depth manner, as Nicholas leaves the train compartment, goes to a window to see his land and the camera makes him more and more distanced from us. Deeper and deeper, he disappears amidst the vast land covered with snow and hardened by frost.

Another brilliant scene is the final moment which, actually, makes this only episode slightly longer. Lenin with all his comrades (among them is John Rhys Davies) arrive in Petrograd and receive a very warm welcome. Mind you the right depiction of people, fanatics who really looked up to these guys. A conclusion might be drawn that anything that brings even an illusion of change might bring about extreme devotion. And, historically, these people really smelled some wind of change due to these people. The episode is also famous for the moment when the news of the revolution comes to Lenin to Switzerland while he is on a boat enjoying his time amidst the wonderful nature.

Brilliant scenes indeed but they are not the only strength of this episode. Above all, it is the psychology of the times, the main idea that lies behind most of the wars. It is embodied in the character of Peter Copley and his idea of Bolsheviks and the revolution which seemingly make the great war end. Ironically, he even presents the Bolsheviks as peacemakers to Kaiser. Indeed, any lie might find its believers as long as it is uttered with enough force and encouragement. It is historically true that the Germans were behind the rise of revolution in Russia. That is, so to say, the title secret war that breaks out amidst the corpses of the great war (1914-1918).

If you skip some other episodes because the series seems to be too long, this one is a must-see, really.

Written by Jack Pulman, Episode 9 titled "Dress Rehearsal" is one of the most memorable and historically convincing episodes of the series FALL OF EAGLES for several reasons.

Firstly, we get a clear picture of the chaos that Europe found itself in at that time. Diplomats act behind the wings and each has his own business to do. Yet, hardly anyone is willing to answer for the consequences... The man in the frontier here is the Russian Baron Isvolsky (played skillfully by the great actor Peter Vaughan) who makes a secret alliance with an Austrian ambassador Aehrenthal (John Moffat) that Russia will accept the Austrian annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina under certain conditions. These conditions revolve around the Dardanelles. However, as clever as it may seem, the bargaining positions might soon turn into the accomplished facts they all will have to face. Everything seems to be slipping through his fingers. Through the character Isvolsky, we get an interesting insight into what politics has always been and what actually lies behind certain decisions that influence the whole countries and their peoples. The drama of a man, irresponsible man making unforgivable mistakes leads to the drama of nations...

Secondly, we get some really well depicted events that are given some time on screen throughout the episode. First, it is the historic meeting of tsar Nicholas II (Charles Kay) with the king of England Edward VIII, called Bertie (Derek Francis). Their moment is supplied with a glimpse of early photography and the grandeur of a ball where the welcoming march by Chopin adds the flair of elegance to the event. Then, it is the meeting of the English, the French and the Austrians - each character absorbed with the things important to their country. I particularly like John Bennet as a distinguished French diplomat Georges Clemenceau who, by all means, does not want to have his lunch spoiled. Finally, it is the only scene with Kaiser Wilhelm (Barry Foster) here, the only but the one so memorable: he is hunting, absorbed in slaughtering chickens, as his counselor tells him, being behind the curtains of events, aware of the fact that he is always to be blamed... The scenes are truly brilliant.

Thirdly, I consider this episode as one of the best ones because of the script. As penned by Jack Pulman, the lines are supplied with insightful study of the time, with psychological look into the characters and immense capability of capturing the diplomats' language. You, as a viewer, feel as if you watched history. Scenes leave you breathless and captivated by watching events that we know, due to our history lessons that once we learned, but feel as if history comes to life again.

Yes, indeed, the circle of history lies in the fact that various influential people interpret their moments differently. Some think that they are still striving at bargaining positions while others already know that it is too late for "any" bargaining. What they face are just accomplished facts...what might happen, though, if the facts are tragic for us, these simple, grey people? Let is hope not...

A lot of people compare this movie to the ultra-famous AMADEUS by Milos Forman and, indeed, there are similarities between the two films. However, while AMADEUS is a dramatisation, a vision by P. Schaffer, the legacy of the composer seen by the jealous eye of Salieri, from the standpoint of his rival, here is it a typical biopic of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. As penned by Zdenek Mahler and directed by Juraj Herz with contribution by Kurt J. Mrkvicka, this movie is a retelling of a story, of a short life but a life immensely rich in its legacy. There are a few reasons why I consider it a must-see for anyone interested in the composer's life.

First of all, when contemporary people hear the name MOZART, they usually associate it with Vienna. And rightly so because he is one of the three major Viennese composers along with Haydn and Beethoven. But, he was born in Salzburg, a pearl of the Salzkammergut area where he breathed music from his earliest years and the first 30 minutes of the film are dedicated to his childhood. The story is set in Salzburg, filmed in Salzburg with the family background, including Mozart's mother and sister, whom we don't find in other films about the composer. A genius child, however, grown an emotional bond with his father Leopold (played by Toni Boehm) He is taught music by him and soon plays the piano at the imperial court in Vienna and the papal court in Rome. The little Mozart is wonderful in the film, so brave and so genuine saying "The concert must be difficult"...what a line uttered by a child. There is a lovely scene filled with later anticipation of his career when he plays at Maria Theresia's (the empress at the time), a little dog runs to him and Mozart says to a little princess "I'll marry you when I grow up"...As he did not become a prince in the very meaning of this word, he became a prince of music, in a way, or even an emperor.

Secondly, it is Alexander Lutz's performance that makes the film memorable. The actor from Vienna does not portray Mozart in the same manner as Tom Hulce did in AMADEUS. There is no imitation and that is good because that would be barely creative. Lutz indeed does not leave such a lasting impact on the viewer with the loud laughter that rings in your ears long after you have finished watching the movie but I think that Lutz's Mozart is more reliable historically. He is childish yes, and childlike at the same time; he is stubborn, ridiculous at certain moments; he is also peculiar in decisions and prone to influences of certain people and situations; he is ignorant, yet he is a person who manages to maintain the flame of the divine talent placed upon his mind and heart. He makes a credible Mozart in the scene in Rome when, together with his father, he secretly listens to Allegri Miserere and is caught by the Swiss guard (the beautiful notes of the music were kept secret in the Vatican for many years). He is memorable as the one who plays his compositions to the archbishop and makes him "stay in church for longer." He is really appealing to us as a friend of billiards game with Casanova. Finally, he is so tragic as a member of freemasonry and a devoted man who becomes sort of "slave to his music" and addicted to quite "harmful sources of inspiration."

Besides, the movie can boast a wonderful use of Mozart's music. Different masterpieces are incorporated in the scenes and dramatized with the events from Mozart's life; such as the opera DON GIOVANNI or the famous AVE VERUM that he composes in church and leaves certain of his listeners awe inspired. Many, however, do not appreciate his talent and use him for their own means. There is a wonderful scene when he compares himself to his favourite bird that dies 'misunderstood.' The music parallels to joys and sorrows of his life, resembles those rises and falls, depicts a man filled with torments.

I wish there were more scenes that depict the relation of Mozart and emperor Josef II. We have those mentions, there is one moment when Mozart simply submits to the timetable of the emperor's day and gives a concert at 5 in the morning in the park. But that was far better developed in AMADEUS.

An ORF / ZDF production that we could once see on our Polish TV left a lasting impression on me and I would definitely recommend people to see this film as a slightly different view on the composer's life and legacy: perhaps, one of the if not the greatest musical genius of all time.

Just standing at the monument of Mozart in the Viennese Burggarten, I wondered how many more sublime compositions we would have now if he had lived for these 10 or 20 years longer. However, great geniuses usually come and go soon...

I consider this episode titled "The Indian Summer of an Emperor" to be one of the best episodes of the series. Why? For several reasons.

Firstly, we get a very insightful picture of the elderly Franz Josef, the emperor of Austro-Hungary. Played by Laurence Naismith (the actor played the emperor in one of the previous episodes dealing with Rudolf and Mayerling events of 1889), the very first moments of the episode that might occur to be quite long and tedious (we hear the clock chiming in the imperial room at the Kaiservilla in Bad Ischl) hit the right tone of who the emperor is now. With Katarina Schratt at this side (played by a famous actress Nora Swinburne), he is reflective, not ready to act in difficult times that somehow shock him, not very open to novelties, such as a car, a telephone or a moving picture. In his famous line that he utters to Katarina - no longer Sisi, his wife who was assassinated in 1898 "it is easy to change but harder to improve," the emperor embodies certain values that seemed to be at odds at the very moment of history when people no longer act moderately. What is the moment? It is 1914, in the midst of one of the hottest summers, at the dawn of the breakdown of WWI. Yet, above all, the emperor is the man of peace. So, the portrayal of Franz Josef is truly memorable here.

Secondly, the episode relies on quite helpful, yet not too boring picture of the historical moment. The heir to the throne is assassinated in Sarajevo (June 1914), the events turn violent, there is a cry for more severe steps and yet, there are doubts as for more hasty actions. Here, as a counterpart to this all, again comes Kaiser Wilhelm played magnificently by Barry Foster. He is a friend and ally to Austria and, seemingly strives for peace but, in a very concise manner. Consider the scene when he visits the still alive Franz Ferdinand and they discuss the prepared speech upon 'coming' Franz Josef's death. How memorably he expresses the essence of power, strength cherished in Germany reconciled with energy of patience cherished by the old emperor of Austria. Above all, however, he is the one who wants to maintain the bulwark of security and righteousness reconciled by the three eagles, the Hohenzollerns, the Habsburgs and the Romanovs.

Thirdly, this is the only episode that has, at least something, a part of another heir to the throne, blessed Archduke Karl of Habsburg. With Zita and the children, they celebrate a Sunday when the terrible news comes from Sarajevo. The scene depicts his peaceful attitude really well. As we know from history, the monarchy was abolished and the archduke was sent to Madeira where he died in 1922.

Finally, what we find here is a purely outstanding embodiment of rulers' motives. It is a psychological study of a person in power surrounded by different counselors, different ideas and yet, when it comes to decisions, he is left alone. That is nicely expressed at the final scene when Franz Josef reflects upon the situation and resembles the fears of the future when a war is inevitable.

Highly recommended for a history buff. You don't have to see the whole series, just this episode will surely make you keen on the rest.

"Salus populi Lex Suprema Est" - "The people's salutation to the revolution is the supreme law"

Indeed, the words uttered by the pioneer of the revolution in Russia, Lenin, correspond to the plot of this episode, entirely emphasizing the rising ideas and secret schemes of a group of people who changed Russia and would have changed the world if the power of evil could have been powerful enough. The episode "Absolute Beginners" highlights the very essence of what it meant to follow the Marxist ideas and believe in them.

While the previous episodes dealt with falling eagles, this one deals with rising vultures...

We have Iskra newspaper and the schemes to win the public, destroy the monarchical thinking from within and the ideologists who created one of the most wicked and utopian visions of states: Trotsky, Zasulich, Plekhanov, Baumann, Martinov and, above all those seemingly equal comrades, Lenin with all his dictatorial ambitions for power. What I like about the episode is the fact that it is a depiction of a group of people with different ideas, perhaps some really believed in what they evoked and their conflicts. Alexandravna represents a voice of reason and strongly objects to Lenin's crazed lust for power by all means. Some of them, including Trotsky, perhaps do not see yet what it all leads to but open their eyes to some wretchedness that exists as an embryo of evil and sooner or later infects everything. The scenes are filled with emotion and enhance a drama of those who meet in different European capitals and share their subversive views on destroying the Russian monarchy (and, in time, other monarchies too)

But the character and the performance that truly deserves attention here is Lenin played wonderfully by Patrick Stewart. Well, the actor magnificent and versatile as he is, somehow fits to such roles of villains. Once Sejanus, one Lenin. He depicts a person of wicked views, ambitions, not interested in justice or helping any victims of violence, ready to follow one maxim: the end justifies the means and prepared to take all steps in order to gain success of the revolution. Friends may become enemies, enemies might be friends, everything might be a matter of convenience at certain moment for a certain time. Indeed, such personalities are truly plagues of history. He doesn't want to merely know the society and truly aims at knowing how to change it... Stewart's performance steals out attention and, as it was probably, in that historical moment, he dominates. His comrades' views are taken into account until some moment, until the moment when he does not need anyone to make his maxim come true: win the people with your ideas and make them salute you.

Someone hunts and someone is being hunted, someone aims at their goals and someone is being aimed at...someone thinks and plans the future and someone else resorts to mere sentiment of the past: that's the circle of history and the price they all had to pay...

Another interesting episode, not around the glamour of 'falling eagles' but amidst the network of rising vultures.

Episode 5 directed by Bill Hays brings viewers' minds to the Imperial Russia ruled firmly by tsar Alexander III, the titled "Last Tsar." Although he was not the last ruler because his son Nicholas succeeded him, he is metaphorically referred to as the 'last tsar' because he was the last autocrat in the very sense of this word and could maintain one key idea: keep his loyal subjects 'loyal' by firm hand.

As it is the case with all the episodes, it is also evident here that the study of the characters goes in pairs with the insight into a particularly difficult historical moment. It seems that the autocratic power which has always been an integral part of Russia's reality so much cherished by tsar Alexander (mind you that he became a tsar after his father's assassination - his father Alexander II was slightly more open to changes) does not carry any prospect to the future. The challenges that stand before the young tsar Nicholas in 1894 are very difficult.

The episode seems to focus on various aspects of that story: first it is the powerful Alexander III (Tony Jay) who rejects any advice by Witte (Freddie Jones) and strongly believes that Russia is not and will never be a European country. That, of course, goes with the way it is ruled and we might agree with that or not but that is the fact. There is no room for democracy in the sense we understand it. Alexander may play European music but he will never think as a European. His son Nicholas is quite different, has, as his father thinks of him, the 'judgments of an infant,' which also presupposes the picture of the Russia in his reign. We know that it is him who will be the last tsar but, in a very memorable moment when his father is dying, he answers the advisor Witte quite firmly: "I will never share the authority bestowed upon me by God." We see the way old tsars used to think and we see that no 'subversive doctrines' could ever be taken into account. Among these subversive doctrines that rise in secret of the society is Lenin played by Patrick Stewart but that is the character yet to be discussed in the coming episodes since here, we see him merely rise from the depths of the people.

The marriage that Nicholas wants for himself and, meanwhile, the mistress, a ballet dancer that he meets, also mark his personality and his judgments of reality. His personal desires seem to overtake the duties of a ruler of so vast a land. He proposes to a German princess Alix (played by Gayle Hunnicut) and she seems willing to adapt to the Russian reality along with its Orthodox Church. A couple quite different and quite misunderstood by people. Nicky travels to Europe and some writes letters to his mother, his impressions, his thoughts. Here, we can get some parallel to another tsar so open to Europe but of totally different times, tsar Peter the Great (1600s and 1700s). Open to the world and totally misunderstood by his subjects. Two memorable scenes that show that: Witte trying to give advice to young Nicholas at the dawn of his reign and Ella trying to make Alix realize the way things are in Russia at the dawn of her marriage.

Apart from the Russian context that predominates in this episode, we have some scenes and some characters from Europe: it is first and foremost Queen Victoria. She seems to have her unique and quite specific vision of the dynasties in Europe... We have young Wilhelm (Barry Foster) whom we had in the previous episodes but here, we get the anticipation of the friendship of Willy and Nicky. We get a glimpse of the clear contrast between Europe and Russia and the drama of the main characters is clearly influenced by it.

The strength of this episode are performances, of course. The weakness are some scenes that are slightly too long and may bore a viewer used to action. Nevertheless, it is highly worth seeing, especially for anyone interested in history and fond of some background to interesting historical events.

The opening scene of the episode brings to mind a typically historical docudrama. What we get is the information about the Europe of the second half of the nineteenth century with the special emphasis on the League of the Emperors, the House of the Hohenzollern, the House of the Habsburg and the House of the Romanov. A league that appeared to be more beneficial for some and yet a little short of priviledges for others. The close-up we get here is the House of Hohenzollern in Germany with one man superior to all, yet unready to relish oblivion, Prince Bismarck (played brilliantly by Curd Juergens)

Indeed, Curd Juergens with his German accents steals the attention of any viewer and all the rest of the characters, though very well portrayed, appear to be slightly pushed into the background. He is the Chancellor, he is the one who can dictate certain laws to the old emperor, he is the one who represents the state, meets the ministers and has an undeniable influence upon the young prince Wilhelm (Barry Foster). Not very enthusiastic towards the Germans, he is not very popular with Princess Vicky (Gemma Jones). Basing his decisions on his two major passions, wine and politics, he occurs to be the one who can never retire. Nevertheless, even he is bound to dig his own grave... Very well played with energy, passion and commitment to the role. Who can forget his scene with tsar Alexander (Tony Jay)? Who can possibly skip the vibrant moments with young Wilhelm and their conversations about politics, affairs of state and family? Who can fail to admire the actor's performance at the emotional scene when the 'honest broker' is actually made to resign?

The episode focuses on a particularly difficult situation in the Germany of that time when one old emperor is dying, the crown prince is fatally ill and everybody looks for the best doctors to cease his pains of throat and the young prince Wilhelm (played wonderfully by Barry Foster) appears to be a proud, conceited man with ill ambition, wrong advisors and an unrestrained search for power. Although he comes to a serious conflict with Bismarck, he is a young copy of the chancellor. Their relations are brought to screen with some psychological aspects and create a sort of 'two men's worlds' illustrated from the historical and emotional standpoints.

What I like about the episode, apart from the aforementioned aspects of the two characters presented in contrast and in parallel, are the sets. Mostly interiors stand for the very emotional aspects of the plot and create a sort of illusion that whatever happens here is inside. Whenever there is a scene outside (and there are really few here), we feel a sort of freedom that some characters express when they want to escape from the very walls of power, power that may shut people down and condense (paradoxically so) their possibilities. But what is left for the member of the imperial houses outside? Pruning trees and reflecting about their past, trying, at the same time, to relish oblivion.

And one more thing that makes FALL OF EAGLES unique is the fact that you don't have to see those episodes chronologically but each of them is constructed in such a way that the script supplies a viewer with a separate story, a separate drama.

Another great episode that I would recommend anyone, especially those among the viewers who are interested in this particular period of history.

NIGHTS AND DAYS based on the novel by Maria Dabrowska is perhaps better known as a 12 episode-TV series than a film. Indeed, there are episodes that focus on particular aspects, each one with a seperate title. Yet, as a matter of fact, that condensation for the needs of a feature film does not make the story and its depiction lose its charm. Simply because it is so awesome and still inspiring at multiple levels - a costume drama that has stood a test of time. Let me consider some of its strengths in more details...

SOMETHING ABOUT THE DIRECTOR and DIRECTION. Jerzy Antczak handles the adaptation and the direction in a particularly subtle manner. His cooperation with the cast resulted in some splendid effects: it is all fluent, interesting, nice to watch, there are rarely any long scenes that were quite typical in some other productions of the genre and there is a very skillful grasp of the times the story is set in. There are not many liberties taken with the original literary cource and the story of Niechcic family is depicted respectfully. Their story being set in a difficult period for Polish history: the partition of Poland is unique and very touching. It was the period when the country did not exist in the map and was divided into three: the Prussian part, the Russian part and the Austrian part (1795-1918)

THE LEADING CAST: Barbara (Jadwiga Baranska) and Bogumil Niechcic (Jerzy Binczycki) are the embodiment of a couple that represent different characters, totally different expectations of life one could have and yet something unites them. Apart from the patriotic aspect of their story that foreign viewers might find difficult to grasp, Jadwiga Baranska portrays a subtle woman who is clearly in love with city life and struggles to live this way. Clearly, she does not love Bogumil as one would wish to. Even she admits from time to time that she is not a good wife for him. She longs for her 'man of dreams' that gave her flowers, she longs for grandeur, for charming manners but, in the long run, she comes to accept and even like the very spots and people fate has placed her in. It is one of the few films when the leading character's reflections and thoughts are expressed in the script. She is a thinker. Jerzy Binczycki, on the other hand, portrays a man whose heart and mind are set on village, on land, in love with the field and ready to dedicate all his life to that. Serbinowo, where they spend most of their lives, is his homeland, a piece of land and the house that he seems to live for and leave for his children. Yet, the fate occurs to bring on certain unexpected events.... They are an unforgettable couple and a true highlight of the story symbolizing the Poland of the time as well. They experience their joys and sorrows, they go through tough and lighter moments, they embody nights and days. While Bogumil represents belonging, Barbara represents individuality. Jadwiga Baranska, the director Jerzy Antczak's wife, being interviewed about the role's effect on her life and her career, said that, in a way, the character of Barbara Niechcic appealed to her and has truly been 'the role' of her life.

THE SUPPORTING CAST: NIGHTS AND DAYS is a pleasure to watch because of its characters that come and go perhaps; however, leave a lasting impression on a viewer. It is a great achievement in the production of this genre because a real danger is the situation when there are too many characters and in time, viewers get confused who was who (not to mention the fact when they are similar). That is not the case with NIGHTS AND DAYS. Daniel Ostrzenski played by a great Polish actor Jerzy Kamas provides many episodes with some fun manifesting a man of upper class living standards. His wife Michalina (Janina Traczykowna) with her specific tone of voice has some hilarious scenes where priorities of life come out. Stanislawa Celinska as Agnieszka Niechcic is a representative of the young generation of the time between the 19th and the 20th century with the ideas of liberty that grew in societies and the ideas of emancipation as well. Her sister Emilka (Ilona Kusmierska) is different, more naive perhaps, slightly laughable but likeable. Their opposite is Tomasz Niechcic, their brother played by Kazimierz Mazur. What a character! Although his mother constantly calls him Tomaszek (a more affectionate way), he seems not to care about anyone or anything....Among the background characters, one should pay attention to Celina Katelba (played by Anna Nehrebecka) - quite a tragic personality and quite a psychological conclusion from her relationship with Janusz (young Olgierd Lukaszewicz in the role). It is hard to mention all but finally, when I think of characters, I would like to point out Zarnecka, a cook at the Niechcices' (Ryszarda Hanin). A woman who seems vulgar at first but we grow to like her as Bogumil and Barbara did...

MUSIC: There are quite a lot of films the story of which is set in that very special period and they can boast really wonderful tunes, the melodies catchy to the ear and to the heart. However, I doubt there is actually any that may equal this one here written by Waldemar Kazanecki. This soundtrack provides the viewer with magnificent impressions, helps us journey into the times of that grandeur, elegance, great ideals, charm. The waltz of NIGHTS AND DAYS are really inspiring and so beautiful that they leave a trace in the hearts of even most 'unmusical' audiences. As if we were waltzing in time and space, waltzing to our nostalgia and memories that never were and, as a matter of fact, have always been.

LOCATIONS: Yet another aspect that really constitutes the key to understand the story and embodies Poland are the stunning locations. I do not only mean the beautiful mansions the film was shot in, the lovely gardens, the breathtaking interiors from the period when furniture was a sort of "art" and not merely practical use. I foremost mean the lovely views of nature, the fields with people working, the tree alleys, the unforgettable depiction of forests in winter, the longing and joy carved in the soil that suffered a lot and helped people survive. Sometimes, these moments might seem a bit long for viewers who expect action but, remember, it appears to be more and more logical assumption that action condensed the sensitive perception of art and the art itself tremendously.

NIGHTS AND DAYS with many of its episodes is still one of these productions that may bring your mind to some different world, the world where people did not lack sorrows, epidemies, mourning, the times when our country did not exist, when its 'masters' declared its downfall and yet, there was a strange hope in survival, that simple attachment to the land and one another, when nights and days were passing by to changeable tunes of love in sacrifice, disappointment, rises and falls, duties of belonging and uniqueness of individuality. Above all, the brightness of days that may shed light upon the darkness of nights...

This is a review about the TV series, not the film.

NIGHTS AND DAYS based on the novel by Maria Dabrowska represents one of the true examples of classic TV series. Shown in 12 episodes, it has been digitally restored, the quality of the picture now when compared to the previous one is like day and night and a viewer does not really feel the fact it is more than 40 years old. But it is not merely the quality of picture that makes this impression but its awesome and inspiring story. Recently, I have seen all the episodes with my wife and we drew conclusion that this classic has really stood a test of time. Let me consider some of its strengths in more details...

SOMETHING ABOUT THE DIRECTOR and DIRECTION. Jerzy Antczak, already famous for some great costume dramas at the time, including COUNTESS COSEL (1968), handles the adaptation and the direction in a particularly subtle manner. We can see throughout the series that his cooperation with the cast resulted in soMe splendid effects: it is all fluent, interesting, nice to watch, there are rarely any long scenes that were quite typical in some other productions of the genre and there is a very skillful grasp of the times the story is set in. The episodes are dedicated to particular themes. However, it does not show the story in any separated segments of plot but beautifully incorporates it all, which makes the viewer see it as a whole: the story of Niechcic family - what a family! Different yet united set in a difficult period for Polish history: the partition of Poland when the country did not exist in the map and was divided into three: the Prussian part, the Russian part and the Austrian part (1795-1918)

THE LEADING CAST: Barbara (Jadwiga Baranska) and Bogumil Niechcic (Jerzy Binczycki) are the embodiment of a couple that represent different characters, totally different expectations of life one could have and yet something unites them. Apart from the patriotic aspect of their story that foreign viewers might find difficult to grasp, Jadwiga Baranska portrays a subtle woman who is clearly in love with city life and struggles to live this way. Clearly, she does not love Bogumil as one would wish to. Even she admits from time to time that she is not a good wife for him. She longs for her 'man of dreams' that gave her flowers, she longs for grandeur, for charming manners but, in the long run, she comes to accept and even like the very spots and people fate has placed her in. It is one of the few films when the leading character's reflections and thoughts are expressed in the script. She is a thinker. Jerzy Binczycki, on the other hand, portrays a man whose heart and mind are set on village, on land, in love with the field and ready to dedicate all his life to that. Serbinowo, where they spend most of their lives, is his homeland, a piece of land and the house that he seems to live for and leave for his children. Yet, the fate occurs to bring on certain unexpected events.... They are an unforgettable couple and a true highlight of the story symbolizing the Poland of the time as well. They experience their joys and sorrows, they go through tough and lighter moments, they embody nights and days. While Bogumil represents belonging, Barbara represents individuality. Jadwiga Baranska, the director Jerzy Antczak's wife, being interviewed about the role's effect on her life and her career, said that, in a way, the character of Barbara Niechcic appealed to her and has truly been 'the role' of her life.

THE SUPPORTING CAST: NIGHTS AND DAYS is a pleasure to watch because of its characters that come and go perhaps; however, leave a lasting impression on a viewer. It is a great achievement in the production of this genre because a real danger is the situation when there are too many characters and in time, viewers get confused who was who (not to mention the fact when they are similar). That is not the case with NIGHTS AND DAYS. Daniel Ostrzenski played by a great Polish actor Jerzy Kamas provides many episodes with some fun manifesting a man of upper class living standards. His wife Michalina (Janina Traczykowna) with her specific tone of voice has some hilarious scenes where priorities of life come out. Stanislawa Celinska as Agnieszka Niechcic is a representative of the young generation of the time between the 19th and the 20th century with the ideas of liberty that grew in societies and the ideas of emancipation as well. Her sister Emilka (Ilona Kusmierska) is different, more naive perhaps, slightly laughable but likeable. Their opposite is Tomasz Niechcic, their brother played by Kazimierz Mazur. What a character! Although his mother constantly calls him Tomaszek (a more affectionate way), he seems not to care about anyone or anything....Among the background characters, one should pay attention to Celina Katelba (played by Anna Nehrebecka) - quite a tragic personality and quite a psychological conclusion from her relationship with Janusz (young Olgierd Lukaszewicz in the role). It is hard to mention all but finally, when I think of characters, I would like to point out Zarnecka, a cook at the Niechcices' (Ryszarda Hanin). A woman who seems vulgar at first but we grow to like her as Bogumil and Barbara did...

MUSIC: There are quite a lot of films the story of which is set in that very special period and they can boast really wonderful tunes, the melodies catchy to the ear and to the heart. However, I doubt there is actually any that may equal this one here written by Waldemar Kazanecki. This soundtrack provides the viewer with magnificent impressions, helps us journey into the times of that grandeur, elegance, great ideals, charm. The waltz of NIGHTS AND DAYS are really inspiring and so beautiful that they leave a trace in the hearts of even most 'unmusical' audiences. As if we were waltzing in time and space, waltzing to our nostalgia and memories that never were and, as a matter of fact, have always been.

LOCATIONS: Yet another aspect that really constitutes the key to understand the story and embodies Poland are the stunning locations. I do not only mean the beautiful mansions the film was shot in, the lovely gardens, the breathtaking interiors from the period when furniture was a sort of "art" and not merely practical use. I foremost mean the lovely views of nature, the fields with people working, the tree alleys, the unforgettable depiction of forests in winter, the longing and joy carved in the soil that suffered a lot and helped people survive. Sometimes, these moments might seem a bit long for viewers who expect action but, remember, it appears to be more and more logical assumption that action condensed the sensitive perception of art and the art itself tremendously.

NIGHTS AND DAYS with many of its episodes is still one of these productions that may bring your mind to some different world, the world where people did not lack sorrows, epidemies, mourning, the times when our country did not exist, when its 'masters' declared its downfall and yet, there was a strange hope in survival, that simple attachment to the land and one another, when nights and days were passing by to changeable tunes of love in sacrifice, disappointment, rises and falls, duties of belonging and uniqueness of individuality. Above all, the brightness of days that may shed light upon the darkness of nights...

There have been many seasons and episodes of LA PIOVRA made in years. It seems that none of the sequels did equal the very charm and magnificence of the first season directed by Damiano Damiani, season 5 also has something to offer to viewers.

Obviously, there is no character of Commissario Cattani (Michele Placido) because he was killed in the last episode of the previous season. His death had been, naturally, predictable and any viewer knew that sooner or later that would take place. However, many viewers perhaps thought that the sequel would not make much sense without him. One cannot be further from the truth, though...

The events herein depicted nicely correspond to the finale of season 4. Sylvia Conti (Partricia Millardet) investigates the matter of Cattani's murder and she does so with truly adequate determination and the power of will. Ms Millardet portrays the character with undeniable skill and impressive conviction. Meanwhile, a sort of "successor" to Comissario Cattani appears to be Davide Licata (played by Vittorio Mezzogiorno). He is a new Cattani and a new struggler for some justice in the corrupt society and their relations. They are together now against all the evil and bribery. Who stands as their greatest enemy?

I often state that Luigi Perelli who took up the direction of LA PIOVRA later really hit the note of what the title octopus really is. You seem to catch the very glimpse of the corrupt world and try to figure out of who is who and later, you realize that you were wrong. There is still someone higher, someone more responsible for the wretchedness and the true corruption of the world, the very illegal acts that aim at indefatigable profit, profit by all means and the evil genius of the worst among the worst ones. We have the Il Puppone (played by Marcello Tusco) and his daughter whom he wants to protect. When the action moves to New York, then we see how far the octopus's impact had gone. Il Puppone seems to realize that his deeds were wicked and yet, psychologically speaking, he appears to be torn apart in his world. There is indeed, someone higher than him, that is Antonio Espinosa (Bruno Cremer), a great conneseur of art, the great lover of his dolls that symbolize basic human feelings and emotions, the very core of the wretchedness in white gloves. What a performance! I think that this is the major force, the power that stands behind the decisions and actions of the lower ones, even the ones in the governments that may only think that they make free decisions....isn't that the case of today's world? The real power is hidden, pushed into the background of the perceptions of the little ones, the embodiment of which is Tano Cariddi (played magnificently by Remo Girone), the real villain of the story.

In the foreground, we have the victims, both good and bad. We have the Linor family where, clearly, not only the ones who did something wrong pay for that. Also the most innocent members of their family suffer a lot. Just or unjust? Perhaps you have the right to ask such a question but who really cares? There is Stefano (played by Stefano Dionisi later known for his role as Farinelli), Davide's son who also pays his price for the world he had been brought into. There is Tano's sister Maria, kept in isolation and a recluse who appears to be totally ignorant of the world around her and yet, ready to grasp its beauties...a victim, a 'noone' for the most powerful ones who displays her contribution to the story in an unpredictable way...

Not to spoil much, I will say this: it is a very interesting season, a must see for LA PIOVRA fans, which has occured to be as a true surprise.

The Commissario Corrado Cattani (Michele Placido) is watching himself on TV and his bitter testimony of a totally lonesome man, deprived of family happiness, even of basic human compassion, drowned in tears of despair and alcohol. To make his situation worse, he finds out that most of the people responsible for the death of his wife Elsa and his daughter Paola are set free, some being found not guilty at all. What is left for him? Is there anything at stake? He is totally alone and really has nothing to lose.. Yes, perhaps nothing to lose but much to gain for people...

This is how LA PIOVRA 3 begins: Cattani left with nothing apart from desire to take revenge and the plot brings us to entirely unexpected turnings of events. The only person condemned for five years in prison (the longest sentence in the instance) is professor Gianfranco Laudeo (Paul Guers). He remains in his small cell with his parrot and directs his people to do wretched things.

LA PIOVRA 3 from the very beginning seems to take a slightly different tone with quite a different pace, yet, it is set deeply in the 1980s. Here comes the director Luigi Perelli known for directing most of the seasons of the series and really supplies the characters, particularly the protagonist with the up-to-its time features. Cosequenty, most of the plots really applied to the audiences of the time and still do apply to us. No wonder it was a smashing success in Italy and in other countries. Here come newcomers in screenwriting, Sandro Petraglia and Stefano Rulli. Mr Petraglia, having made friends with Michele Placido before, really proves a creative approach to the protagonist, il Commissario. He does energize the script here, makes the scenes shorter and faster and brings out what is really best in the series, the authenticity in the depiction of its reality. But it does not mean that there is no continuity with the two previous seasons... What makes this season exceptionally captivating is 'la famiglia mafiosa' Antinari, their characters, their schemes and secrets...

The first episode of the season soon calls our attention to this family that will be in the center of all seven episodes: their most eminent members live in the northern part of Italy, in Milan, Lombardy. Yet, an elderly gentleman who began the whole business lives at a hotel in Taormina, Sicily, and thinks about different chess movements. They own a small island called Segno in the south where they go to rest or bury the privilidged members of their family in their private cemetery. Most importantly, however, they own a bank revealing contacts with different banks of the world, the Antinari bank....Indeed, a suspicious family for Corrado Cattani to figure out. How does he get into the mysterious family relations and businesses of questionable foundations if not through unpredictable events and a beautiful woman, Giulia. Again, as it has been the case before, the tragedy begins with the most innocent children... It will be a long way that will include various levels of society...but as a hero, the one who helped their little girl Greta (Alice di Giuseppe), he will make his way to their core.

One of the major strengths of the season which is not the longest in time but has the biggest number of episodes is the development of various characters. Apart from the Antinaris, who include a sophisticated personality of Carlo Antinari (Pierre Vaneck), lost, in a way, within the labirynth of the businesses and powers, Anna Antinari (Marie Laforet) who indeed appears to have found the wrong way in her life, the reasonable and cruel grandfather Nicola (played by unforgettable Alain Cuny), we are introduced with, perhaps, one of the three key figures of all LA PIOVRA: that is Tano Cariddi (played by Remo Girone). His first scene is so simple, he is in total shadow of the grandfather and yet, there will be a day when he will be the most powerful man to be questioned, investigated and seemingly put the blame on. We see the man of incredible corruption, indefatigable methods and bravura ill-ambition as clearly the one brought up in the Antinari family. Opposed to Dino Alessi (Adalberto Maria Meri), another man of wretched ways but condensed to single interests, he rises up and makes his way to the most brutal realizations for the future. Indeed, noone forgets Tano. Carlo Antinari is an interesting character. Formely dreaming of becoming a pianist, he was forced to make his way to the dirty business by war and, as he says, control the wealth and poverty of the world. In contrast to those comes a poor family Viviani with their tragic end and simple friars of Umbria where Corrado Cattani spends some days as peace and quiet for his tormented soul, namely Friar Bernardo. Mind you his simplicity and his austere ways to get to the protagonist's mind. A very interesting character and the one that really contributes to the story here is agent Bert Di Donato (played by Cyrus Elias) and his interesting assumptions. Finally, one Agrippina (what a Roman name) who got a gift and the person behind it...

The music score by Ennio Morricone and particularly his "Intimamente" beautifully fits to the content of the season. The tunes supplied with some haunting effects do resemble the Segno island with its mystery and the terrible murder that takes place there... That works well with such lovable locations like Giardini Naxos or Taormina with their villas, views of the sea and gardens.

And the love story that no season can actually do without. This one is more believable, more appealing and memorable. Cattani gets closer and closer to Giulia finding out so much and changing something within him as well. She appears to be his remedy.

It is really worth finding time and watching these seven episodes as a unique sequel that makes the whole story even more interesting and more memorable. The episodes are not that long and the script is engrossing.

After the smashing success of ROCKY, it occured back in the late 1970s that a sequel would have to parallel everything the story is about - pressure, strong will, indefatigable struggle and constant climbing upwards in order to retain its essential concept more powerfully. That is exactly what Sylvester Stallone had to cope with when the idea came up to make a sequel - a lot against the odds. The director John G Avildsen had another vision, there were certain complications with the studio managers, some actors, including Talia Shire were busy making other films, there were complications about the production rights and, foremost, the question about the portrayal of the protagonist.

What is Rocky, the former underdog, who dared go the distance with the champ, going to be like? He proved to be equal. How can he handle this achievement, both physically and psychologically? What to do to make him more identifiable with the audience? What to do not to disappoint so many people that saw the story as the one that truly appeared to parallel life - never give up?

And Sylvester Stallone took up directing the film and it was the key moment for what direction ROCKY would take. Nobody will just need to explain who Rocky is, we all know him but we wait for what he has to offer (more or less like in every sequel but there are so few that really succeed). Much at stake, a lot of risks are in store and yet...

ROCKY II from the very start proves to be a wonderful continuation at multiple levels. It starts, as most of the other sequels to come, with the last moment of 'its predecessor' when noone actually wins, neither Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers) nor Rocky (Sylvester Stallone), but the story continues...

Apollo Creed in his pride challenges the Italian stallion for the rematch, perhaps thinking that the fight itself has done harm to his image of indestructible, top notch heavyweight champion. In this moment, Rocky's face reveals the quintessential aspect of his nature. Content with where he stands - not refusing to give it a chance. That is all for us waiting for a victory so far... The story somehow goes apart from the boxing context creating an excellent context of, I am not afraid to tell it, one of the very best psychological depictions of a character. We see the priorities in Rocky's life: what is the most important goal for him now is not winning Apollo Creed but Adrian's (Talia Shire) love. He develops the relationship. He takes her to the zoo (perhaps following the advice he got in the first part, perhaps out of his personal choice - anyway, a place for animals, there is a part of 'animal' in every man) and proposes to her with the tiger in the background. With humor, he exclaims the invitation to their wedding loudly not yet having this 'eye of the tiger' that will be needed one day. It is wonderful how this rather simple guy, very delicate at these moments combines this manly gentleness indicated by the pet turtles in his flat with the manly strength and savageness indicated by a tiger. Their wedding, the priest who 'done real good', the reaction to Adrian's fear of oblivion: 'you never ain't getting rid of me' and simple life is what follows. Perhaps, not so simple because Rocky is now well known and more is expected of him. But does the fame inflict upon it, in a way?

The moments are beautifully incorporated into the whole story how life is built apart from the context of great fame and money influencing it. That appeals to wide audiences because the film is not watched merely by sportspeople but a lot of ordinary movie-goers who want to find something of themselves in the main character, some comfort that they are not alone in their struggles, dilemmas and fears. Rocky buys a car, takes Adrian to expensive shops, he sets up a family buying a flat not exactly knowing what it looks like upstairs. It is funny but does not show the character from some negative point of view. he is rather very likable and someone viewers may easily identify with. He is the one who loses his job, looks for other jobs, but all of them appear to be not for him. The hilarious sequence with the commercial rehearsals indicate the strange reality that individuals find themselves in the system. When I saw the scenes for the first time, I found them pretty foolish but then, after seeing them more times, I realized they really fit to the story and the moment of Rocky's life (also Sylvester's life because the story constantly parallels the actor's life). Then, he realizes that boxing is the only thing that he can make a living on.

The climax of emotions with reference to ordinary life, however, comes when Adrian gives birth to their son and goes into a coma. Along with the wonderful, touchy but no kitschy tunes by Bill Conti and the camera shots by Garret Brown, but foremost with the performance by Stallone, the scenes are landmarks of the sequel. Nothing is important for Rocky, not even seeing the child, but praying and waiting for the redemptive moment of Adrian's awakening. he waits...he hopes...he fights one of the most difficult struggles within himself (not the last one, sure). He will see the child but with Adrian because the child is theirs, not merely his... And the sports context does not leave him, does not push him but accompanies him in the person of Mickey (Burgess Meredith).

The chapel scene resembles that best...Mickey still has dreams, plans, yet, he is a true friend who affords patience at the side of his tired, worried friend. Mind you the camera shots and the details of pictures in the background...yes, everyone with aspirations is on their way to a sort of heyday, a sort of coronation that is not solely a religious resemblance of life. When Adrian wakes up, she says these crucial words that embody the motivational power a beloved woman can hold and make perfect use of: WIN! And Mickey nearby: "What are we waiting for?" And that is when the overwhelming flush of victory is born. This is the important 'rebirth' in his life and the wonderful scenes of training that follow. The training must follow this because Rocky has the people he does it for, he does not do that just for himself but for Adrian and for the baby. Therefore, boxing is in the background, yes, it is the driving force, the power behind without which Rocky could not exist, but, what makes the character so compelling to us and viewers of a few generations now is this striking priority of a simple, ordinary man.

Now, in the background, we get the development of Apollo Creed's character. it is significant to mention that Carl Weathers does not portray him as a villain, as the one who really hates Rocky and wants to drag him down, humiliate him, but we have a picture of a man who knows his value, who knows what effort he has taken to achieve what he has, and yet, struggles within himself how was it possible that some unknown fighter, an underdog could manage to go the distance with him. He neglects even his family obsessively reading about himself in the papers. And his trainer Duke (played brilliantly by Tony Burton) sees that power of the opponent well saying to Apollo "He's all wrong for us...the man kept coming after you" in spite of the fact he got beat so much before. Mr Weather in an interview admitted that he wanted to make Apollo an antagonist, sure, but without making him a villain. We do not necessarily like him, we do not take his side, sure - it is, after all, a Rocky film but we see him from a more psychological perspective than in the first part. And to say just far more psychology does he embody on the screen than some Rocky's opponents to come in III and IV... And here we get the rematch of the two who were equal in the first part and who both did their best.

The training moments are unforgettable here. I am not going to say by this that others are worse, not at all, but in ROCKY II they show the man on the streets of his city, Philadelphia, as the one who really has some fame, gets more and more skills, humorously chases a chicken and feels like a "Kentucky Fried idiot," appears to be a 'superhero' for those kids who leave their schools and run with him, climb the same steps, see an example to follow - the way against the odds. This of course leads to the climax on the "greatest night in the history of his life"..."Adrian, we did it!" Mind you that he does not say "I did it" but uses the first person Plural...that is a very important point because it somewhat defines the fact who Rocky actually is.

The character of Rocky makes progress (there would be no sportsman without it) but so does the music score by Bill Conti. Here in ROCKY II it becomes more deeply rooted in the character and in the direction his life takes. A lot of tunes do not reflect a slightly hesitating underdog fighting hard to push himself forward, to succeed, to go the distance but a more self-confident spirit. There are combinations of some truly tough tunes of hard moments that, as if, tell you EVERYTHING DEPENDS ON YOUR INNER CHOICE and some moments of comfort, relief, that whisper THE THINGS YOU DO ARE NOT IN VAIN. The soundtrack, therefore, is something that you might listen to apart from the movie itself and you feel that it awakens a vast scale of emotions from your depths. It is incredible. Very few musical pieces from films are able to do that on that scale.

ROCKY II is a film that supplies you with some key moments of the whole story, it is a parallel to life and its struggles, to emotions and their rises and falls, it is everything that makes Rocky so compelling. One of the very best sequels that have ever been made in the history of cinema. A masterful production!

It seems that those movie productions that had to fight the big fight with the expectations, somehow, turned out to be timeless, not only for the fans of the genre but for the general audiences as well. That is, undeniably, the case with ROCKY not yet directed by Sylvester Stallone but by late John G Avildsen (who comes back with the direction of ROCKY V in 1990). ROCKY, after all these years and a lot of sequels made after, including the recent CREED films, proves to be one of the very best films about sport, a sportsman and, most importantly, a personality - formerly 'nobody' rising to the top-notch fame and popularity.

Not being a particular fan of boxing, I am not trying to review this film as an expert relating to some details about it. Indeed, there have been plenty of such reviews before me who praise the way the fight is being filmed here. When I recently re-watched it with my wife, I rather wanted to see it in a fresh way, without all this background knowledge and unnecessary facts what happened later. Just see Rocky as a young man, seemingly 'nobody' an underdog with no perspectives, who lives in a poor district of Philadelphia, in an almost obscure flat (he says that 'his whole place stinks') and yet, is offered a chance of a lifetime - possibility to fight the big fight with the heavy weight champion, Apollo Creed. ROCKY is unique in that determination and the strength he finds within himself because...

Sylvester Stallone portrays a man with whom he somehow identifies (that was also the moment in his career - taking a chance that appears once in a lifetime). He has true, genuine motives. His personal motives are powerfully depicted in several scenes, particularly the unforgettable relation with Mickey (played by legendary Burgess Meredith). In the scene of Mick's first visit to Rocky's stinking place, the young boxer opens up his inner self and amidst the rage of his soul, the pain of his mind, he meets a true friend who does not turn his back to him but helps him out and motivates. Mickey understands because he was a boxer himself, he did have his prime and he knows what it is to 'eat lightin' and crap thunder.' Rocky and Mick's relationship is the essence of a tutor and a student, the essence of a good coach who knows the tough rules that are inspiring, astounding, demanding - yet never imposed. This is the power that Rocky finds in himself thanks to Mick who is there to fan the flame of the desire to face the challenge. And he does that truly effectively proving that he 'ain't no bum.' Sometimes, when you watch their scenes, you just seem to forget it is played. It seems so real. Both actors feel their roles tremendously.

Sylvester Stallone, apart from the tough world of boxing, apart from being the "Italian Stallion" he called himself, portrays a truly gentle guy. That is, in a way, something we like about Rocky most. It is not a typical 'macho' pretending to have no feelings. But where can you find this truth about the man if not when facing a woman. ROCKY combines this subtlety with timidness in the scenes with Adrian (played by Talia Shire already known at the time for her supporting role in GODFATHER). Thanks to Paulie (Burt Young) who supplies Rocky with the meat for the boxing sack and the woman for loving, they go for the first date. I loved the scene he takes her to the ice rink. Mind you that this scene somehow forgets about the tough world that is in the background and is a true depiction of some genuine, pure male-female fascination. The two alone on the ice rink resemble a couple alone in the world, just for themselves. Each of their movement, each of the word they say to each other (Rocky appears to be far more talkative) is here to stay in your memory. The moment he takes her glasses off and their first kiss (which was, for Stallone pretty challenging because Talia Shire was having a flu when she was playing the scene), her visit to his flat (at first so shy and hesitating, yet she made up her mind and entered the flat giving him the credit...as he later remembers in ROCKY BALBOA), these are the moments that you really feel as a viewer. As a matter of fact, her style, her clothes indicate this inexperience and that aspect of her personality is something that Rocky is taken with. Their love grows in the following parts, indeed, but it is here when their scenes are unforgettable. Two people outside of the world that imposes certain manners and conventions: "But it's Thanksgiving. Yeah to you, but to me it's Thursday."

Sylvester Stallone, though he is not the director of this film, proves to know the psychological mechanisms that are behind the wings of the boxing rink. Imagine that Apollo Creed (played by Carl Weathers who, recently in an interview, still remembers this role as one of his key roles of the career) the master is to fight with some 'underdog' who trains on meat and dares say: "I will fight the big fight" This is the pride of a champion that is put to test, this is the situation when truly much is at stake. It is good to remember one scene here when Creed talks on TV and says to sportsmen seemingly discouraging simple people from sport: "be a thinker not a stinker." This fear of losing wide acclaim is even more visible in ROCKY II but here, the idea behind it all is not merely a sort of 'rematch' but a guy - a 'nobody' daring fight with the widely acclaimed master that Apollo is. Very well played by Mr Weathers and their fight at the end of the movie is something that you can watch in slow motion even admiring every camera shot, every emotion evoked, dwelling in the spirit of competition, yes, but foremost courage.

It would be unfair to review ROCKY and not to mention a word about the very location of the story, the city of Philadelphia. It is no coincidence that Stallone chose this place as the setting of the story: those streets where he is running, those steps that he climbs while training early in the morning, the very background of rising from the bottom. The train that he hears in his small flat, the singing and street parties that he passes (Frank Stallone among the people), the character of Marie whom Rocky discourages from smoking and the kids that leave school and run with Rocky (yes, that is the second part but Philadelphia plays its role in all parts, in particular ROCKY BALBOA where sentiment is combined with the change and new reality).

ROCKY is a lovely film with lovely music. The soundtrack is something that can be listened to for hours all over again being a source of inspiration for training, a source of finding this 'power of spirit' from within yourself, it is relaxing and extremely memorable by itself but also fits best to the scenes. Bill Conti did a terrific job here. The theme song "Gonna Fly Now" and "You Take My Heart Away" simply have a tremendous impact on the emotions of viewers.

ROCKY is a rather simple story about a simple guy who trains in a simple way and falls in love with a simple woman. Yet, perhaps that is why it is so extraordinary that may prove to stand aside the masterpieces of cinema and dare equal them.

"It is an altogether beautiful story set in a lovely scenery and supplied with gorgeous costumes. We, as cast, had never thought of it as such a great hit. We simply did our best." (Katerina Kovalchuk in an interview in Poland).

"It is an exceptional project for me. So far, I have not had a chance to take part in this kind of work and it is even a greater pleasure for me because I am keen on history." (Alexey Yarovienko in an interview in Poland).

It seems that those words tell everything and in spite of the fact that this is not a historical production, the series will soon become historic because it has become a hit already in my homeland. We Poles have felt privilidged to welcome three members of the cast in Poland recently: Katerina Kovalchuk, Alexey Yarovienko and Michail Gavrilov.

At the beginning of my review, I must admit that I am not a particular fan of soap operas and long series with many seasons and episodes because sooner or later, the producers tend to skip the point, somehow, and the action becomes, in a way, boring. There have been a few timeless productions, nevertheless, which were exceptions to that rule. In my country (Poland), the first soap opera still remembered by many was the Brazilian ISAURA showed on Polish television in the mid-1980s. The streets became quiet when it was on. People were crazy about it and some new born female babies were christened Isaura in spite of its odd sounding name. Later, as years passed by and there were more and more cheap soap operas, a lot of movie fans and contemporary viewers treated them with slight irony. It seemed no such 'social mania' might be ahead of us. Additionally, we must consider the role of television which has changed tremendously after all these years. Yet, a greater success came which has awed people in my country. In this way, none of us thought of it as a hit (referring to Ms Kovalchuk's words). It was a true surprise for all of us.

After the premiere of season 1 in Ukraine and its presentation in Cannes, the Polish television TVP1 started to broadcast the Ukrainian series THE LOVE IN CHAINS (originally KREPOSTNAYA which can be translated as "enslaved") in July. Although the parallels occurred strong with the aforementioned ISAURA and some maybe saw THE LOVE IN CHAINS as a sort of its 'remake,' the series attracted our attention from its very beginning and occurred captivating. As it consists of 48 fifty minute-episodes (24 episodes for season 1 and 24 for season 2), my wife and I watched it almost every evening because it was on TV so often. Its popularity grew so rapidly that the TV bought the second season right away and the Polish viewers could see it even before the Ukrainian ones. Why is it such a sensation?

As penned by Svetlana Tsivinskaya and directed by Feliks Gerchikov and Maksim Litvinov, it is a mesmerizing depiction of various characters. All characters, even the supporting ones, are memorable and sophisticated. It's not the way like: 'Now I am going to show you a true villain" No, everyone is depicted psychologically and bound to change. Moreover, the story is set in a very intereresting period of history, in the mid 1850s in Ukraine (which belonged to tsarist Russia at that time). As a period drama, it rightly hits the tone of the 19th century, supplies us with an in-depth insight into the reality, particularly the discrepancies between the rich and the poor. While watching it, you are brought to that time along with its beauty, sophistication and elegance. You follow the fate of Katerina Verbitskaya which is filled with, symbolically, everything that a person can experience in life, most tormented life actually (physically, mentally and spiritually). She seems to be afflicted by suffering, sometimes embodying it to the very core and, yet, does not lose hope in destiny's justice. But she is no Isaura (though parallels can be drawn). In her problems, she does not go to the garden to think but she gives us an insight into her spiritual life and prays, even for her persecutors... That is a very important difference because her character is made far more spiritual and identifiable. More to say, lovable. Katerina Kovalchuk does a wonderful job in the role. She combines innocence with decisiveness and gentleness with appeal. There were many actresses who were cast for the role, including Anna Sagaydachnaya (Natalie from the series) but I think that Ms Kovalchuk was the right choice. A lot of people will probably agree with me, though, it does not mean that other actresses would not have been good at this role. Yet, Ms Kovalchuk has something special.

Yes, our heroine goes through incredibly hard things, terrible things that life can offer a human and she hits the tone of emotional bond with the viewers very well. It is true that you watch it and you empathize with her. But, our attention is not only on the protagonist but others who also do terrific jobs and play important roles in her life. Mainly, Michail Gavrilov, a villain, Grigorij Cervinsky madly in love with Katerina. Being in all the episodes of the series, we see his change for the worse and a haunting way towards addiction and madness. A mention must be made of Anna Sagaydachnaya in the role of good-hearted Natalie, wife of Grigorij's. Alexey Yarovenko is brilliant as the love of her life, the love that could not be fulfilled... Stanislav Boklan and Yuliya Aug give strong performances as the landlords of Cervinsky's mansion. Ms Aug, already famous for her brilliant roles including empress Elisabeth Petrovna in CATHERINE, is worth attention as Katerina's godmother Anna Lvovna Cervinskaya. She portrays a rather positive character whom we come to like later... There is also her daughter Polina Aug who plays young Anna Lvovna in the flashback scenes. The scenes of the emotional tensions between father, Peter Chervinsky and son Grigorij are unforgettable. Mind you the episode with the wedding... One of the backstories which should not be skipped here is the relation between masters and peasants. They were different: some very bad which gave bases for later riots and revolution (historically), some were better. Ksenija Miszyna portrays a villainous lady Lidia Scheffer who treats her subjects as slaves, things and offers our protagonist many sufferings. But do not take everything too seriously...

(I heard in one interview with the actress that people felt the story so intensely that they really believed she (Ksenija not Lidia) did bad things to Katerina and the actress was judged by the viewers...yeah, some people do not see the borderline between fiction and reality. It is a sad fact because it sheds a shadow upon the reputation of its viewers. Shame! That is obviously not what the series is mean to be.

All the people in the series do their best and it is too short for on review to mention all. Simply, as a viewer you feel you are in another period of time thanks to them. Nazar, a blacksmith, Halka, a servant girl with her change of heart, Nikolaj, Natalie's brother so indefatigable to defend Alexey's honor, Pavlina, a lovable cook, Elena and the humble senator (a wonderful character in season 2) and many many others. Very good performances!

The costumes are another great merit of the series. They are wonderful and go perfectly well with the interiors and exteriors. You see a convincing 'fashion display' of the period. What palaces and gardens! Some scenes were shot in the town of Niezyn in Ukraine. Supposedly, a lot of fans of the series will like to visit the place and deservedly so.

There are a lot of good things that could be said about the series but, we think (my wife and I) that its crucial aspect that a sensitive viewer will never forget is not the power of mind nor the power of will that it attempts to grasp but the power of heart. In spite of cruelty, religious fanatism, injustices, treason, disappointment, despair, wretchedness, masochism that one may experience, all those demons are not able to deprive a good person of a good heart. This is a very clear message of the series and for that matter, a true credit to all the people who took part in this memorable production. Not merely Ukrainian version of ISAURA but an involving, captivating series.

Hopefully, the series will be an equal success internationally as it was in Poland once it has been released. Look for it, really worth attention.

Thank you for reading.

Narrated by William Hordern, the first episode focuses on Vienna where Franz Josef (Miles Anderson) becomes emperor in 1848. The roar of revolution is over and his mother, archduchess Sophie and emperor Ferdinand (who is not mentioned here whatsoever) resign the throne for the sake of her young son. She seems to hope to dominate her son in all decisions and truly he appears to be in the shadow at first; however, the time comes when his answer is 'No.' Franz does not marry his cousin Helene but Elisabeth, nicknamed Sissi (Diane Keen), much to his mother's dismay. A very famous story put on screen several times. Of course, what comes to mind is the trilogy with Romy Schneider but let us now leave the cinematic fairy tales and move to reality.

Bill Hays, Hugh Whitemore and John Elliot give us a far more realistic picture of the love story and political story of the time, which absorbs a viewer from the very beginning. It is, first of all, short of unnecessary tearjerkers. Much in the spirit of the whole series, the first episode is no exception and shows this story in the context of rising changes in Europe at the time which had a very strong impact on the fall of monarchies. Sophie (Pamela Brown) represents the past views on society, on governing, on family and, foremost, on the way the future of the country should be built. Sissi, however, brings fresh air to the old walls of the Hofburg Palace, where, unfortunately, she finds herself in a cage. She is much interested in Hungary (mind you that the Hungarians did not only symbolize a certain manifestation of fight for independence and freedom at the time but were very much disliked at the court because of the attempt on the life of the emperor administered by a Hungarian). Count Andrassy (Sandor Eles) is no sweet figure that makes Sissi feel in love but the very embodiment of resistance. He comes to the court. I liked the scene when the second child of Sissi and Franz Josef is born and it is a girl again. No successor to the throne... the court are saddened but the Hungarians are happy. Yes, that was their point of view.

Yes, they were against this very way of power before the Austro-Hungarian empire, before the 1860s and Sophie trembles at the very thought of some revolutionary ideas, some new waves within the borders of the empire. Her sole aim is to keep the dynasty alive and never let the eagle fall. She believes that a child that Sissi is can be curbed. Consider this sole method of CONTROL - that is her weapon - present throughout the series bringing forth new characters with totally new situations but being governed by the same principle. Those reactions to the changes were partly a reason for the fall of monarchies, the drastic change that the 20th century brought. There is a lovely scene when both women talk about the vision of Austria, the vision of the empire, which, to Sophie's mind "must be preserved at all costs." Can it?

The dramatisation by Hugh Whitemore and John Elliot leaves little room for the emperor, it seems. It is a deliberate psychological attempt to show the game behind the curtains, the game of women. The theater scene shows that vividly. Who is being applauded and who is being cheered? One of them has to dance the death waltz...

The performances are really great. Like in case of many British productions of the time, there is little room for special effects, there is little room for alluring the eye with some overwhelming sets but what evokes truly is acting. You sometimes have a feeling you are watching a Shakespeare play but it all adds much vigour to the drama. Particularly, Pamela Brown as archduchess Sophie and Diane Keen as Sissi. Miles Anderson as Franz Josef is a little bit too old for the period the episode depicts.

It is good to start viewing this series from episode one because in spite of the fact it seems that the second episode has nothing to do with this one, you later realize it is all one big whole. Very worth seeing!