Reviews

*** In 1944 - during a WWII - a fascism regime has came into power in Budapest. Although the hard circumstances few men come to drink and spend every evenings in a boozer together to speak about their common acquaintances and the proper and finest making of the fresh calf's meat. They are Mr. Gyuricza, the watchmaker, Mr. Kiraly, the book agent, Mr. Kovacs, the carpenter and Bela colleague, the innkeeper. One day an unknown photographer come to join them exactly when Gyurizca put a question in his usual satirical method to the company: what if they could rebirth and choose between the roles of the rich tyrant and the tortured slave who's still honorable. What would be? That time they don't know yet that this theoretic question must be answered very soon in a real torture room. ***

This movie paints excellent picture how the dictatorship has worked in deed and how the regime has caught and changed the common people into something they never would became. It's not a 1984 like we've seen that in Orwell's powerful but mostly utopian vision, neither it's not really a V for Vendetta which is Hollywood's romantic Zorro-like dream about a totalitarian society. It's the story of the nameless people, the nobody who has the power at will, but no will to use their power. The director, Zoltan Fabri handles the characters properly. The dialogs are great and the filming is amazing. Some people may say it's dark but I think it has more then bright light to show how the regime has manipulated the common people who lived in the country. They didn't print any handout against the regime. They wouldn't explode anything. They just would live in the country. Still. They were hazardous for the regime. Once they got their accordance and reason, they got the power and could not be stopped anymore. Or almost not. This is what the regime never let to happen.

I think that the main oppressor character (formed by Zoltan Latinovics - in my opinion he was the one of the greatest actors who has ever lived) has right.

'It's tiny issue when somebody drop a bomb to a party house. Some paints things to the walls. It's also tiny issue. Some shoot few friend of ours that's also a tiny issue. Why? Because we are going to catch them and hang up or shoot them. Before or after but finally they will be all dead for sure. So they are all tiny issues. The remaining ones matter! Whose don't explode bomb, don't paint or anything. They live among us. They are the mass. We may have some real problem with them.'

Fascism or communism. Doesn't matter. Both has followed the same overwhelming cliché what Ferenc Santa (the writer) put so effectively into his characters' mouth.

'These four men have to learn that you really have the right to tell them that their wife is a whore or beat them as you wish. They must memorize that they can do nothing but you can do anything! Keep them in doubts. Let them fear, including the innocents and criminals... so you will beat them on a pedagogic basis.'

I'm wondering that this movie could be created during the 70s of Hungary (for the readers are not native Hungarians, we have a communist regime until 1989). But I'm quite sure that the oppressors of that time didn't recognize themselves in this mirror as they acted right after 1956 in the darkest years of the communism. Maybe Mr. Gyuricza, the watchmaker said properly. 'The tyrant was sure that he is the best ruler in world because he acts according to the morality of the age and he has right reason.'

One more thing: in my opinion this movie precisely open up the sad fact that almost all dictatorships have left shame in the nameless survivors' soul for something, to hardly let them speak and trust again to each other. It's one of the oppressors' well crafted advantage.

In total: Excellent movie. Deep and touching. Good acting. Honorable question. What is your choice would be?

I can recommend this anyone who wish to know more about that psychology of the theme. Unfortunately the DVD release I got has got only Hungarian language. I hope that some dubs or subtitles are available somewhere for other languages to show this great movie for a greater audience.

First of all, I think there was nothing special in the story itself. We have already seen these moments (power, politics, and war) in other movies in many other forms and mixtures. I can't count how much movies were created.

What I much like is that this movie never wanted to show USA as holy liberator and a land which can not stand with cold blood while innocents are suffering by a suppressor. Of course, she can, if her interests say that. This time her interest obviously suggests to do something else. I don't believe that the billion dollar support which was given to Afganistan back to that years was up to one or few men only as the story has told but it was really good to see how Charlie Wilson character got his conviction when gone to a refugee camp. Here I have felt some idealistic line behind, while the movie would never say or suggest directly that Charlie has right and want to bring freedom for Afganistan. I think one of the most important virtue in this movie is its realistic portrayal about a senator who has the power to do what he wants but he did nothing important for a long time. He was just like anybody else: a human with passion and weakness. His love, Joanne also.

Tom Hanks was great as always but this time I felt Julia Roberts was a bit greater. Philip Seymour Hoffman was also noticeable in his role.

Let me close this comment with Charlie's quotas from the end: "These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world...and then we f...ed up the end game." I think, this is the message which has to be learned in this age for everyone who can spend one billion for a war but can not spend only one million for the stability of the regions he had leave his footsteps...

My rate was 8 for the movie.

When I've seen this movie I was curious what is the user rating of this at IMDb. Generally it helps me to decide if a movie is worth enough to watch or not.

Although I agree with the guys who said that this film has several weaknesses (for example that the music was not fit all scene and there was not too emphatic relationship between the hero and the heroine) what I can appreciate in it that is the pure characters and the interesting job with the pictures. Somebody just claimed these things in the movie (he said characters have no motivations and the pictures are in-consequence in the style) but my opinion is that the movie which tells everything about its main characher's life without let the viewer see few years of his/her life is unreal and too much. I like when there are some minor moments in characters and in the story which remain covered. If the filmmakers let it up to my fantasy I like that. :) (But not on that hard way as Donnie Darko did. That was too much for me too.)

The Alone In The Dark wasn't a great film but fair. A common story with some myth, monsters and heroes in the present days. There were three memorable visual scene for me. The monsters run down from the hill between the trees, one of them jumps to the helicopter and third one is the landscape of the other plane. These were interesting and spectacular experiences really. Also the narrator's (Slater's) voice was fit to the dark behaviour of this film precisely. He wasn't bad in his role.

My vote was 8 to bring the average up but this movie is not more then 6 at all.