Reviews

I binged-watched all of the episodes. It is very classically Stephen King. The protagonists are the loser children in school, weirdo Jonathan managing to win over popular girl Nancy's affections, the traumatized middle-aged cowboy Hopper discovering conspiracy theories are real, and there are absolutely no worthy Asian characters in the whole thing. But again, people don't read Stephen King to be inspired about social stereotypes, or to enjoy literary creativity. They read to get some commercially guaranteed thrill. By that standard I think this series score the goal perfectly. I really like Eleven. Millie Bobby Brown made her lovable but alien. It was clear that Eleven was in unimaginable pain, which crippled her senses as a normal child. I really love Eleven and Mike's little relationship episode. Only beings as pure-hearted as children can truly allow themselves to love something they don't understand. It was also heartbreaking that although she kept thinking about other people's welfares, nobody really thought about hers. Chief Hop sold her to her 'papa' in no time, even though he knew she definitely didn't want to go back there. Joyce held her and assured her like a mother when she was helping to find Will, but she was also glad to see her return to a life time of traumatizing experiments. Nobody except Mike ever opened their hearts to her, then the lost of her life was dealt with such ease and spontaneity, which made me really sad. Joyce's story was supposed to be a very touching one. She insisted on what she thought was right even though the whole world told her otherwise. I was really moved when she set up the Christmas lights around the alphabet. It was a smartness manifested through desperation driven by fanatic love, and it is always moving in whatever backdrop. But her hysterical screaming grew a little tiresome after a while. It didn't feel real. She so insistently complained to everyone about losing a child that it almost seemed like she sought satisfaction from the action itself. Like she was enjoying her tragic-mother story-plot. If she ever looked tired when dealing with people it would look a lot more real. The villains are ridiculous. All they ever do was doing experiments or driving around in expensive cars. They had no emotional depth and felt really hollowed out. But for a middle- aged fantasy with evil government and secret human experiments, more depth could not have been attempted since the fantasy itself was stupid and shallow and too exploited. Except for those, flow of the story was flawless and really consuming. I am not immune to stories of smart middle-schoolers so it was really fascinating to me. I attribute the effect this show has on me to excellent directing. The monster looked gross, scary but really video game-ish. I didn't understand why it's proved there were two demogorgans there couldn't be more. If I were the Byers I would move out of the house and settle somewhere out of the triangular zone, and told everyone else in the zone to move away.

This film has a really expensive cast, which does the original story justice, which was written by the Literature Nobel Prize winner Kazuo Ishiguro. Although Ishiguro moved to England in an early age, his story is heavily Japanese-flavored. Humanity, isolation, despair, love, those are very common themes in Japanese literature. Therefore I feel like a large portion of plot would be better suited for Japanese actors and actresses. It might not be that comprehensible in this side of the cultural gap. Even jarringly inconsistent.

For example, the Japanese obsession with vagueness is unique to Japanese culture, and not translatable by language. It is very understandable for Japanese characters to not say something important, even those that must be spoken, in fear of spoiling the present that they so enjoy. Tommy wouldn't tell Ruth that he liked Kathy more because he was unsure of Kathy's feelings. He would be afraid that he would cause Kathy troubles if he rejected Ruth, since romantic rejection for her sake would clearly ruin Kathy and Ruth's friendship. But since Kathy already saw Ruth and Tommy kissing, she wouldn't tell Tommy she liked him in fear of hurting Ruth. Ruth, of course, cared deeply about both her friends, therefore the fragile balance could sustain. But none of those misunderstandings and subtle, beautiful web of love and friendship would be possible in the brutally transparent language that was used in the film. I think the difference might be that it is impossible to tell what an Asian person is feeling by looking at him/her/them, but it is for Westerners, therefore it would all be quicker and easier.

Carey Mulligan, being a fan of the book, did a very precise and relatable interpretation of the book. Her performance would satisfy the fan. But Andrew Garfield made Tommy look like a total loser. He said in one of the interviews that Tommy was anxious, so he was trying to spice anxiety into his performance. It doesn't take an expert to tell that he was wrong. Tommy wasn't anxious at all. In fact, he was meticulous, caring, sensitive, endearing. He was powerless yet heartbreakingly firm about defending his love and friends and humanity. He wasn't supposed to make any audience resent or despise Tommy. If he had actually read the book, the movie would be entirely different. But I love his scream at the end. It was very heart-felt and soul-crunching. I was very inspired and shaken by that scream. At least he got that right.

Keira Knightly went amiss too. Her Ruth was mean, manipulative, domineering. But a Japanese Ruth would be more considerate, more gentle, more smooth. She would not so openly, easily declare her affections, but would wait until it bursted her and tortured her more than she could bear that she spitted it out. She was supposed to feel like a friend worth having, but did the worst thing for caring. Keira Knightly said in an interview that she didn't understand Ruth's motives. Audience can sense that by watching, and those misunderstandings kind of tore the story apart.

I am grateful that someone bothers to make the novel into a movie at all. To convey the cultural and emotional contexts of the novel, they were obviously trying very hard, but to a mediocre success. I can't say Japanese actors would do it any better, since some of them regard acting with a bizarre kind of sportsmanship instead of craftsmanship, pushing themselves into emotional and physical limits instead of thinking with clear heads what the characters were really supposed to do. So I guess it is as good as it can get.

This is a series that is worthy of David Fincher's name. The series is thrilling, suspenseful, intense, humorous, and really, really entertaining. This series reflects everything I love about David Fincher. A good-looking, unappreciated and talented male who gets absorbed by an idea that entirely changes his life. Yes, I think this series feels really like Social Network. Jonathan Groff even really looks like Jesse Eisenberg with that urgent little-animal stare and the steep angle of his chin. I really love this type of protagonist, so I binge-watched all ten episodes. It turned out to be worthy of my time.

I hate it when artists hand-feed me what to feel and what to think. I cannot stand the media-makers that think of their viewers condescendingly. It reflects very clearly in their works and it makes me uncomfortable. This series especially shoulders the risk of such unpleasantness because it is a frequently abused genre, FBI and serial killers, so used that people don't expect good stuff out of it anymore. But the series explore it from a intimate, academic point of view. Instead of regarding the criminals as a piñata to tackle, this series is audacious enough to allow the audience to generate empathy for them. It made me sick to the stomach at the first place, but this sickness offset my weariness of all the routines of this genre that the series is forced to use, and kept me intrigued.

The series is a masterpiece in that it doesn't throw out one of its most brilliant baits of the first season until the 7th episode, where Holden became to look enchanted, morally corrupted by the serial killers that he was so obsessed with, which eventually threatened to be a part of him. So the audience began worried that Holden might be synchronized into a sociopath. But by watching the series, I realize that as soon as the audience's fear is confirmed by not-so-subtle cues, they start to lose interest and the bait would't work anymore. So our fear and greasy, oily sick feeling was not justified until he was hugged by Ed Kemper in the last five minutes of the season.

I am not sure how to respond to their hiring Gregg instead of the more qualified black applicant. That was blatant racism, and Professor Carr's logic to justify it made it even more uncomfortable. The fact that Gregg actually started to fit in upsets me even more. The kinky girlfriend was stiff but fun at first, but then she started to feel overbearing and inconsiderate, which is also a mechanism often used to justify the anti-feministic side. It would reinforce the idea that it is impossible to balance feminism with social roles in reality. The criminology professor, who looked like a mid-eastern Islamic person, flinched from FBI, is even less savory. But at least they casted Jonathan Groff, who came out of closet bravely, as the protagonist. That one is a bonus.

I understand that this series is try to be documentary, but takes advantage of the historical blurriness of its subject to be also sensationalistic. Not many people would feel that the team who coined the term "serial killer" must be a good story even if they study it for school. The more I savor this whole season, the more I feel the preciousness of talents that are demonstrated in this series, and feel lucky to be born in this era. Probably because I really enjoy the lonely genius routine. Can't wait to watch the next season.

The writing started out good. The atmosphere of morbidity and surrealism was pretty well conveyed. The 'ominous ambiance', as it keeps appearing in the subtitle column, played a major role in establishing this undertone. The setting was pretty classic sci-fi. A 'Mozart' level brilliant CEO, who lived in a secluded deep mountain in a luxurious mansion like Falling Water by Frank Lloyd Wright, with a spark of a whim invited a mediocre programmer to witness his revolutionary AI experiment. It should have been dreamy, exciting and adventurous at the beginning, then taking a steep turn to be shocking and pathological when the dark secrets of the scenic set-up was unveiled. But it didn't quite get there before the film quit this story scheme and irritatingly settle on the morbid atmosphere that too impatiently burst out. Domhnall Gleeson could't curb his realization that the film was going to slide towards the horror genre, therefore we as audience are painfully aware that he didn't make an effort to try to appear human at all. He was reticent and hesitant way beyond necessary, his untimely suspenses was not a symptom of social awkwardness, but a sign of laziness in the actor's part, trying to shift the burden of major emotional breakthroughs onto Nathan's shoulder. I kept observing him closely, trying to make out his personalities from his pitifully scarce actions and speeches, but couldn't really. His unsuccessful attempt to be transparent made him even more obtrusive in the story plot. I wonder why his sporadic silence was not edited out.

Alicia Vikander was the reason I attempted to try the film, and she didn't flunk my expectation. Her acting was very natural and fluent. Ava's girlish expression in her floral dress was absolutely adorable. When she ascended the stairs in Nathan's mansion to 'the free world', her smile was the purest child-like pleasure of exploring the world. Ava's vindictive condescension after the knife was immersed in Nathan's belly was also very satisfying to watch. But of course she wasn't the perfect Hepburn-ish heroine, since she manipulated Caleb's affection, Kyoto's trust, and used them to murder her creator. Her sociopathy steered the story away from the moral advantages or disadvantages of AI. She was the character holding the helm and made sure this outlandish story didn't turn out to be another moral lesson about an invention we hadn't made yet.

And of course I have to comment on the Asian factors that were there just to be exotic and exciting. The salmon, the sex toy Asian girl Kyoko, Jade in the closet whose skin Ava was wearing, provided a seamlessly perfect ethnic backdrop for the white characters' story. Kyoko wasn't given a single line, and Jade, who banged against the wall until she fell apart, just proved another horrendous crisis for the white cast to face. The Japanese factors were exploited and pickled in their own miserable silences, much resembling a cinematic colony. This accusation could have been shunned if Ava was played by an Asian actress, but I guess an Asian protagonist is still too progressive an idea in the filmmaking world. It would have stung less if not for the abnormally small cast and very isolated stage, which categorized the film vaguely as an art film, and lifted our standards for sophistication of ideas encompassed.

The writing was comparatively good for a sci-fi film like this. Acting possessed more sensibility and thoughtfulness than an average commercial film. But I think we can unanimously decide that this isn't a classic.

The production was very respectful to Montgomery's book. The aesthetics was very stunning, and I couldn't skip the opening sequence like I did the other shows, because the dirt, the coldness, darkness, butterflies and vines were such perfect symbolisms for Anne. I loved it that she was so lively, mature, melodramatic, and even a little selfish, although in the adorable way. She was heartwarming and an angel to anyone that knew her, her romantic notions for life made people want to cherish her and treat her like a princess. I binge-watched 7 episodes of the first season, and I can't wait for the second season to come out!

Some anonymous bloggers reported that Anne's responses was not befitting of Anne in the original version, therefore not the perfect Anne that everyone grew up with, or her mental breakdowns and PTSD-ish flashbacks made Anne less of a romantic dreamer. They thought the focus on bullying was too much, and the world was too vicious. They also thought Anne should stayed for proving her usefulness, not for who she was. I thought these notions too absurd to be treated seriously. But I am going to criticize it to quench my indignation anyway. Making Anne a super-girl or a great spirit reduces Anne to the dimensions of a fairytale, therefore giving the realism a discount. There a lot of qualities in Anne that all girls should aspire to acquire: curiosity, passion, optimism, academic vigor, compassion......Confining Anne to a fictional and King Arthur like great heroine only make those of her great qualities seem harder to acquire for the girls, therefore greatly curtail her educational values. Anne should be a girl we all desire to meet in our real life, to be friend with, or to become. She should not be "Anne the antique character from a book written hundreds of years ago", but "Anne the character that deserves everlasting and universal admiration and respect". I think the show accomplish that purpose splendidly.

Although according to the New Yorker's review, the show was confounding genres and betraying the original work with exaggerated emotions, I think the mixture of horror, comedy and romance brought out the multi-dimensions of Anne's life, and was necessary for the depiction of a girl whose 'scope of imagination' was as volatile and boundless as Anne's. The dark undertone that her tragic past inflicted and perpetuated into her whole life would be betrayed by a soft and warm color scheme. Only the sheer contrast, dark tone and bluish white balance would do it justice. Moira Walley-Beckett promised a tint of realism and proto-feminism for this work, and I think she did it just fine. Although I wouldn't say her writing connected to the original version seamlessly, I was too grateful for the birth of this Netflix series to seriously complain about anything.

I like Amybeth McNulty's depiction of Anne and Lucas Zumann's depiction of Gilbert IMMENSELY. Gilbert was the perfect epitome of that one dreamy boy in everyone's class who managed to be both hopelessly handsome and destructively well-mannered. Lucas Zumann did well in not making the character seem Mary Sue, and managed to emanate the right amount of charm at the same time. He fitted well into most girls' daydreams. I wish he could be vastly popular very soon for me to see him more, but not so famous as Justin Bieber as to be spoiled and drowned by fame and become a narcissist. As for Amybeth McNulty, she was very acute, mature and almost too good at memorizing lines at her age. Her extraordinary acting and firm belief in the character gave it a kind of solidity that I didn't expect from a child actress. Her knack for interpreting the lines clearly uttered and edited by educated adults, and transforming it with a child's naiveté and dreaminess made the show very enjoyable. I wish the passage of time would not alter the actors and actresses approach to acting, and I wish the production team would keep their zeal and standards, so I, as a passionate and impatient fan, will see season 2 very soon, before I forget my wholehearted appreciation for season1.

5 out of 6 I gave to Emma Watson's acting. I blame everyone who decided to put Emma's face to this. You ruined a bad movie by adding a wonderful actress to it.

The Circle is no more than an expensive student film made by mediocre students, a social commentary that is not original at all, and a piece of writing that cannot be dignified as literature. I pity all the CGIs, money and time spent in it. It's giving voice to an idea that has already been heard widely, letting it fester and stink of cliché.

First of all, I wouldn't call it dystopia, because it is not believable enough to be daunting. The alarmists might scream: "This is already happening! This is what the future has in store for us!" If that is the sentiment this film tries to convey then the first episode of the third season of Black Mirror does a so much better job. I am not judging which theory is closer to the future. In this movie the crowd seems utterly numb and devoid of humanity. When (Bailey) Tom Hanks goes on stage and talk about sticking surveillance camera in the tree, you would expect even the most unthinking crowd to bring up the privacy cliché, not to mention an elite company filled with intellectuals. When the female criminal Fiona is hunted like a trapped deer and pressed to the wall by a muscular police to form an image that almost look like rape, you would expect the audience to be sympathetic. But all they do is freaking clap and cheer. They are utterly unconvincing. The production team is doing their best to look down upon human society/collective intelligence, and drag it to the same level of a barely high school graduate sitting in his parents' garage, writing some nonsense and fantasizing about being famous for it.

Except for that, I accuse this film of ethnic back-dropping. Ty is a good Morpheus character. He is black, he is mysterious, and he is a good computer person. Good, so far they've managed to copy from Matrix, Hunger Game, Now You See Me and a thousand other popular movies. But then his existence is completely forgotten, he has nothing to do with the development of the plot, except to show how wrong Mae is. Although Mae ignored his advice completely and fought for total transparency, which is opposite of Ty's, there is no process of reconciliation. He just jumped back to being Mae's best friend. Why, because he's black, he isn't entitled to feel betrayed by someone whom he is brave enough to open up to, but turns to serve something he is totally afraid of? Smith Cho and Ellen Wong's are the only two Asian characters, their both blindly following the system and managing to appear despicable in the process. This bit of contrivance disgusts me more than you can imagine. If you ask me how much implicit racism this film includes I would say it's the percentage of all the votes here I am not giving it.

The CGI is perfect, the shots are slightly above Hollywood standard, which only make me more confused why such a film bothers to be made. I will prevent my friends from watching this movie as much as I can.

I am writing this because I am totally infatuated with Woody Allen and his talkie style. When I first saw this movie, I felt like a loser stroke by middle-life crisis mentally masturbating to me, which made me zoom out of the movie. But when I watched it again today, I feel like finding the soulmate of my life, even though I would be super fortunate if I ever meet him someday. The Jewish intellectual that carries an overwhelming charm and humor gradually gets me and fixated himself in my mindset, and I feel like as if he has already been a part of my personality. I like him immensely, and I also feel like Annie Hall, whose insecurity and clumsiness with words when being nervous are actually adorable.

I ABSOLUTELY LOVE the part when Alvy Singer drags Marshall McLuan out behind a poster frame and confront the Columbia professor that teaches his ideology. Because Marshall McLuhan claims that the content doesn't matter, it is the medium itself that matter. In another world, what Woody Allen says in Annie Hall doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is that I am watching Annie Hall in a foreign website through my phone, which undermines Woody Allen's whole existence in my experience with Annie Hall, yet all I can think of is Woody Allen's mysterious character when I watch this movie. And I love it when Annie's soul is detached from her body and sit on the chair talking about drawings when Alvy is trying to make love to her. When Annie said:"It's OK, you have my body." Allen said:"No, but I want the whole thing." I think that's the most romantic thing you can say to a girl.

There are only several films I can clap and laugh to, and this is one of them.

This film is a cute depiction of the severe hierarchy existing in the ancient Japanese art: Rakugo. Tatekawa, the master, Tatekawa Danshi, was played by Kitano Takeshi, while the apprentice, known now as the famous Rakuro artist Tatekawa Danshun, was played by the famous Japanese actor Ninomiya Katsunari. Those who are familiar with Japanese culture might know that Nino is crazily famous for being a member of the idol group Arashi, which has the historical significance of establishing idol formally as a job title in Japan, their countenances can be spotted everywhere in Japan: newspaper, advertisements in subway, in closed neighborhood, in hotels, in shower places, in shopping malls, and more frequently in television and cinemas. Having a member in Arashi to play the role of Tatekawa Dandun is like having Johnny Depp to play David Bowie in a memorial film. This film was sure to cause tempest-like attention before it came out.

Danshun, the 17-year-old teenager that had his mind set on being a performer of Rakugaki after falling in love with his master's performance when Tatekagwa visited his high school for an educational show. He quitted high school immediately after the show, came to Tatekawa's house, and begged the master to accept him as an apprentice. Tatekawa reluctantly approved, but gave him no proper training, but only his own excruciating household chores. Danshun became the living example of obedience, overcame Tatekawa's condescending attitude and his waywardness with heartily respect, and practicing Rakugaki with every spare minute of his life. Then he was raised to be a Nime and achieved his dream of being a Rakugaki performer.

This is a heart-warming autobiographic tale of hard-work and success. The glowing success of Danshun is surrounded by the gray corpses of Rakugaki apprentices defeated by reality. In this movie, the figure of Tatekawa Danshi was so great and grand that his thoughts and characters remained shrouded by mystery even after the film was over. He was depicted to be so noble and above the clouds that every gesture of his was treated with huge momentum, meticulous comprehension and sincere gratitude. It wouldn't be amiss to call this movie a delicate but heavily thoughts-loaded gratitude letter from Tatekawa Danshun to his master Tatekawa Danshi. It also sought to arouse awareness in the audience to respect and admire this traditional Japanese art. This work can be regarded as the homage Japanese media-makers collectively paid to Danshun and Danshi, the love for traditional art and Japanese spirit of respecting the masters and hard-work is overflowing in this piece.

If you are a Japanese audience, what is delivered to you, beyond everything, would be pride in your culture and motivation to work harder for success. If you are a western audience, you would get a grasp of the core ideology of Japanese culture, and see the red steaming beating hearts of Japanese artists if you pay close attention to what's really being said, instead of treating this as a frivolous entertainment to swallow with popcorn on Saturday night.

I came across this movie led by the hands of Robert McKee, who referenced to it several times in his book Story. The screenplay was flawless, it was a happy ending just like expected, and the action scene was fabulous. Not like other 80s movies, Die Hard didn't mess up my suspension of disbelief at all.

I wonder if anyone notice that only one innocent guy died in this film, and he was Asian. Two guys supported John selflessly outside the building, and they were both African American. Holly McClane was without dispute the heroine, and she was under the protection and mercy of men throughout the whole film, or she wouldn't come out without scratches. The racial and gender hierarchy was pretty obvious, the African Americans are always faithful servants to the white, the Asians are irrelevant and OK to ignore, the white female characters are innocent and weak and in constant need for male protection.

According to Robert Mckee, although in ideal state art and politics are completely separated, in real life they can't keep their hands off each other. Despite its fluent editing, perfect balance between the use of medium shots, close-ups, establishing shots; excellent acting, lenient budget and a really good story, the block between Die Hard and a classic is its core of a cowboy adventure that has faded from the stage of attention through the evolution of gender and racial equity. People's love for a privileged white guy kicks asses and saves lives is dying, and their memory for this skyscraper version of cowboy movie will die with it.

This is a standard Hollywood production, yet this movie doesn't include expensive special effects, luxurious motion scenes like running on cars, or a old-school I-did-it declaration made by the protagonists. All the characters are painfully mortal, emotional human beings, their struggles are presented to the audience with a magnifying glass, which makes the movie seems painfully real and heart-shaking.

Gretta, Dan and Dave are all great artists. Although two of them are under appreciated, they clashes with each other emotionally and make splendid music with other random under appreciated musicians around the city. Dan has imaginations unparalleled to anyone else in this movie, which automatically plays the chorus in his brain when Gretta sings that seemingly plain ballad she created herself. All Gretta hears is the disapproving noise down the stage, but Dan hears the music symphony that can sell ten million records. This is what makes the story possible.

My favorite scene is when Dave plays the perfect version of Gretta and his love song, surrounded by a thousand adoring eyes of his fan, while earnestly beckoning Gretta to sing with him. This is like a scene in modern version Cinderella, if Gretta actually accepted the offer. She cuts this relationship in immense pain, then throws herself into the freezing wind without a pause. On the stage, when Dave realizes that Gretta is gone, sadness overflows from his face, crushes his serene expression and trickles down his eyes. Line of his face becomes more distinguished from the strong stage lights that are ready to devour everything, his pain is so visible that it cuts in my flesh. I will give a 9 for what the movie makes me feel in that half a second.

This is a wonderful movie, thank Netflix very much for buying its copy right.

This movie is so much like my life that I couldn't watch it with a detached manner. Eli Bloom is an outstanding high school prodigy that masters both Spanish and playing piano. He has to take care of his drug addict mother and sister that has anti-social tendencies, and tries to be admitted to a piano school at the same time. He speaks calmly and lovingly to his mother and sister, he seems to be the only one sane in the house. But Penny still tries in every way to ruin his life: refusing to go to the rehab, taking him to drug dealers, trying to check his hand while driving when knowing she can't get the car balanced, trespassing the auditorium while clapping and screaming like a lunatic......Penny is too heavy a burden for any healthy child.

Yet Eli did it. He stopped the drug dealer from killing or raping his mother(although they are not corrupted in the heart anyway), he got the second chance of audition, he sent his mother into rehab, Nicole ends up in a safe environment where she gets to keep Mario and fits into the child society gradually, and Eli wins Chloe's heart with a super romantic monologue. Eli blames no one, he waves off all the obstacles and torture with humor, and he sticks to his goal and dissolve the problems with courage and delicacy beyond his age. Eli has a special position in my ranking of all the film characters.

Sprinkles is a basketball star that was knocked to the bottom of society with a huge setback. Although he has to go back to his drug-dealer profession, I feel pain-stroked when I imagine the gap between his life as a drug dealer and one as a sport star. I have no idea how many nights he cries into sleep that cultivate his cruel and tough character, but I am sure that life owes him so much that the stolen trophy doesn't even start to compensate for it.

I have no critiques about the story-telling techniques. The acting is realistic, angles are comfortable and fluent, music is light and uplifting, but some values preached by this film is serious unacceptable to the society.

First of all, let's look at all the characters that prevail in this movie: the infamous fraternity Delta, in which of course there are no African Americans, Asians, homosexual members or others. So clearly diversity is not a theme of the film.

What kind of people thrive in Delta? Low-graders, drunkards, trouble-makers, people who indulge themselves in excessive sex life and endless partying and a brotherhood that is based on breaking the law and causing extreme discomfort to everyone around them. And of course the handsome-looking chef of a prominent fraternity makes a farce out of himself by believing a vicious girl's lie and is convinced that his girlfriend is stolen from one of the Delta members, and his girlfriend miraculously fall for the retard Delta member. And the good-looking uniformed officer gets himself knocked down from a horse, and his horse dies of a heart attack.

In this film, doing things without thinking about consequences is bravery, alcohol overdose and obscene sex fantasy are the beauty of youth, trespassing the rules of society equals to thinking outside the box and breaking the status quo, and the high-achievers are the ones to be defeated, the losers are the ones with glare of heroes. I respect freedom of speech, I really do, but I still think the director needs to kneel to the ground and apologize to whoever come to believe any core values expressed by this film after watching it.

However, I am forced to comment on the comedy elements of this film. Many classic lines from this film will always resonate in my brain during my college life. If the crew didn't try to use film as a tool to justify their twisted values, this film might have a really high rating.

The movie tells a classic love story of a town girl falling in love with a paralyzed rich boy. The girl is like a ray of sunshine penetrating the boy's cave, bringing him hope and laughters and joy. But instead of miraculously coming back to health and marrying the girl, the boy chose to end his life and inherit a fortune to the girl so she can go to college.

I disagree with the religious talks such as"fragile people don't get to make their own choices." or "artificial death is no better than murder". Everybody is fit to make their own choices, especially people with high intelligence and iron determination, like Will. To decide someone else's life or death is the worst kind of arrogance, forced life with give Will endless pain and desperate torture that is enough to drive him crazy. Steven knows that, and Camilla understands that despite the struggle. If not for Lou, Will's life will serenely and naturally ends like a ripen apple falling to the ground. Lou is the alien factor that is added to an originally balanced equation.

Lou has potential, but her mind is simple and straight and pure and beautiful. "Because I like him, I will try to save him. It breaks my heart to think that Will have to die." After the seed is plant, she arduously plans all the trips, trying everything she can to cheer him up, insulting the restaurant waitress for him, ordering an hotel with him, falling in love with him, and even running home like a seventh-grade when she finds out that she can't save him. She reserves nothing, Lou packs up all her guts and livers and heart in a box and presents to him, but nothing will change the fact that Will is doomed.

It is absolutely heartbreaking to watch Lou going through the process of finding out Will's death cannot be changed by any of her efforts. But the hardness makes this a spectacular movie.

Lou comes to life thanks to Emilie Clarke, and all the dramas in her eyebrows. Nobody can play Lou better than the Mother of Dragons.

I think the reverse shot is the most splendid part of this movie, inducing the audience to think and reflect after each clip, turning it from a plain psychology movie into a detective movie. We can almost figure out step to step, from Teddy is the bad guy to Natalie is using Leonard to achieve her own purposes, to Leonard murdered Jimmy for god knows what reasons, to Teddy is a cop that is helping Leonard all along and Natalie is punishing Leonard by tricking him into killing Dodd because she knows Leonard has killed Jimmy, to knowing that Leonard made this whole bunch of nonsense up to give his life a purpose. The movie gives you a chronic panic that diffuses slowly in your heart, making you fear about the real world, and even doubting your own memory.

I couldn't tell you how scared I was when Natalie make Leonard punch herself and slip into the car and wait, then come back to the room pretending to be injured by Dodd, then Leonard turns furious and come after Dodd for revenge, but in a following scene Leonard think to himself: "I am chasing him. No, he is chasing me." And Dodd came after Leonard with a gun, because Natalie told Dodd that Leonard was the guy that ran away with a stack of cash and drugs because she wanted to solve Leonard and Dodd together, wishing both of them to be dead. But the misunderstanding between Dodd and Leonard made by Natalie is half true because Teddy, the bad cop, did gave him half the cash after he sold the drug himself. This might be what Leonard himself called "poetic justice".

Sammy Jankis was the character that gave me the most tremendous shock. He was a real person, but he was not the one that injected his wife with too many insulin to cause her death, Leonard was the one. Leonard had to create a false life for himself because in real life he killed his wife by injecting her insulin for three times. When realizing that, I couldn't help feeling more depressed.

Most importantly, this film shows how fatal is this to be completely ignorant of common psychology. Natalie told Leonard when she tried to get him punching her: "How blissful ignorant you are!" Sammy also was so frustrated that she tested her husband with such fatal tool, which caused her own life and Leonard's life too. But from the start, if they get a therapist then everything it gonna be fine. Leonard's wife don't have to die, Leonard don't have to punch Jimmy and wear his suit from the start, and Teddy wouldn't have to die. Leonard suffered from the damage of hippocampus, he could have accepted a hippocampus transplant and retrieve his memory, but somehow his brilliant mind didn't reach that thought. This tragedy wouldn't have happened if they trust science a little more, because neuroscience was advanced enough to cure Leonard in the time of film: 2000.

Frankly, I think this movie is all about women suffrage. Georgiana is depicted as a victim of the old time's order, and a martyr that sacrifice her love and happiness to defend her children. This movie originates from a very touchy story, in which one of the participants was the prime minister of England, and I think the director and storyboarding people are not doing everything they can to present it.

First of all, Dominic Cooper is hideous-looking. His being an actor is a very encouraging example for young people, telling them that being an actor has nothing to do with one's appearance. His presence sure bereaves the movie of any romantic air it can possibly have. That is why I watched the movie with wistful agony.

Good movies convey emotions through the way they shoot them. But I can not detect such techniques in this movie. The camera work was the most tedious and uncreative I've seen in years, therefore when Charles Grey dashed into the house and demanded for Georgiana to elope with him, I felt nothing but pathetic.

Elizabeth's actor is that of Agent Carter, whom I admire ardently. Therefore I would love to give them an extra point for her.

If it weren't for Keira Knightly's exceeding acting, this movie would've got a 3. I would really call consumer service for its wasting 2 hours of my youth, but I can't since I watched it for free.

I haven't watched a film like this in years, it feels like ice cubes constantly slipping down my back, and it still have its wonderful impact on me although I love commercial films and am all for new filming technologies. I feel obliged to praise it without conservation.

This is a typical example of minority influence: a single person sticking to his point gradually change everyone's opinion. The process is more than intriguing. I initially feel like the guys that vote for guilty are the kind of guys that vote for Donald Trump: ignorant, single-minded, stubborn, indifferent, selfish, occupied by stereotypes and prejudices, and always ready to comply. But as the film proceed, I gradually feel the warmth and intelligence that they possess, and to watch this amazing glare of humanity gradually brought out by the architect is most pleasant. It is a grandiose fight between calmness and arbitrariness, indifference and mercy, critical thinking and groupthink, equality and prejudice, "supposition" and "facts".

The most startling technique this film uses is the transformation from above eyesight wide-angle shots to at eyesight level close-up shots. This change of distance between the camera to the audience makes the tempo tenser, and attracts significantly more attention to their points. Like many, I was not into the film in the first five minutes, but the longer I watched, the more my emotions were swayed by different points of view. Yet I wasn't even aware of it before I read it here. It is a very startling invention indeed.

My favorite shot in the movie is when the man talked about how "they" are born to be villains, or how "they" naturally have the violent tendencies, all the juries walked from their seats one by one to show quiet disagreement. The impact was like shoving a bottle of icy soda into my chest, I was so touched that I started clapping my hands. Although racism might be a reason why all of them vote for guilty in the first place, the knowledge eventually dawned on them that this is wrong. My psychology teacher taught us that prejudices often occurs unconsciously. As soon as it is dragged from the shadow of unconsciousness to the level of reasonable judgment, its flaws immediately reveal themselves. The man remained silent for the rest of the film.

Although I wonder whether they caught the true murderer or not, it is fairly clear that the boy wasn't necessarily the murderer. He could be, but he didn't deserve to be sent to death sentence immediately. My friend said that she suspected the murderer to be the architect, I'd say is fairly reasonable, or why would he bought an identical knife in the neighborhood? But anyway, the architect successfully avoided murdering an innocent boy with silence, I will give him a round applause for that.

The CG effects and color blending is perfect, I will give it that, but the plot is boring to death. This is a thousand levels lower than the average Samurai movies I've seen else where, and it can't even smell the toes of mob movies like Godfather. It is a mediocre fantasy of a white girl kicking the ass of a famous Japanese mob, and it has the stink of white supremacy.

First of all, how can an white assassin that waked up from a four-year coma suddenly become a such excellent Japanese sword user, that even beats a mob lead by one of the best Japanese assassin: Oren Ishii? During the time they run around killing people like cowboys with guns and powder, Oren has ruled Japan with her extraordinary sword work. Oren is not just a mob leader; she has a traumatic past and the superhuman gift that allows her to take down the famous gangster: Matsumoto in her first shot at the age of nine. After that, she has always been struggling in the swamp of blood and violence. But she didn't even last 5 minutes in the fight with our bloody bride: four minutes and 59 seconds, to be exact. After she is wounded on the knees, she seems to surrender in her heart. But before that the bloody bride has been wounded all over her body, and has been severely scratched from her back by Oren. The bride is much more physically and mentally exhausted than the elite assassin Oren, how come she is so easily subdued? If this bloody bride is such a genius, how come she was so easily eliminated by the assassins 4 years ago? Watching a whole hall of overlaying corpses displayed in the pool of blood, I sink into deep suspicion.

Second of all, we understand that Bill is a student of Hattori Hanzo. Hattori writes "BILL" on the window right after the bride says: "I have come here for one of your student."Therefore Bill is one of Hattori's students. Oren also holds deep respect for this retired sword-builder, but Hattori decides to build the sword for the bride without hesitation. He even gave the bride a Japanese Kimono to finish the ceremony of granting her the sword, so he actually hold deep grudges towards those student of his? Japanese mobs are not regretful towards their deeds, they are merciless cold blood murderers: they play by the rule, then they enjoy the success. Hattori has done making swords for 28 years, and he also finished his education for Bill long ago, now he suddenly feel sorry for this strange white girl and decide to overthrow all his gangster philosophy and help to kill his former students? It does make any sense.

The only thing I appreciate here is the camera work and the opponent colors: white and black, yellow and blue, red and green, all the colors render this movie an surreal quality. With the insertion of comic book fragments, I guess this movie is supposed to tell a legend, because the movements and characters are so elegant and fluent and distant like they step off a fairy-tale. The director is perfect, I will give his story-telling techniques a hundred points. But the plot is unfit for a large scale fiction movie like this. Hate to break it to you, Quentin Tarantino, you have to find a better comic book next time.

This movie could have gone into the pretentious dark style that film artists creates to entertain themselves if not for Stephen Chbosky, the writer of the original book and director of the film. He intentionally hide Charlie's dark hallucinations from the film, like the scenes depicted in Black Swan. Although Charlie is a little melancholy and psychologically deranged, we get to witness all those brightness and merriness in his life. The film uses little contrast, light and warm hues and fluent changes between camera angles to shape the film into a beautiful and sentimental recollection. This is a teenage movie for teenagers, and adults that remember what it is like to be teenagers.

I can't tell you how glad I am to see Emma Watson casted as Samantha Dutton, Ezra Miiler as Patrick and Logan Lerman as Charlie. These three leading actors, along with all other side roles, are all gorgeous looking. They have the mature, sensational atmosphere that fits right into the film. Their performances convince me that they really deserves better spouses, and they totally deserve each other. It broke my heart when Sam said her first kiss was taken away by her dad's boss. I wonder what Sam's dad's reaction will be if he knows this molest. It traumatizes Sam and forces her always to give up the guys of her rank and search for jerks to dissipate her loneliness. I am constantly furiously thumping my chest when she kisses Bob, whose mustaches and sluggish figure make him look like a loser.

My favorite scene is the the dining hall brawl. That sadness is well depicted through Patrick's quivering voice and Brad's equivalent expression. He had to start the fight to prove to the school that he is not a "faggot", that he is different from Patrick. But poor Patrick loves Brad from the bottom of his heart. Eventually, they can't be a couple anymore until the United States declared it legal in 2014. But it brings out the most loyal part of Charlie. This part of storyboarding is classic, the background noises gradually climbs to climax with the starting of the chaos and violence, and is retracted to silence when the camera turns to the shocked crowd, the bullies on the floor, and Charlie's red knuckles. The emotional tension is even bigger than directly showing Charlie hitting the bullies(which was shown in the end). The wallflower walks off the wall and flings his fist onto the jerks that bully his friend, this is so cool.

I learned from the trivia column that Stephen originally shot a lot of scenes containing teenage sex and violence scenes. I doubt the version I saw cut some more of them, so I don't understand what Aunt Helen ever did to Charlie to pause him while he is making out with Sam. The line said "Let's keep it a secret between us." suggests sex, which logically explains why Charlie's parents are so shocked and pained when the therapist informed them of Charlie's past, but he said to Sam that Aunt Helen was his "favorite person". Candace signals her friend to call the police because Charlie has suicide intentions? But suicide intentions suggest depression, and depressed people don't see horrifying images, which is categorized under schizophrenia. This inconsistency bugs me whenever I am reminded of the film.

But anyway, this is the best teenage movie I see after Breakfast Club and Mean Girls. Thanks, Stephen.

The movie turned out to be a huge surprise. I thought it was another Woody-Allen-style gloomy movie about a loser going through his mid-life crisis by understanding some philosophy that doesn't make sense in real life. But it isn't. As the movie unfold, I gradually noticed that every shot was precisely calculated, every object in the frame symbolizes something. Fight Club is more than what it seems like.

The CG is amazing. With the swooshing audio effect, the sense of reality is as compelling as it can be. It's especially astonishing to understand that the opening CG is actually the biochemical reactions happening in the narrator when his hallucination is pointing a gun at himself. I could hear myself breathing when he told Tyler "The gun is not in your hand, it's in my hand." He realized the existence of Tyler is a hallucination. But like any schizophrenia patient or dissociative disorder patient, he couldn't put off the hallucination like "puff" and go on with his life. The only way to stop Tyler is to kill him, which is to kill himself.

However, if he becomes aware of his own mental illness, he should've go to a psychiatrist instead of a police station(full of terrorists). Because what's different from other schizophrenia patients is, Tyler Durden is trying to alter the narrator's identity, reforming him into another person. Instead of giving him paranoia like in Beautiful Mind, or give him horrifying visions like in Black Swan, Tyler is an outburst of this loser's potential, and this powerful figure is trying to replace the body's former owner. The mere thought of it gives me a shiver.

There are numerous suggestions of the two leading roles being actually one person. We don't know our protagonist's name, for the start. On airplane, Tyler opened his suitcase but the narrator didn't open his. He received a call from a booth with a "no income calls allowed" sign. When he hit himself in front of his boss, he said: "This reminds me with the first time I met Tyler". When Tyler was hit by Lou in the basement of Lou's bar, the narrator seemingly received some impact simultaneously... Although it sounds like a absurd fairytale, this salary man started a terrorist attack without even aware of it.

Although due to false advertisement and too obscure cues, this movie hasn't received the credit it deserves, Fight Club has become my favorite movie and David Fincher my favorite director.

I clicked open this film because I admire Alfred Hitchcock's fame and his work, but this is far more tedious than I anticipated. Alfred Hitchcock is indisputably a genius, and we are eagerly curious about his personal life, but it gives me the impression that it's rather boring and bereaved of any adventure or romance. Even though the film strives to exaggerate his love towards his creative and independent wife Alma, that obscure and plain love affair cannot support the legendary atmosphere fox company grants his films.

Although I feel obliged to comment on Scarlet Johansson and James Darcy's acting skills, I barely seen any of their charms because all young actors are shaded under the glory of great Alfred Hitchcock, who according to Anthony Hopkin's depiction, is a pervert and self- centered wrinkled ball that breathes like a old bellow with tons of coal crumbs stuffed in it. Although I admire Alfred Hitchcock's talent, it doesn't interest me whether he keeps his swimming pool or have his reservation in a luxurious truffle from somewhere in Europe . They are fist world problems, and I have seen old artists sleeping on the street with newspapers as their blankets and granite as beds.

In the shower scene Hitchcock was under the delusion that Janet was Whitfield, the knucklehead that had an affair with his wife. And the scene gave audience the impression that he was going to stab Janet, which gave the shower scene in Psycho an authentic texture. But you know, most people would at least confront Alma before murderous thoughts emerge, and the stress depicted caused by the imaginary affair in the movie is beyond the reasonable level. Failure of this emotional twist makes the whole film sort of artificial.

I must click acclaim for the ending. That promotion manual is exciting, and the audience's reaction is palatable, and the spotlight around the red carpet lights up the mood just right. But when Sir Anthony Hopkins is seemingly directing waves of screaming, I hope they can remove that waiter from the background. His presence is really awkward. And probably a revolving shot would be better, in a more open and larger field, because that major highlight scene makes Hitchcock seems like a self-absorbed weirdo

Honestly, I don't love this film enough to write a review about it. But people around me are exclaiming and admiring this film like it's a great invention. Advertisements campaigned for this film by throwing out a slogan: "Only those have an IQ beyond 160 can understand what it's saying." So no one dare to spill half a criticism about the film. When coming out of the movie theater, every mouth eagerly showed off tints of understanding, desperate to prove that they are smart enough to interpret its content. Well Einstein has an IQ of 162, and he's basically the smartest guy on earth, so it's safe to say 99.99999% percent of population are too vulgar or dumb to understand this masterpiece. Why bother putting it on market in the first place?

That's what I indignantly thought after watching it the first time.

I watched it over 3 hours ago because I was attracted to James Darcy's gorgeous face. This time I take our my patience from the vault and watch the film squeezing it in my hand. Fortunately, I understood it 3 minutes before the screen blacked out. It was trying to taught us to do good and break the discriminations, because every good deeds we do penetrate to our afterlives. People are never, in true meaning, dead. As the explanations online articulate, the six lines of story are entangled with the birthmark and the form of religion, movie, diary, novel, letter and music. Most sensitive yet dramatic scenarios are presented, like the sailor being poisoned by his own doctor who craved for his wealth, like a gay composer being blackmailed by his renowned employer, like an oil company try to fail a nuclear-reaction experiment to keep the gold in its bowl, like an old abominable publisher being held custody against his will, like fabricants being fed with their own flesh and being murdered thinking they are going to the wonderland, like the girl you have a crush on spit on your religion.

When reflecting upon the relationships and logics, the emotional turmoils reach a sophisticated balance that tells the necessity of rebelling against granted believes. In this film everybody is in an equal position, every actor/actress is playing 6 incarnations in 6 different eras, and there are 3 directors. So there are no leading actors, no head for the film. According to the interview, the set is harmonious and merry.

I don't know why everybody keep claiming it epic, maybe because it blends so many genres together, many because it makes an impossible book into an Oscar-winning movie, maybe because the stellar cast is itself a major piece of news. But the only moment I reach the urge of crying is when Sonmi is up in the French Window, recording the video that lasted for centuries while witnessing the death of her love. She swallowed tears and went on with the speech that supported generations of brave souls, I was tremendously moved by the glory of humanity in that millisecond.

I could write a 3000 word essay analyzing the symbolism and how it creates the compelling sensation when nobody(not even the actors) understand the theme. But again, we are there to kill time and entertain ourselves. Let's just shut up and enjoy the bad-ass special affects.

This film melted me like the touch of silk. Although I wasn't fully convinced of the transformation of Einar Wegener, I am deeply touched by the Eddie Redmayne's fragile beauty as a women(or should I say Lily). He comprehends Einar's psychological conditions perfectly, and every twist of his facial muscles or movements of his eyes demonstrate the perfect empathy he has for his role. I don't care about logical consistency of plots or the point of view as long as he is the center of images, he flawlessly convinces me that Einar sincerely believe that he is born to be a woman. And as long as his feelings are as burning and heart-felt as reflected in my eyes, there's nothing to criticize about whether his decisions are morally right or wrong.

It's spirit-shattering that Einar died in the arms of Gerda, and Gerda did an extraordinary job in supporting her husband. I would give Alicia Vikander a full score too, her performance reconstruct perfectly a open-minded female artist that has unconditional love for her husband. She forsook the obscure love she had for Hans, the right to be protected and caressed as a wife, and everything women think they rightfully deserves from their husbands. Einar said before he died: "How would I ever deserve such love?"Seeing him pale like a vampire, watching his hand sliding from her hand, it's hard to imagine the heartbreak Gerda had. Would she blame herself for not forcing Einar to the doctors instead of "indulging his hallucinations?" Would she blame herself for letting her husband wear her silk pajamas and ballet dress for her own artistic career? Would she miss the man that looks to her eyes in the morning and whisper to her:"My life, my wife."? I drained my tears for her anyway. Gerda is such a wonderful woman.

I also feel obliged to comment on the institutionalization at that time. The idiot psychiatrist can't even figure out the difference between schizophrenia and a healthy man. One of the psychiatrist even proposed a lobotomy, and at the wrong spot. Lobotomy is supposed to sever the connection between frontal lobe and the rest of the brain to treat those who get major depression or anxiety disorder and don't react to medical treatment, the technique it is abandoned in the modern world for its inhumane side effects. Stupidity of the doctor reflects their ossified believes about trans gender people and their lack of professional knowledge, which explains how hard it was for Einar to defend his faith and for Gerda to stick to the belief that her husband was not insane.

Except for the fascinating acting skills, I really really really adore the lighting and color of the film. I can proudly hang every frame of the movie on my bedroom wall(except the scene Einar showed his male parts, maybe), and proclaim them art pieces. Harmony of colors and subjects, like oil painting, is the best solution for a film that is filled by sentimental transformations. Or it would easily fall into the trap of melodramatic depiction or confusion of emotions. But better than A Girl With a Pearl Earring, this film is consolidated by subtle facial expressions of actors and actresses, which clearly present the inner struggles of characters.

For conclusion, I love this films and the techniques are perfect. But I find it difficult to agree with Einar. He burdened Hans, Gerda, pained them emotionally, and even caused his own death, because he wanted to have a female body? Is it the ability to have sex as a woman that's more important, or is it his and his loved ones' welfare that comes in priority? Let's leave it to everyone's own judgment.

I have heard about the movie since its first release in China, but my friends always despise Bollywood movies because their style is not original. But 3 idiots is intriguing enough to shatter my bias. Character building is successful enough to make the three idiots, Pia, Virus and even Chatur seems authentic and attractive to me. I love the bright, joyful color of a school comedy that lightens up the mood before the characters even appears. Twists and turns in this movie is so cleverly arranged that the excitement they creates are perfectly maintained by the next. Rancho, the legendary guy, happens to leak his whereabouts when Chatur declares victory over the other 2 idiots, and they happen to seize the opportunity to make the real Rancho spill the shameful truth, and Pia happens to get married at the same day, so they can restore the poetic justice for Rancho/Wangdo and embrace the perfect ending. Along with the genius student character that challenge the virus and seniors and get away with it, the audience's expectation for this older Rancho climbs to the peak when the car reaches his school, so that the final enlightenment of his true identity push the satisfaction to a climax. The screenplay writer must be a genius.

Actors for the the main roles are also outstanding. There lively expression break the leash of staid Indian faces in our perception. Also I was a little disappointed by the first appearance of Rancho, this extraordinary actor present the image of a genius student and a successful scientist. The one point that touches me the most is their tears, which cooperate with their sincere glittering eyes and pretty smiles. Every time when I am about to leap out of the drama because of the "I will stay here until your dad gets well"cliché, I am pulled back by their facial expressions. Pia is beautiful and attractive all right, also I don't understand why she attempted to married the price tag after dumping him once. Is it really that important for a Indian woman to get married? Virus is ugly and ridiculous with his huge big belly, I started to like him after he offered Rancho his pen unwillingly after he saved his daughter. He was an ossified elitism asshole until I detected his unyielding love for Mona and his deceased son.

After all, it's a brilliant piece. Love it, 8 stars

Like Sound of Music and other several films that conquer the audiences' affection by depicting a music teacher transforming their naughty anti-social students into compassionate and happy ones, the Chorus uses spectacular techniques to convey the grandeur hidden in education. Clement Matthieu is indeed the paragon of all teachers, the audience will inevitably fall in love with him as the movie proceeds. As an epitome of all extraordinary reformers, he gradually nurture his students' souls instead of directly contradicting Mr. Haxon for his cruel and senseless abuse. He is the main reason I stared at my broken computer screen with sore sockets and dizzy head for 96 minutes.

The film flows with a beautiful spontaneity and pleasant harmony, from the daunting prison gate and a morose little boy staring out of it, to the cruel action-reaction principle, to the terrifying noise and bloody jokes made by the students, the movie successfully created a challenge that make the audience gasp in awe. Then comes the idea of a chorus bringing order to the class and quenching the everlasting riots, with involuting development of Pépinot, Morhange, Mondain and Le Querrec. The highlight came when Mondain was arrested for stealing, Madame Morhange declared her marriage to an engineer, the duchess's condescending appreciation of the chorus, and the fire accident that induced the heated quarrel with headmaster Haxon. The director meticulously places events of similar tension together to pull the audience deeper into the swamp of entangled interactions between the characters. Unlike those cheap commercial films, the Chorus squeezes our attention tighter and tighter in its grip until the moment the screen blackens out. I signed with satisfaction and refreshment of my soul, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Can't comment on this film without mentioning the music. The director was formally a musician, background music and sound of the choir here is angelic, bleaching my senses with a transcendent pureness and comfort. The film wouldn't be so perfect if the audience aren't paralyzed by the heavenly music. The fluent camera angles and sincerity emitted from dialogues are perfect instrument of this huge symphony. The Chorus definitely deserves being stored in your watch list, and review whenever you feel rejected or exhausted or need of a loving mentor.

I would credit the success of this movie to the great Aaron Sorkin. His smart jokes and witty ironies are the sugar lacing on this terribly beautiful theme: Love and Politics. I would giggle and clap even if I play this film for the 20th time. The movie is so great that even the lines are deep and far above colloquial level, the adequate actors convince you that they are exactly how the conversations are like in Whitehouse full of elites. It enchants people by revealing the charming side of the traditional labeled "liar politics" and let the audience touch their fresh and blood and deepest emotions. I was extremely curious how did such extraordinary piece of art didn't win an Oscar or a Golden Globe award back.

But it wouldn't be fun I'm just another intrigued audience clapping quietly and leaving and pretending it only influenced me for the two hours I took to watch it. So with that in mind, I went through the movie one more time. Except for Andrew Shepard didn't even bring a translator to the grand diplomacy party with the French president and his wife, and it was a bit awkward to watch only the president and Sydney dancing in a hall full of 200 essential political figures, because they were supposed to be the lead, it was supposed to be a dance ball if the president commanded a dance, but everyone was just watching quietly, like they were tolerating Andrew's inappropriately behavior with courtesy. I planned to watch the links and key scenes for flaws, but instead I came back with swelling excitement and red cheeks and hands sore from squeezing too hard. I guess I'm not a good critic.

Here comes more accolade. Aaron Sorkin is an expert on exposing four year of Andrew's Whitehouse life with a few phases mentioning the customs, like the crew's been there all the time. And the opening scene is divine, I didn't thought much of this film, because I bumped into it when going over Netflix, but the opening scene told me outright that American President wasn't just any film. I was deeply absorbed by the grand music and words floating on a white sculpture, and other totems like eagle, the flag, presidents' portraits and so on. National pride oozed out with a sense of solemnity. Then we witness the charm of the president and Whitehouse's departments clicked like a engine made from Germany.

I scratch my brain and still can't find the best phrases to compliment this masterpiece. But I definitely get something to say when I'm asked about my favorite film.