Reviews

The movie shows with excruciating detail the personal drama of one of the most influential characters in world history. Without Alexander there would be no western civilization since the Greeks liked keeping their culture for themselves only.

This picture is not for the faint of heart since it depicts the flaws of a real person and the way he really lived. As for those who expected to see a Gladiator movie... Well they are not Alexanders... But nations like the American nation were built by founding fathers who had the heart of Alexander the Great.

Kudos to Stone

The fact that this movie is freely shown in theaters is evidence that the American nation is a truly democratic nation, a direct continuation of the Athenian democracy of the Classical Era.

It doesn't matter whether a person is pro or against the Bush administration to appreciate good political criticism. Michael Moore has never being elected president so I am sure he can't possibly know all the complexities and difficulties associated with governing a country. It may be the case that while his facts are true his criticism is not fair because of many other issues which he may not be aware of. It may also be the case that President Bush may be one of the most competent that ever lived in the White House.

What matters is that this movie presents some criticism on the current administration in a thought-provoking way and can be used for initiating dialog between politicians and parties about what went wrong (if anything went wrong) after 9/11 and how we can fix things. It is this kind of thought-provoking criticism that keeps democracies alive.

The Passion of the Christ is true to the Christian Dogma. However, it makes the terrible mistake to depict Jewish authorities as single-minded buffoons who only cared about eliminating blasphemy with death. It may be the case that the Jewish authorities of Jesus time were exactly like that. It may be the case of the opposite as well. What matters is that the Jewish people have been persecuted over two thousand years by people who used the Passion narratives as an excuse to accuse them of deicide.

Passion is brilliant movie in the way it represents the Christian dogma. However it should have been made approachable by people of all faiths. At least a postscript distancing the movie from wrong interpretations would have been appropriate and polite.

I saw this movie and was really disappointed. Not because Bakshi's version was not a good one. I thought it was great. I was disappointed because I had thought that Peter Jackson had done great original work with his treatment of the subject. Now that I saw Ralph Bakshi's version I realized that Jackson looted Bakshi's film in the most shameless, preposterous and highly unprofessional manner.

There were so many scenes taken directly from the Bakshi movie that I could not believe such thing happened. The beginning narrating the events associated with the forging of the rings and the last alliance, the falling of the ring from Golum's hand, the presentation of the hobit houses with their round windows and doors, the Bilbo speech at the party, the flow of the adaptation omitting the Tom Bombandil events, the first encounter with the black rider, the idea of presenting the events discussed at the council of Elrod (such as the imprisonment of Gandalf at Isengard) in their correct chronological order, the Moria and Argonath scenes, the parallel telling of the stories of Frodo/Sam and Aragorn/Gimpli/Legolas after the breaking of the fellowship etc... were all ideas taken from Bakshi's film.

Now, since there is no single acknowledgement for Bakshi's efforts by the makers of the new films, I am filled with sadness for their attitude. More disappointing are the comments made by viewers who compare the two films without thinking that the first was the basis for the other. Jackson's film looks so nice. Why doesn't he give credit to the film his picture is heavily based upon?

A very funny movie, "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" captures many habits and customs of the Greek American community in a set of hilarious events. The movie is both pro-Greek and pro-American celebrating cultural diversity in the US and the Greek culture at the same time. Sorry, Europeans you may be displeased but one can find the best Greek food in Chicago and New York rather than Europe!

One should not expect to find any deep analysis on the Greek culture in this movie. Every custom or habit is treated superficially but the point is made. When you visit a Greek family you hear a lot of people talking loudly and at the same time, offering you loads of well cooked food. Some of them may hate Turks as well, at least only in a superficial way. But these people wouldn't hurt anyone. Being a little familiar with the customs of the Greeks and other ethnic communities myself I found this movie amusing and refreshing. Kudos to the makers.

I am not a Tolkien purist and so I found the movie to be very good. Not as good as the "Fellowship" though. The reason is obvious. The "Fellowship" developed the characters and set the story. It introduced us to a new mythology and by doing this it created cinematic awe. The "Two Towers" book mainly describes action. It describes who goes where and who does what. It was expected that a movie describing the events in this book would not be as exciting as the first part. For this reason director Peter Jackson added his own "inventions" into the story and by doing this he made mortal enemies among the J. R. R. Tolkien fans.

I would say Peter Jackson's effort was fair enough. However, what he could have done was to invent a totally new cinematic style for telling the Tolkien story in the big screen. The new cinematic style would help him adapt the book without any alterations. Instead Jackson followed the well known action style of the Star Wars and Braveheart movies. I do not know if the outcome would be better if Peter Jackson had done differently. Perhaps his choices were right on target. Bottom line: Well done. Let's wait for the "Return of the King".

This is a movie about the beauty that exists in the world and how the beauty is lost in the "process". I do not believe that the American dream is that bad as portrayed in the movie. Just that one has to live the American dream with a little caution. The movie is about what the heroes really want to do and about what they are forced to do unwillingly so that they project the right image to the society.

There are many different little messages in the movie but the main one I think is said last. That we should feel enormous gratitude for every little moment in our stupid miserable life. And that we should feel happy and satisfied inside ourselves no matter what happens around us. We should appreciate little things in life and success after all is not everything. Lusts are pure once we understand them and identify the reasons why we have them. Emotional void is the real problem; However there is no reason why we should feel in such way since the world around us is so beautiful.

The movie had an excellent script, was brilliantly directed, and had a very touching score written by Thomas Newman. The performances of all the main actors were great. And let me tell you my favorite quote: "My job concerns mainly masking my contempt for the a**holes in change and at least once a day...". Brilliant!

If one wants to portray Jesus as a man and God at the same time as the Christian scriptures say one must imagine how his personality would have been. Clearly Jesus had one of the most intense personalities that ever walked the earth. This is the reason why he was put to death at so young age. I liked Willem Dafoe's performance in the "Last temptation of Christ" because he was portraying Christ as a tormented genius. He was the Son of God but also a man who understood that in order to defeat death he had to die willingly. Willem Dafoe, with a brilliant performance, conveyed this message.

Dafoe was a laughing as well as a suffering Jesus. My problem with this movie is that Jesus does not suffer very much. Only laughs. Perhaps I have seen the movie only once. However the movie has some redeeming values. For example, a nice depiction of the temple! Also, nice retelling of the political aspects of the Jesus story. Clearly Pilate was the most responsible individual for the death of Jesus. He did not want to save his life. Only to show that his death was not his responsibility, as shown in the picture. Acting was fine. If only Willem Dafoe was there to shout: "I am the end of the old Law and the beginning of the new one".

I thought some of the reviews made on this movie were biased. I looked with awe the way middle earth is recreated in this picture and forgot the fact that the journey of the hobits through the forest is shortened. This does not mean that hobits are pushed into the background. Not at all. Frodo is the main hero and he is important because he is not affected by the evil of the ring. This is very clear in the film.

Of course there are little differences here and there but for the better of the adaptation. Summary: I can't wait to see the two towers and the return of the king.

I thought that the criticism against this movie is unfair. The love story was correctly portrayed as the chemistry that is created between a boy growing to man and an older woman. He is full of enthusiasm, she is sceptical and pragmatic. The dialogue was not stupid, and definitely not boring. There were many interesting and memorable quotes, such as, that Jedi are trained to feel unconditional love. The Phantom Menace, which I do nor consider a bad movie, had many interesting lines too.

As for the whole look of the movie. Well, it is Star Wars. It does not try to be better than the other movies overall, not worse. These movies represent the saga we all grew up with so going to the theater for the new installment is like paying homage to our childhood.

This is a great movie. It is an investigation of the human nature and attempts to tell an interesting story about the suppression of our inner instincts. Bunuel, once again, compares the morality that comes from inside us, i.e., the morality of the subconscious, against the morality which imposed by society and the various religious organizations.

Bunuel seems sacrilegious, but I think that his movie attacks false piety as opposed to the deeper mysteries of the Catholic faith. Viridiana in the movie is not considerate of her uncle's passion for her and that kills the old man. Her punishment comes later from the unworthy beggars. The moral of the story is that we'd better investigate our flaws and strengths before attempting any encounter with other members of the society. Nobody is perfect and there are different ways to help people out there effectively. Honest work is sometimes more effective than useless acts of charity. If we do not know our selves and we cannot understand others we may deeply hurt people we care for.

All these ideas came to my mind while watching "Viridiana". What a great movie it is. One of the great moments of the movie is a side by side viewing of the honest workers renovating the mansion and the unworthy beggars praying in the fields.

This is a wonderful epic movie. Conan's prayer to his God still echoes in my ears: "...Crom, you may not remember if we were good or evil, why we fought, or why we died. All that matters is that two men stood against many. Valor pleases you Crom, so grant me one wish. Grant me revenge!".

How wonderful and how arrogant Conan's prayer is. This is the epic spirit of "Conan the Barbarian". Conan is a hero who lives by his "discipline of steel". Conan dares to fight against demons and against dark wizards and, like Christ, he is crucified and resurrected from the dead after three days. False religions, prophets of doom and gigantic snakes all are destroyed under Conan's sword in this epic story of how man can discover his own strength.

The movie has a wonderful script written by John Milius and Oliver Stone and an even more wonderful score written by Basil Poledouris. This is the best work of Poledouris and perhaps the finest music score written for a movie in the eighties.

Yes the special effects are not great and Arnold doesn't talk much throughout the movie. But Conan is a rare gem to see

Not that the Rock is not a good actor. This guy has impressive screen presence. I feel that the movie producers did not take advantage of him as much as they could. The plot was non-existent. Why should we care about what happens to Memnon at Gommorah thousands of years before the Pyramids. BTW in the "Mummy returns" movie it is evident that the SK lives in the post-pyramid period of Egyptian history (?). Also the Arkadians is the name of a Greek (?) tribe.

I liked the movie. Some critics said that the audience could not possibly be interested for the child because it is after all a machine. I do not agree. The premise of the movie is that technology has progressed to a point where brains with emotions, desires, and logic can be created and drive perfect mechanical bodies. These creatures are humans in every sence, except for the fact that they are made of mechanical parts as opposed to organic parts. This is where the wisdom of the movie lies. Man creates Man in his own image. Can Man sustain mechanical life and respect his own creation?

Spielberg hints on an answer when showing the "flesh-fair" circus scenes. The way the bodies of the "mechas" were exterminated reminded me of the concentration camp scenes in "Schindler's list". Very powerful scenes. Great Spielberg moments. The ending was very moving also. It reminded me of the "Little Prince", the famous novel by Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Yes, the idea that the boy survives for thousands of years seams over the top, but this happens so that the boy can live one happy day with his mother again.

One final remark. I think that Spielberg made a very good movie. I only wonder how the movie would have looked like if directed by Stanley Kubrick. Steven is great but Stanley was the master.

I think this is the good movie and that Angelopoulos was right on target when he showed his disappointment for not winning the Golden Palm during the 1995 Cannes Film Festival.

Not that the "Underground" was a bad movie. But the Gaze is better. The Gaze touches the source of the problem in the Balkan region. Balkans is a very beautiful region with wonderful landscapes and people with long history. There is where the problem is. There is too much history in the Balkans. Too many cultures, too many religions and too many political conflicts. The lost innocence of the Balkans, which the hero, the director "A" is looking for throughout the movie, is offered to the viewer through the movie's wonderful cinematography. There you see the best of Northern Greece, Macedonia, Albania, Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania. Many cities have different names in different languages. Many people fight with each other too. What remains in the end is the bitter-sweat taste of a region where virtue and malice go hand in hand.

One final remark. I agree with many critics who pointed out that the movie has some technical flaws, including its extremely slow pacing. Yes the movie could have been faster a.s.o. But hey, have you ever seen a better "glance" of the lost innocence of the Balkans?

People who have visited or lived in this region can surely appreciate this motion picture even more.

This is a monumental motion picture. The movie is about an honest soldier (Kurtz) who understood the very simple truth that war is terrible and that the only way to finish is if soldiers are determined to kill without judgment. Kurtz understood that he had to go the extra mile to perform atrocities, without any fear, for the sake of winning the war quickly.

I suppose the message is strong because the same truth applies to all kinds of jobs. Some people are workaholics because of the same reason. Either you make yourself a friend of horror and moral terror or you allow yourself to be consumed by these forces. All jobs (not only the job of the soldier) are associated with some form of horror and moral terror. The most honest attitude in the madness of war is to stand there in the middle of the jungle and fight all the way until the enemy is exterminated. This is the greatness and the madness as well of Kurtz's realizations.

The movie is superb because it shows how a group of soldiers progressively understand the realizations that Kurtz made. This is the best treatment of the Vietnam war, much better than the Stone movies.

This was a nice movie. Not as good as "cider house rules" though. In the previous movie a secular saint that was performing abortions was praised. In this movie the subject is about a woman who brings life to a gloomy village using the traditions that she learned from her mother. Her mother was of ancient Mexican (Maya) origin. Chocolate is her weapon and she uses it to transform the villagers lives. Her greater enemy, the mayor of the village becomes friend in the end and together they all celebrate fertility and chocolate. The story was told in a nice manner. However I agree that the script was unfair to Christianity. Surely all religions including the one of Ancient Mayas have their own rules. Let us not forget that some allowed human sacrifices. Catholicism has its own rules as well. Portraying Christians as narrow-minded was a mistake and many people from the audience noted this.

Putting this aside I think Chocolat was a good movie that deserved Oscar nomination. Let's see the result.

OK The plot is not great. Everybody agrees on this. But the movie is so light and fresh that it is interesting to watch. In fact the various comic situations that Ford and Heche get into are references from earlier Ford's movies. The ending is encouraging for old tough guys. The gall leaves the handsome rich fiance for Ford. Great!

This is the best movie I have ever seen. Only Peter Weir could have made it and he made it look brilliant. Peter Weir has made many movies in the past where his characters question the system, fight conformity, or deny the way people accept things in the world.

In this movie Truman denies the entire universe where he lives. He understands it is limited and fake. And in the end he moves beyond the fake horizon that has been created to keep him imprisoned. Christof in the movie represents a fake God. In fact the movie questions the entire concept of a personal God that manipulates the universe from above. If such God exists then he is cruel and sick like Christof in the movie. But can God be understood by the human mind? A lot can be said about this picture. I enjoyed the acting, direction and most of all its score. Kudos to Peter Weir for delivering this masterpiece.

This is a movie that attempts to ask the question what is our destiny in the universe as humans. Along time ago we were apes. Now we reason, we are able to travel in space, we have built cities and societies, and we have created morals and religions. But still, we are imperfect. The source of human intelligence is depicted in the most surreal way one could imagine: as a single black box, a 'monolith'. The monolith affects humans in a unique way. First, apes learn how to create and use tools in the distant past . Second, a space traveler becomes a star child in the near future . We do not understand what a star child is but the message of is uplifting.

There are a few details about the movie that are remarkable. The hero is called 'David Bowman'. 'David' makes a connection between the hero and the legendary king of Israel. The late Stanley Kubrick was Jewish, I think. 'Bowman' suggests that the hero stretches himself to the limits of his human abilities. HAL is depicted as a flashing red bulb that looks like a single red 'eye'. This draws a parallel between HAL and the one-eyed cyclops which Odysseus defeated in Homer's Odyssey.

I didn't expect much from this film. This is why I enjoyed it. While other fantasy movies create their own worlds with creatures that are hardly familiar to us, this particular one brings to life images that are well known from childhood. Here you will find dragons that spit fire, spiteful wizards, dark tunnels, a brave thief and a beautiful princess.

I thought the sets and computer animations were wonderful. The costumes on the other hand were ridiculous. The soldiers' uniforms looked as if made of plastic. The same applies to the rods and scepters used in the movie. I expected something more sophisticated. On the other hand the names used in the movie indicated some interesting connections. Izmir for example, the name of the empire in the movie, is the Turkish name for the ancient Greek city of Smyrna in the western coast of Asia Minor. There is also another connection between this empire and Turkey: The upper part of the Empress' palace looks like the church of Holy Wisdom in Istanbul, Turkey, typical of the Byzantine and Ottoman architectures.

This is a movie about Jesus Christ and the doctrines of the Christian religion. It is made by a Christian and is addressed to Christians. I am saying this because I believe that in order for one to understand the full meaning of the story, one has to be very well familiar with the Gospels and Church history. The disclaimer in the beginning of the movie is not correct. The movie is based upon the Gospels and uses the novel by Kazantzakis as a way to deviate from the baseline story in order to make a point.

The point is that in order to reach sanctity, one has to follow the footsteps of Jesus as shown in the movie: mainly to deny earthly pleasures including the warmth of a woman's arms. The path is difficult but it has been taken by Jesus. Having a strong Christian message, the Last Temptation is not meant to satisfy all types of viewers. There is no reason why an atheist would be touched by the movie especially when Christianity is advertised but not explained. Many people failed to follow the plot because they couldn't identify themselves with any element of the story. The fundamentalists who protested obviously missed the point.

Second, there is some antisemitism in the screenplay. The most disturbing quote is that "God is not Israelite". It is nowhere documented that Jesus of Nazareth ever said such a thing. This quote is not in the novel as well. Of course we all know the bitter past that separates Jews and Christians. I do not think that such polemic was needed. Having that said I believe that the movie was well photographed and acted. However, the costumes, especially those of the Roman soldiers should have been better.

As a side note: Criminals used to be crucified naked as shown in the movie. But in Judaea the Romans had made an exception since public exposure of nudity was against the customs of the Jews. So it is most likely that Jesus was crucified wearing a small piece of cloth as shown in religious paintings.

People tend to think that Exorcist is a horror movie. I do not see it like this. In my mind the Exorcist is not about possession, the devil or the church. The Exorcist is about the way a good man (father Karras) redeems himself from the evil he has done to his mother. This is the essence of the movie which is conveyed by the "tubular bells" theme. Karras is poor because he has chosen to be a priest and a psychiatrist at the same time. His mother lives alone in a small apartment in Brooklyn. Her mood and health deteriorates until she eventually dies. Then Karras offers his life to save Regan. The message is well hidden under the shocking scenes of the daemon and the way he torments the little girl. But the daemon is a key component of the plot that allows the director to visually express the evil that exists in the world.

I saw El Cid when I was 15 years old. I loved it then. I saw it again now that I am 27. I found it flawed but still impressive. This is not an accurate portrayal of the medieval Spaniard. It is the story of an ideal knight, who puts his country and king first, and hiself last. The movie is fragmented like old medieval poems. It also conveys a strong message of religious tolerance. This message is rather a product of the ideals of the French and American revolutions in the last centuries rather than the 10th century Spain. Let us not forget that in the end the Christians in Spain exterminated all Moslem kingdoms and their civilization. On the other hand the Moslems did the same to Christians in Asia Minor about the same period of time.