Reviews

I enjoyed watching this film just because it offered an attractive alternative to what Hollywood had to offer recently. Not that I dislike major animation films like Finding Nemo or Shrek, but this French director Chomet has shown us just how "the adult" cartoons should look and sound like. I would describe it as "no non-sence" animation: no stupid dialogues, just pure fun. The story-line of this film is not that strong as its visual side though, but this is normally a downside of almost all animation films. And one more thing: Mme Sauza is one of my favorite characters this year. 7/10.

Having seen the first Taxi movie and anticipating release of the 3rd this month, I've decided to rent this film on DVD. Well, it wasn't really worth that warm summer evening.

The plot line stumbles already in the beginning. It seems like the director has just finally managed to get his previous cast together and decided to film whatever was available scrip-wise by that time. Not much was it. Apart from nice decor of south-France landscapes and some parts of the film so typical to the French comedies in 70's-80's (dinner with a father-general is a perfect example), all the signs are that so promising Taxi-franchise has turned into a cheap ninja-production.

Clearly I was not able and will never manage to understand the hype around The Star Wars saga. What I can understand is why it attracts such a huge audience: it is a pure entertainment and people generally take it as merely 2 hours of fun. Thanks to funny people in the central theater in Amsterdam, who helped with their jokes to "survive" embarassing love-story scenes of the movie: Lukas has proved once more he has no clue how to film anything else but special effects scene...and those were really good! The scenes of the paradise lake country (was it filmed on Italian Lakes???) are amazing, special effects of the city chase and last battle are inventive and spectacular. Despite lots of praises in media I did not notice any improvement in the script though. Moreover, I find that the second episode misses some irony that the first episode had. But in general I can recommend this movie as a good no-brain entertainment for a summer week-end. How would I rate it?? Well 7 out of 10, I would say.

To be honest, I did not expect too much from this adaptation of quite a boring computer game. Only Angelina was capable to revive this movie doomed to dumbness and lack of style already at the beginning..but unfortunately our young Oscar-winner seems to loose her feeling for roles. She tried her best, but most of the film's team were a total miscast, which caused that mess on the screen which was supposed to be one of the best entertainments of the season.

Nothing new, nothing special, nothing ... If you decided to go to this movie, you will not loose anything. I would not even say that it would be a waste of time. No, you will just feel after this movie that you had a biiiiiiiiiiiiiig sandwich: your stomach feels full, your taste feels fooled. I enjoyed some of the moments of Mummy-2, but if you decide to go to the toilet during the movie - you will not miss anything. Two differences with the first Mummy: 1) better story-line 2) no suspense at all. Just another summer hit..

This film proved to me that the fashion for Iranian and Chinese movies will be replaced by growing interest towards Russian cinematography quite soon. Strana Glukhikh is such a pure and sincere description of a modern Russian life, that you do not even notice some slow-down's in the movie's plot in the middle. Dina Korzun is just fantastic. Watch her on the covers of magazines in couple years! Chulpan Khamatova is reserved but very exact in her acting. But the highlight of the movie is a soundtrack. I did not hear such a life-confirming music for quite a long time. Indeed, this is not a criminal drama as some can think. It is a touching story of people fighting for their happiness told in very warm and sincere words.

Well...if you want to spoil the night after nice dinner, if you want to go to bed with a feeling of wasted time...then go and rent Hanging Up. I just did it tonight. Definitely: one of the worst movies of the last year. Ryan is as unconvincing as she is in all her last movies (including another box-office flop Proof of Life), Keaton is plain ..but after this movie I am sure of one thing: Lisa Kudrow does not have a clue about acting. The plot is boring: 91 min about nothing. Acting is terrible...Someone should convince Efron sisters to change profession...

Crouching Tiger.. was the movie I wanted to see for quite a long time. It just recently opened in the Netherlands, and people at work, friends all started to talk about the film...I came to the movie theater already being prepared for a spectacular show. First part of the film can be a bit boring for some people, but those who are familiar with East-Asian theater traditions, they know that the action will not make you waiting for long time.. The plot seems to be too complicated at the beginning, but after half hour you suddenly realize that in this movie plot is not so important. Camera work, design, performances are great. At some point you realize that what is going on the screen is a real event in the cinema world. Some people are afraid of movies with subtitles. In Crouching tiger... I did not really notice them, so natural is the way the director tells us the story.. Martial scenes are beautifully shot. Some compare this movie with The Matrix. But Crouching tiger.. has so much more depth. The real culmination of the movie is already well-known fight on the tops of the trees. If you never had a feeling of flight, at this movie you will feel it. Ang Lee is a magician. The way he tells us the story of his characters has an effect of a magic spell: everyone who leaves the theater want to see the movie again. The film is so multi-leveled so you can hardly understand it at once. Return to this movie like to a good wine which needs time to be matured. I am sure we are present at the birth of the new movie-classics. In couple words: Don't waste your time and just go find this movie in your theater.

Before seeing the result of a new cooperation between Hanks and Zemeckis I read lots of reviews and praises about this film. My opinion is: It is the ordinary Hollywood mainstream movie targeted at the average America's audience (by the way, in Europe this movie did not score at all).

The first "let's meet our hero" part is just terrible. The worst part is about the FedEx guy's visit to Moscow. Hey, Mr. Zemeckis..it is year 2001 now, and you show Russia as it is 20 or 30 years ago. The most ridiculous thing is a lorry stuck in the middle of the Red Square (as far as know, there's no traffic there!) and Tom Hanks "the savior of under-developed Russians" paying his employees with bars of Mars and cans of Coke. Hey...this is nominee number 1 for the worst movie of the year!

Then we see Helen Hunt with another non-convincing performance this year (I think her popularity this year is a big mistake of the studios' casting). She tries (without success) to show at least some emotions towards her husband played by Hanks. But it seems like Ms. Hunt read her script just before shooting somewhere in between her other numerous movies, because her acting is not convincing at all.

Then we are supposed to be stunned by crash-scene, after which the "one-actor" show begins. I do not think that Tom Hanks is a bad actor, but his level is not high enough to carry the weight if mega-million dollars' movie alone. For sure, this part of the film contains lots of stereotypes about "a-la Robinson" situations. For almost one hour we see how Mr.Hanks learns to make a fire, to open the coconut shells, etc, etc. In fact, Discovery Channel would do this part of the movie in a better way.

Then our hero fights with the ocean, loosing his companion, Willson-ball, which was supposed to be a very touching scene. Then our hero is happily home, being saved in the middle of the ocean. His wife is already married, and here it's better to stop the movie, but the director uses the audience's patience for another half-hour, posing some moral questions (finally!) if it is good to ruin new family of his ex-wife.

Overall, the movie is boring with exception of some moments (10% of the movie or so). After leaving the theater I just felt like I left an American-style fast-food, feeling lots of food in my stomach but being unable to recall the taste of food. Same here: expensive movie longer than 2 hours with nothing to recall in couple weeks. Indeed, this year was not good for Hollywood.

I cannot say it was a disappointment that I felt after this movie, but I really felt sorry for Robert De Niro, who falls lower and lower after his recent attempts as a comedy star. Remember "Flawless", "Analyze it"? I also recall his last performance in "Men of Honour".. A question: "Mr. De Niro, are you going to show us the level of performance you had 10 years ago or so, or should I put the film out of my agenda when I see your name in the cast?"

Anyway, other cast members were not any better. Ben Stiller still tries to get dividend from his once-winning role in "There's something about Mary". But this material was too raw, and it did not have the level of Farelli's movie.

In total, I think the toilet-jokes already make the public yawning. I am sure next summer we will see something like "You, yourself and Irene", "Meet my grand-parents" or "There's nothing about Cameron Diaz". But isn't it a time to find something new in comedy genre?

I heard that the studio was already preparing the "Meet the Parents - 2"..Goshh! I wouldn't survive the sequel.

In one sentence: "Go and see it if there's no other good comedies in your local theater".

This was one of the best impressions of the last cinematographic years.

Yes, this movie is what you can always expect of Almodovar: hot passion, emotions, Latin soap plot and ...as usual, great performances.

For those who saw at least once the Latin soap operas on TV, the plot of this movie is not a secret. OK, forget about the plot, and enjoy the warmth of the movie. Isn't it great to see the best Spanish actors in one cast? Only Almodovar can attract them with his crazy ideas.

What comes to the viewers' mind after first minutes of the movie? My answer: red and yellow pattern..The pattern of Almodovar's life, it is not von Trier with his vague colors, it is not Spielberg with his flashy colors. This visual color effect puts viewers into the atmosphere of the film from first seconds.

There's lots of intersecting stories in the plot of the movie. We see a fading actress fighting for her love, we see a story of a mother suffering a loss of her son, we see the underworld story of transvestites, a story of drug addicts, the story of dying HIV-victim...Isn't it what is going around us in day-to-day life, but we do not pay attention to it???

The master, Almodovar, shows another side of life to us, and his cast is a great support for that. Personally, I discovered to myself that Penelope Cruz is not just another Spanish beauty, but is a very talented actress. This movie was a really good start for her career, just look at how much she is filmed these days in Hollywood.

Being a big Almodovar fun, I should say that this movie has overcome my previous favourite of this director: "Women on the verge of the nervous breakdown". I highly recommend "Todo sobre mi madre" to all people who come to movies to see a piece of art, and not another one-day nonsence with Schwarzenegger. I liked it a lot, and..yes, I even cried, because this movie is so sincere and touching, that you can hardly surpress your emotions.

If you decided to see this movie after reading this message, please reply to my mail and tell me if you agree with my opinion.

This could be a movie by John Waters or its clone, but less talented..The first two minutes could seem disappointing: the funniest and brightest star of the film (B. Middler as Mona) drowns as soon as the movie begins. This puts question: why kill the star especially in the very beginning? Then she appears in flash-back's where we see what a bitch she was terrorizing her family and the neighbourhood. After what we have seen about Mona, it is more relevant to ask : Hope it were you who killed her? instead of Did you kill her? The investigation goes slow allowing us to see so many typical characters. De Vito, Campbell and others are excellent in their cameo-like roles. And we see that each citizen of that small town in the middle of nowhere has his / her own little secret...and a reason to drown that Mona.. Middler is so funny in that role that it reminds of her old works in 70's and 80's! My advice: if it rains outside, and you want to have a good portion of laughter, choose this black comedy and...So who drowned Mona??

I have seen this movie in Amsterdam 2 months ago. And that was the first time I saw so many people crying after the movie..they were living on the screen with that small, fantastic, unbelievably talented Icelandic woman..She made all of us think again of the ones we love and would die for. The combination of two talents: Bjork and von Trier, was the moving force of this drama. The closest von Trier's movie is Breaking the Waves. But it lacked that intense feeling that Dancer in the Dark gives to audience. Presence of Bjork in the leading role makes this movie "you either fall in love with it or hate it". I fell in love, and I will wait for new visual experiences of Lars von Trier and I will wait for new music and new roles from Bjork. It would be a big loss for all of us if Bjork keeps her promise not to act any more..