Reviews

I do not understand why is this movie so underestimated. Even the famous line "Oh God! Oh man!" I do not find embarrassing but quite appropriate. Maybe the movie is awful indeed, but I can't help myself: I like it, I enjoy it, I will watch it again and again. I do not care about miscast, bad acting, convoluted plot (it is a bit convoluted in the novel too). I am just having fun, but not kind of "so bad that is good". It just one good and funny movie that does not deserve so harsh judgments. At least average but not so unforgivably bad. Mailer's approach as a director made something quite watchable. O'Neil is good. Rossellini professional as always. Hauser very good. Tierney is great. Fisher believable. Bedford Lloyd caught the oddity of the Wardley character with bravado. I must admit that Stipe/Sandlund (besides great looks) did not give her forte, but maybe that is the point, maybe she is real Patty Lareine.

No doubt, this movie is very bad, much worse than predecessor, even worse than the worst comic-book episode. Plot is naïve with lot of illogical points. One has to invest a lot of suspension of disbelief if wants to endure it. But... If you do not take it seriously, you can relax and enjoy it. So bad that it is good, great guilty pleasure, genuine camp. By the way, reconstruction of 1960s is nice, with great accessories and, of course, Italian cars and Italian cities (with my favorite Trieste).

Ms. Bellucci's acting was so bad that I think she was self-ironical and intentionally making fun of the movie. I prefer Mr. Marinelli from the first movie as Diabolik. Better actor with charisma and better looks for main character. Mr. Gianniotti luckily does not have a lot of screen time what is kind of ironic too. Ms. Leone is gorgeous as always.

Ugly, boringly slow and pointless movie. The fact that critics like it is unexplainable. The fact that Ms. Ducournau won Palme d'Or is just sad. This movie is rare example of time wasting. Actors had a hard work and I do not envy them, but to no avail. Mere curiosity kept me watching in searching for an answer what the hell is going on. Is it story about Vincent? About Alexia? Maybe about Adrien? (Who are these people? Character development is very lousy). About cars? About firefighters? Serial killer story? Part of campaign against modern medicine? All of that? Or just nothing?

Critics were obviously naively impressed with something, they thought, must have sense, must be very artistic if it is so radical. No, it must not. It is just a snuff.

In some strange way it is not unwatchable but one wonders is it self-parody or dark comedy. When it ends it lefts you puzzled with a question: How anybody dares to make such a rare example (it is not a movie but an example) of bad acting and lazy screenwriting. The worst of all are slaughterhouse scenes. They imply "artistic" ambitions which are perfectly unappropriate.

Fifth season reached unknown heights of stupidity, bad acting and bad writing. First four seasons were not masterpiece but were kind of guilty pleasure. They had a lot of plot-holes and engaged the viewer in suspension of disbelief, but in fifth season creators of the show completely lost control. And by the way, this show has a unique paradox: main characters (Michael, Lincoln, Sara) are the most boring. and poorly acted.

Once, somebody would write the history of Yugoslav every-day-life in 1960s. He would use this serial like a source. It is hard to explain on this English spoken site what did this serial meant for my generation (born 1960-1963). When show was running on TV we were in the same age like characters from serial. It was cult. We knew dialogs by heart. Serial promoted extremely humorous Belgrade slang. I think it is comparable only to Paris and New York slang by its humor and vivid cynicism. The point is that serial was accepted in western parts of former Yugoslavia in spite of animosity towards Belgrade as capital because it dealt with universal teen-age problems.

A lots of critics missed the point arguing that Kelly's Heros mix comedy and war in kind of blasphemous way. Of course, WWII was a great fight between Good and Evil but Kelly's Heros do not intend to revise that fact. The point is that even in WWII individual desire for happiness and individual dreams existed as they always did and always would. This movie is in fact very serious anti-war poem of individualism. Oddball (Sutherland) should be remembered like (in certain way) the very first hippie in history. How would WWII look like with hippies? I am sure Hitler would exterminate them in concentration camps. Movie is very very funny. I do not remember any that I had laughed so much. I repeat comedy level should not hide the point. This is serious anti-war story and brings the hope that individual goals could fight against ugly historical circumstances.

What a disappointment! Wonderful cast, famous director and very very good trailer. Yes, the trailer was a bit too much good. One has to be cautious when faces a good trailer. Movie was potentially a raw material for quite good political thriller. Anyway, everything looks like unfinished. This movie is less than nothing, empty and pathetic. Had Mr. Pollack ever seen what he have done? It is a pity to see Sean Penn and Nicole Kidman fighting with bad script and actually not knowing what to do with their characters. Greatest paradox is that Mr. Pollack in his cameo role of Secret Service chief is the only convincing segment of this movie. What a time waste!

I watched Dead of Night for the first and (unfortunately) for the last time on TV when I was 10 or 11 years old but I still remember it like one of most fearful experience of my life. Later, like a mature person I realized that my fear was nothing but the mirror image of geniality of this movie. The best horror ever made. Without effects, without computers, without trivial editing. Just with immense psychological sophistication. Something what good horror should always be: a kind of social and psychological criticism, story about dark side of our lives and souls. I just cannot find the words to express my respect to this monument. Dead of Night should never be forgotten. Never.

It is common to say that Bond serial is in crisis. Of course it is, but it so natural and logical. On one side there are intellectual spies like George Smiley and Harry Plamer. On another side is Hollywood crap like Rambo etc. Bond is kind of middle of the road, kind of family spy. For our time standards genuine Fleming's spy-character is boring. I can understand producers intentions (obvious already in 1960s) to upgrade that genuine boredom with something "bigger than life". That was the essential crossroad. Where to go? More Bond films tried to be bigger than life - more they became ridiculous. High budget for cheap entertainment. I can understand efforts - typical for Roger Moore Era - going towards self-parody. But that was the way producers should not go. How could they dare to make self-parody with stuff that was the legend in the same time? It was the best way for suicide of the whole project. (Anyway I liked Moore's self-irony). Smells like an end. If you want to be serious you would be funny. If you want to be turbo-entertaining you would be stupid. What to do? Bond has to end instead some genius screenwriter appears and finds the very new path for Bond in 21st century. I do not want to be misunderstood: In fact I am Bond fan.

Whenever I remember this movie I try to forget it. It is highly recommendable not to remember it before going to sleep because it can produce ugly nightmares. That is the reason I would never watch it again. I do not have a nerve. But... But this is a masterpiece and I am proud I had seen it. Ingenious story about liberty and love losing battle against power, politics, religion and evil. Free minds existed even in 17th century. They exist always and forever. This movie is touching poem about free thinking and sexual freedom. In the same way it is strong accuse against weakness. Very very important film that has to be famous. As far as it is not watchable because of horrors of torture everybody has to see it. Acting and sets are remarkable.

This movie marks the end of Bond era. Such lack of imagination and dignity is abusive for the most famous serial in motion-picture history. Only high budget, M, Q, Moneypenny, dry Martini and Walter PPK keep the movie Bondlike. Pierce Brosnan does not have Connery charisma, Moore aristocratic charm or Dalton suggestiveness. This is bad sign. Bond has to protect our civilization and he became one of its symbols himself. This Bond is unreliable. Tank scene in St Petersburg is disgusting. (Who really thinks Russians are so so stupid?) Bond has to have comic elements but not the grotesque ones. Brosnan takes everything seriously without ironical distance where Moore was the best. You cannot play Bond seriously because it is not serious itself - it is serial made for fun! Like an old fan I am sad. Maybe I am old-fashioned, maybe this Bond is OK and just follows spirit of 90's. Something is wrong here: Bond or time. Maybe I just hate 90's too much or I have too good intuition.

YOLT is cornerstone in action movies and best Bond ever made. It is not necessary to underline perfect special effects and design - of course considering the fact it is made 1967! Each director who has an ambition to make action movie of that ambitious kind has to study YOLT with respect. Such mixture of SF, action, exotic, martial skills, beautiful women, threat to mankind was made for the first time. All similar movies made after it (including similar Bond movies like Moonraker and Spy Who Loved Me) suffer by the fact they are made after YOLT. The plot is completely stupid and unbelievable like each Bond plot is - but Bond fans do not look at Bond movies with artistic attitude but fun-attitude. Readers, please do not be offended - I am genuine Bond fan and I know what am i talking about. Bond movies have they own criteria that cannot be applied on any other kind of movies, ie any movie except 007 serial. Also, YOLT has interesting reference to space race of 60', Japanese economic and technological boom and to menace of aggressive policy of China of that time. Not to mention self-irony to British rule in world affairs. Low-rating of YOLT should be reconsidered.