Reviews

I'm truly amazed how much movie can be stupid. This isn't just a bad film, but a torture for any man's intelect, and one of the worst pieces of cinema I have ever seen. Disastrous acting, no directing and absolutely no script. A blasphemy for eyes.

Well, this is something truly original. And I mean it in every possible positive way. Nothing but a praise for a director who gave us some amazing and spectacular directing. Cinematography itself is a pure piece of art, something very rarely seen on screen. "Hukkle" is cinematic experience that looks like the greatest (mute) documentary ever put on celluloid, but if you concentrate just a little more, you'll notice that this is actually a serial killer thriller... Not just a surprise of the year, but maybe the best movie of the year.

Yes, we can see here some fascinating editing and directing but that's completely taken from Aronofsky's films "Requiem For a Dream" and "Pi". Besides that there isn't much in it. We get to see good performances from John LeGuizamo and Brittany Murphy but the story that surrounds them is to pointless and idiotic that I can only say: they wasted good parts on a movie like this.

I heard nothing but a praise for this Blatty's directorial debut, and mostly I can only agree with reviews like that. When I say mostly, I apply to the last scene of the movie which sort of explained the hole thing. It dissappointed me a little, 'cause if you ask me, you just can't explain the unexplainable and can't think the unthinkable. The life of faith and belief is something very deep within and it will always stay like that. So, either you're believer or you're not. It's all a matter of choice. Blatty shouldn't forced the conclusion, 'cause there are no miracles like that in real life, only persons inner life. But, when we throw away simplified ending, we're left with an extraordinary motion picture, the movie with brilliant dialogues, unforgettable characters, black humor, nail-biting drama, psychology, philosophy, theology. Blatty managed to put together so many different subjects and direction approaches that its a real shame that he directed only 2 films. A very unique experience.

Its a real rarity today to see movies that so much depends on its screenwriter. "Adaptation" is, without a doubt" one of them. This is completely "one man show", and when I say one man show I mean Charlie Kaufman show. For me, Spike Jonze is here nothing more than a vehicle for Kaufman's extravaganza. We can see some very noticeable improvements here than in the first Jonze-Kaufman flick "Being John Malkovich". While the first one went all the way downhill after no more than half an hour, "Adaptation" stayed strong for more than one hour. And, unfortunately, the last half an hour are again meaningless and ridiculous. Kaufman is obviously a writer that suffers from originality-sindhrome. That shouldn't be wrong, accept in case when that same originality becomes just an excuse for no meaning. Kaufman is full of ideas, but it seems that he doesn't know what to do with them. He lacks philosophical depth and simple rational thinking, and that's why he failed to deliver one more time.

This film received very good reviews and it's even got a screenplay award in Cannes. I'm still not able to figure out why. This is not even close to Loach's best works such as "Riff-Raff", "My name is Joe" or "Land and Freedom". This is a story that's been retold more than a thousand times before. Here I couldn't find a single moment that has a message that stands on its own. Not to mention that the whole movie is nothing but a complete rip-off (was it intentional I don't know) of Truffaut's classic "400 Blows" (especially the last scene which was literally taken from its inspirational origins). Loach's directing is very good (and so are the protagonists) and he did made his point but I question myself why should I watch this when I got Truffaut and the message that's universal and always hits the target.

The comparison to David Lynch's "Eraserhead" is important but only in an opposite way. While Lynch's first feature (and still the best) relies strongly and almost only on directors vision and artistic "feel" (without any philosophy, just a free thought) this one found an inspiration in poetry and tried to transcend it into a living world. So, the wrong approach is more than obvious. How can anybody turn poetry into a motion picture. The answer is: only if you approach the film the same way as some poet might approach his poem - with senses and instinct, nothing else. And that is where the Quay brothers failed. They tried to put poetic vision into a hermetic space and, of course it doesn't work. Photography and acting are excellent but they are not much important here. For me, the whole scenery and the plot is unnecessary and got very little to do with the philosophy of dialogues. It is just there to fill the visuals. And then you end up with something that's not exactly a film but not exactly anything else either. Still, true artistic films are so rare today, that even a weak one is more than welcome in a world of superficial art. Let's just hope that it will be better next time, for brothers Quay and for us.

Hippy philosophy in space. That could be done only in crazy seventies. The great surprise is that it still works. Basic idea and the approach to the subject are excellent, with the exception of the middle of the movie. It seemed that Trumbull and Co. didn´t know what to do with it and it ended up with a lots of empty walk and unimportant scenes. Fortunately, "Silent Running" is not a long picture, so it wasn´t that unbearable. But I still think that the whole premise would work much better on some short film. Still, very good idea (humane and philosophical), the best role of Bruce Dern career, and we even got Hewey and Dewey which are hilarious. Even after so many years I found my self sometimes staring into the space and looking for some lonely space shuttle with the loneliest robot you can imagine. (The last scene is simply unforgettable)

I think that director such as Jacques Demy, deserves much better treatment than the one he got in this poor cinema biography by Agnes Varda. This is done in low tradition of French TV dramas and I couldn´t find a single inspirational and emotional moment in this trivial film. Varda directed "Jacquot de Nantes" in a manner which is closer to the documentary feature but still not quite. So, what we got here is steady camera work which doesn´t allow us to see any emotions on screen and therefor care for the characters, and on the other hand it doesn´t go any deeper from the surface in documentary tradition. The ending is completely without any sense and it just goes on with the rest of the piece. Simply boring and very forgettable. One might also expect much more from the director of such classics as "Kung-Fu Master" and "Vagabond".

O.K. So this suppose to be gore version of Bergman´s immortal master piece "Virgin´s Spring". Someone said that this is like one of the most shocking cinema experiences of all time. Yes, it´s shocking, but far from that status. For me, the acting in "Last House on the left" is so bad and laughable, that it ruined almost every possibility to consider this film "the shock of the century". And, I really couldn´t see the point of making a horror remake out of such a unique film, when the original itself was strong, frightening and powerful enough without a single blood spilled. But still, this one can hold on its own and, no matter that Craven is no Ingmar Bergman, "Last House on the Left" stands as a inspirational, disturbing achievement and a genuine dark satire of the 70´s. And its recommendable without any doubt.

This is just another typical example of a director trying to look smart and then messing with something he doesn´t understand. There is no level in which this piece of cinema works. Cinematography is O.K., but that´s not even worth of a mention. Soderbergh tried to do some kind of a pamflet of Kafka´s real life, his stories (specially "The Castle" and "The Trial") and then he mixed that into a pointless film-noir scenery (even that has already been done before, only much, much better in Cronenberg´s "Naked Lunch"). Jeremi Irons is totally out-of-focus in this role, and so is the entire cast. But who can blame them, I would be too if I had to say such ridiculous and meaningless lines and dialogues as they did. I have no idea who gave the opportunity to such pathetic and below average directors like Soderbergh to visualise the lives and works of important figures of literature and art like Franz Kafka. It´s a real shame that this awful movie even exists. (Steven Soderbergh obviously did not learn his low capabilities of understanding the art, ´cause years after "Kafka" he did even worse blasphemy then this one and completely ruined and simplified Stanislaw Lem´s sci-fi master piece "Solaris")

There is no argue about the fact that Stanislaw Lem´s "Solaris" is probably the most important and original science fiction book of all times. And there is no argue about the fact that best director in the world for filming this is Andrei Tarkovsky. But then again, maybe you can argue about that, ´cause some other director would probably stick more to the book. But not Tarkovsky. What he did here is maybe even better than the original, and represents one of the greatest moments in history of moving pictures. Tarkovsky´s "Solaris" is more poetic, philosophical, meta-physical and pure than Lem´s "Solaris". Every time I watch it, there is something new to find out, some new message to take, some new brilliance to see. This is as important as any literature master piece of 20th century.

I still think that Bakshi should have been a great story writer and animator but he should not get involved in directing jobs. This is probably his best work and it´s still out of balance, incoherent and not so greatly directed. Fortunately, the vision and story is powerful enough to forget some missguideness. Bakshi truly is an artist, but he somehow can´t reach the audience. When "Fritz the Cat" appeared, everyone thought it to be masterful, ´cause it showed some new levels of animated urban philosophy. It was like Mickey Mouse directed by John Lennon. But during the years Bakshi obviously became trapped in his own style, and he changed genres but never the concept. That was his crucial failure and probably the main reason of such bad treatment he received for "The Lord of the Rings". But I think that with "Wizards" he did tried his best, story is original enough, characters are strangely strong and the best part is probably satirical humor which is sometimes hilarious. I still consider this to be the best animated fantasy movie, but maybe that´s ´cause there´s not so many competitors.

What can I say? It´s a movie I´ve seen dozen times and it´s still exciting and glorious as it was the first time. This is Kurosawa at his best, and as far as I know the best and most original adaptation of Shakespeare´s "King Lear" I have ever seen. Superb acting, marvelous directing, brilliant screenplay, make this one into magnificent 3 hours ride. "Ran" is simply a work of genius and as important as "Seven Samurai".

I approached this Jodorowsky´s work with high expectations, ´cause almost all reviews of "Santa Sangre" I´ve read praised the movie as a master-piece. So, with this in my mind, after watching it I was a little dissapointed. I found some parts of the movie nonconsistent and the ending was a little bit too predictable and rushed. But overall, this is a very important picture, original and disturbing. The scenes with "mother´s hands", atmospheric cinematography and poetic sens, make it really intense and unique. Still not the best work of Jodorowsky and still not the master piece, but very, very close.

Of course, Paul Verhoeven directed such sci-fi master pieces as "Total Recall" and "Robocop" but this will always be my favorite. This middle aged spectacle is no usual epic adventure in hands of Verhoeven. Sick characters, original plot, intriguing story, good direction and cult actor Rutger hauer in one of his best roles. The actual script is so strange that you can never guess what will happen next, and it always ends with some new surprise. The most bizarre part about it is when I found myself cheering all the villains and hating all the good guys. I´ll never know why. Surely, one of a kind experience.

It´s very difficult to subscribe movie like this one in such small review. I think I would need big essay to say all of my emotions and opinions regarding "A Place On Earth". It was a pretty hard journey watching this movie, because of it´s explicit existential and philosophical visuals and themes, but the feeling I´ve got when I left the theater was astounding. Than I had time to think and realize what exactly did I just seen. "A Place On Earth" is a wonderful movie, brilliant study of a man´s place on earth (and in universe), complex mixture of religion, philosophy, psychology and myth, along, of course with the great directing from Russian director Aristakisian. The best films are those that stay with You forever, and this is one of them. I´ve seen this one in Sarajevo, Bosnia, at "8.Sarajevo Film Festival", august.2002., and the director Aristakisian was also at the projection, explaining that his movie we should explore as a book and not a piece of cinema. And he was right. Watching this I had a very literate feeling and I think that it´s what is the best about "A Place On earth". Surely a master-piece.

O.K. So, Argento wanted to go back to his roots and early works and do another detective-mystery-slashing flick. Some might think that after 20 years of his last thriller feature like this, he should at least, go on with the time and do a modern slasher. But, no. This one is almost similar to his works of late 70´s and early 80´s (Deep Red, Tenebrae), with just a little improvement in ideas. There is a lots of bad solutions here (specially hiring Max Von Sydow who just don´t fit in here) but all in all, it´s still intriguing, bizarre and very watchable Argento movie. Good but far from his more art oriented and poetic horrors.

I´ve seen other reviews for "Dellamorte Dellamore" and I´ve noticed that people don´t really know what they´re dealing with. So, please let me explain. "Dellamorte Dellamore" is Italian picture based on a cult Italian horror comic book called "Dylan Dog". It is still running (now for more than 15 years) and it is one of the greatest horror comics not just in Italy but worldwide. It is mostly published in European countries, however, I know that DC Comics published only 6 to 10 issues in States. It is a story of Dylan Dog, London´s private investigator who deals with the cases of unexplainable, strange and occult phenomenons (some comparison can be found in Fox Mulder of "X-Files"). His creator (and an author of more than 100 episodes) is Tizziano Sclavi, who also wrote screenplay for the movie "Dellamorte Dellamore". There was one episode of Dylan Dog, called "Cemetery Man" or "Dellamorte Dellamore" in which Dylan meets this weird cemetery undertaker Francesco Dellamore and his every day job of "wasting zombies". So, the movie is actually based on that comic novel with, of course, a lot of changes. Dylan Dog has now transformed into Francesco and he´s no longer private investigator but a graveyard caretaker. But Sclavi and director Soavi left him with main characteristics of the original Dylan: his clothing, his car (an old Wolkswagen - "the bug"), the same gun and he still has 2 helpers. A bold cop originally named inspector Block and his associate who is now become a retarded giant (in the comic it was a funny person named Groucho and that just ´cause he really looks like Groucho Marx and acts like him). In one particular comic novel called "Memoirs of an Invisible" (years before the movie) one girl said to Dylan that he looks like an actor Rupert Everett. So, it was really hilarious to actually see Rupert in this role. Congratulations for that one, team!!! However, all this stuff that I´ve told You doesn´t necessary make a good picture. But, it DOES in this case. The directing is marvelous, the acting is great, and the story is simply brilliant. It is for sure one of the best horrors of the ´90-s if not THE BEST. If you are a true horror (and a good film) fan this is a "must see".

After a bit of dissapointment after The Phantom Menace, I still had some hopes in me that this one will finally live to it´s right. But again...no, it did not. Ok, now we see why did Lucas said that he waited so long for the effects to improve. When it comes to visuals this probably is one of the best in saga. But when it comes to story and what Star Wars are really about, then it´s no better than chapter I, maybe in some ways even worse. But still, there are a few points that I liked. Since the new trilogy is more about silly politics than anything else, I really liked how he treats Palpatine. I could see his rise from the strange character in shadows to the Great Emperor in the old trilogy. We all knew that in Attack of the Clones we are going to witness the start of an Anakin-Amidala romance, but what we got here is dreadful. Dialogues and the whole love story can only be compared to the lines of Dawson´s Creek or some soapish nonsense like that. And the philosophical lines are now laughibly pretentious and meaningless. Again, very similar to chapter one, this is a very enjoyable movie to watch and it has some of the most spectacular scenes ever to be seen in science-fiction cinema. But for a Star Wars fan it´s not even close to enough. Sometimes I think that Lucas shouldn´t go further at all from the original trilogy.

I know that someone would say that expectations for the new Star Wars trilogy were too high, but when You think about it, it just had to be high (the expectations were also very high for The Lord of the Rings trilogy and Peter Jackson sure did live to it). I mean, Lucas was pointing that he waited almost 20 years to film another chapter because he needed visuals not possible in those days. Why is then that after watching The Phantom Menace I had the feeling that this one is so much beneath the previous trilogy (including the effects). Don´t get me wrong, CGI done here are correct, but that´s mostly it - correct. That´s just not good enough for the Star Wars. Previous movies with five times lower budget took us to the most beautiful, imaginary, challenging and powerful places. The Phantom Menace did no such thing. Now let´s come to the story. I think that it´s a big lie that Lucas wrote all six chapters at once. It just can´t be true, ´cause quality´s fall is more than obvious. Mr.Lucas is, let´s face it, not any more full of flashy imagination that we loved so much. I mean, The Phantom Menace isn´t a bad film at all. It has a very unique moments and a story that holds on it´s own, but that´s it. I hope that, in some way, I was wrong and that time will show me the real importance of The Phantom Menace. I really do.

Nothing but praise for mr. Jackson. I think it was even more difficult to film The Two Towers than it was to film The Fellowship of the Ring, ´cause now there is no more pacing and building to be done. We are there. In the book, all the important stuff you could find in the narrative process. But this is not the book and Jackson isn´t Tolkien. But obviously he´s a great director. ´cause what he did here is marvelous and deserves only full respect and admiration. He transformed me into this beautiful dream and by the end, I could hardly believe that 3 hours have already passed. I read the book more than five times and I never suspected that there will be a superb movie adaptation of Tolkien´s magic. But there is and it´s called Peter Jackson´s THE LORD OF THE RINGS. 10 out of 10.

Let´s face it. This is something that a lot of us waited our whole life to finally see on a big screen. Jackson carried a real heavy burden of bringing Tolkien´s magnificent world to life. And, by God, he did. I mean, there are a few minor mistakes here, like: Liv Tyler should not, by all means, be with Frodo and the Nazguls in the river scene. She completely ruined the importance and the symbolism of gathering that took place there (it is what the whole movie is about: inner conflict of dualised forces). Sometimes it seems that Ralph Bakshi with his animated The Lord of the Rings understood better the abstract, mythological and philosophical aspects of the book. But, at the end, it doesn´t matter, ´cause Jackson blinded us more than effectively, with his brave and powerful vision. We can even forgive him Aragorn-Arwen romance plot. What else to say than: congratulations mr. Jackson! You brought us the most beautiful and the strongest imagination ever to be seen. By far, the best fantasy (and much more) in the history of moving pictures. You just can´t beat this one.

O.K. Before I watched this movie, my expectations weren´t high at all. I expected some cheezy awful mess of an attempt to make a good horror picture in Balkan (?!?). After watching it, I wasn´t thrilled in any way, of course, but still, I wasn´t disapointed either. It was a cheap serbian splatter horror that I could actually watch without much laughter. The premise, of course, is absolutely absurd. There are a few guys (and 2 girls) trapped in a turkish toilet in Belgrade and a psychotic killer is on the loose (yes, you´ve heard me correctly, the movie actually takes place in the toilet). And this absurdity took my attention. By the end I guessed the killer more than easily, but the director maked sure that we receive a few more surprises. Zecevic understands that he´s making a splatter picture, so he´s not trying to be serious in any way (just like more famous likes of Braindead, Luther the Geek or The Last House on the Left) and he adds a few ridicolous laughs. The acting is more than good, maybe a little too good and sometimes it ruins caricaturical atmosphere. What I dislike most in this movie is some kind of an experimental horror editing, which failed big time. They even added some amateur camera shots, but this is not The Blair Witch Project or Man Bites Dog. So, T.T.Syndhrome is by no means a great movie, but still a very brave effort of director Zecevic to direct something that has never been directed before in Serbia - a real splatter horror. Congratulations to Dejan.

I saw this as a child and I remember that I was so scared that I couldn´t sleep for days. So, like twenty years later, here I am, watching it for the second time. The feeling, of course is not the same, ´cause through the years I became very big fan and some kind of an expert for horror cinema. But still... This is probably the first real horror made in Yugoslavia and it´s still the best. Dark atmosphere accomplished here is very unique and it really gives you the creeps. When I think of the comparison, the only movie that comes to my mind is BLAIR WITCH PROJECT (same atmosphere, dark woods, witches, etc.) and trust me when I say that Myrick & Sanchez flick is not at all superior. The only thing that annoyed me are the "comic elements". I really felt that they are not necessary (it is similar problem with all Yugoslavian suspense movies, such as: Variola Vera, The Strangler vs Strangler, Deja-Vu and more recently T.T.Syndhrome). But the last half an hour of the movie is so brilliant that we can forgive the director Kadijevic for that mistake.