Reviews

As one of the ten viewers of this film who were rooting for the French forces, you might think I'd dislike this movie. But it has a strong narrative drive, and it consistently held my interest. Even though you know how it all turns out, you didn't feel like the ending was a certainty. Of course, it is biased toward the Algerians, and there is more than a little dose of left-wing agitprop. But the French aren't portrayed as monsters, and the leader of the French forces is at least a somewhat sympathetic figure. I wish the movie had given more of an historical overview and that it discussed more what was going on in the rest of the country. But it's a solid, well-done movie worth your time. It's free now on Kanopy.

I'm not a Murakami fan but I enjoyed this movie. There are problems. An important character is so slightly drawn except for their one serious flaw that the viewer feels little for them and therefore, to some extent, the lead character as well. And while no one expects or wants absolute realism in a film like this, some crucial, everyday financial facts of life go unexplained. Despite those shortcomings, this is an affecting story of urban angst and loneliness, the strangeness of human emotions and feelings. The film is blessedly not drawn-out and appropriately short. Definitely worth the time, and it was available for free on Kanopy.

I usually watch foreign, art house movies about, say, Finnish reindeer herders during the Russian-Finnish War in 1939. And I'll look at the IMDB user reviews and invariably a few will be about how slow and boring it all was. And I'll think, What did they expect? Titanic? So yeah, this film is predictable and unimaginative and without any real drama and with cliche characters. But so what? That's what I had expected. The two leads are attractive and rather charming. They're good together and there's some chemistry, and the film doesn't get too silly. So go ahead and watch it if you want to pass a little time with something harmless. Just don't expect too much.

I'm not usually a big fan of Japanese drama, finding many silly and cliche. The plots are cookie-cutter. But this series was good. The storylines were realistic and not at all hackneyed and boring. I liked seeing the lead character moving from neighborhood to neighborhood, climbing up an admittedly limited social ladder. It is an adult series that demonstrates that urban angst and loneliness can be seen in any big city, no matter what the culture, East or West. Maybe it helps that the characters are physically attractive and they all dress nicely. And for some reason I find the theme song really catchy.

I gave it 30 minutes. Usual Hollywood cliche-ridden film where you don't have to watch more than ten minutes to know who the good guys and bad guys are. Rich white kid? Bigoted selfish racist. Overweight working-class black woman? Noble, wise, saint, her child died as a soldier, no doubt in Indochina. The movie by implication perpetuates the myth that most of the soldiers who died in Vietnam were black. Do these screenwriters even try to create interesting characters? I doubt there were any Hunhams left in academia by 1971. The movie is as subtle as a tank. Well, the movie does open with a pretty New England scene. I guess that's one nice thing.

I don't see the point of reviewers who say a movie like this is slow and boring, and "nothing happens." (If you want a movie where indeed nothing happens, try "Goodbye, Dragon Inn.") Sure, there are longueurs, and not all the plot choices are good ones. But there is a quiet beauty about this film, and it is at its best deeply pleasurable. Some of the scenes and framing are like pictures in a museum. The uncertainties of time, place, and characters I often find annoying in other films are less irksome here. I think viewers who appreciative this kind of slow-paced movie, and are less concerned about a pulsing plot than an absorbing sensory experience, will like it.

OK, it's a bit lifeless, and the English dialog spoken by actors who are not fluent -- and whose characters inexplicably know the language -- is off-putting. And the characters are not interesting; they are stereotypical and not well-drawn. Still, the movie managed to maintain my interest. Fortunately, I no longer remember the book, so there wasn't that disappointment. It's a movie that moves along, and while not well-executed, it entertains where more highly rated movies of critics often do not. If you can find it for free, I'd certainly give it a chance. It's not a bad way to spend a couple of hours. It is a visually attractive movie.

Rewatching Northern Exposure after so many years, one forgets that like any series, some were simply not very good. Maggie and Joel in Juneau was contrived, icky, poorly conceived, and not well-executed. I don't know if they had different writers here or what, but it was way below the usual high quality. The handling of racial issues between the two half-brothers may simply be dated, but even for the 1990s it all seems cringe-provoking more than anything else. Topics are introduced into the episode like Marilyn's handling of patients and then simply dropped and ignored. Looking forward to some better episodes of this wonderful series.

My title is appropriate in two ways. The first of the four stories is the strongest and most compelling. The mood is dark, corrupt, and highly watchable. As the movie goes on, though, it gets more and more propagandistic and this viewer lost interest in these heavy-handed accounts. The good versus bad guys are so obviously distinguished it begins to approach parody. OTOH, the cinematography is terrific. There is a lushness to the Cuba landscape in parts, and the viewer is immediately drawn in by the extended opening shot. The movie did make me want to learn more about the Cuban Revolution, especially since the refugee community is so important to Florida politics. So, thumbs up, with significant reservations.

I'm tired of some fellow IMDBers calling movies like this one "slow and boring." What do you want?' Car chases? Bombs? If you have no patience to let a story unfold, then don't watch movies like this. It's not spectacular, but it is highly effective and enjoyable. These are real people, with human goodness and human frailties. The story is not unusual, but it is well told. It's interesting to get an in-depth movie about the home front at war, and the way it brings forth new challenges and perhaps some benefits as well. WW1 at the home front for many was not as cataclysmic as WW2. Anyway, well worth watching -- if you don't insist on action in every frame.

I wasn't a fan of the Joyce piece, described as somewhere between a short story and a novella. Perhaps that it was the last piece in Dubliners, and I had had enough of Irish sentimentality, drinking, and cultural conservatism by then. But it was also that the bulk of the action and the denouement didn't seem to connect and make much sense. The movie, which is fairly faithful to Joyce, suffers from the same flaws. Still, I found it more enjoyable on the screen. It is still too sentimental for my taste, but the picture of this particular section of Irish society seems to be well drawn. So if its free or a couple of bucks, go for it.

I have been watching many foreign and indy movies on Kanopy, and this was a wonderful surprise. The story set against the backdrop of the events in Lebanon in 1982 felt highly realistic. I cared about the characters, especially the young lead. For those of us in the US blessed with never having experienced invasion, the backdrop of war and how it affects people's lives was a jarring reminder. It especially seems so for the middle-class Lebanese depicted here. I knew the tragedies that would soon be upon Beirut, and it was affecting. Afterwards, I looked up the history; it was extraordinarily convoluted. Perhaps it was as baffling to these Lebanese, who must have wondered what in the world was happening to their country.

EO the donkey just kind of winds up in a bunch of different places. He experiences both casual cruelty and true compassion. The human characters are a varied set, both interesting and not so. I didn't see much of a narrative drive, and I'm not sure what the point of it all is. I hope it isn't "animals good, humans bad." That kind of reductionism is rather silly. But just as a way of spending a little time, the movie is enjoyable. It consistently held my interest, and there's some great photography. There is some fantasy in, I think but don't know, donkeys being a whole lot more emotionally sensitive than they actually are. But I don't know.

I fully admit the longueurs where nothing happens for minutes in this film are trying. But for those of us who have spent too much of their lives in near-empty revival/foreign/indie theaters late at night, Goodbye, Dragon Inn DOES, by the end, resonate and make an impression. The empty arthouse theater is -- or maybe was, as so many are disappearing -- the one place a single person could be in the city and rarely, if ever, feel lonely. Even a walk in the park risks watching happy parents with their adorable kids. But in these theaters, you could be truly alone and happily protected; if the couple in front of you necking bothers you, you can move. It is an exquisite aloneness, completely absorbed by the work of Kurosawa or Rohmer, or some unheard-of director from eastern Romania. And this movie, at times, captures that feeling beautifully. But I had one big problem. In my hundreds of late nights in near-empty theaters, primarily those in New York and San Francisco, I never once was hit on by another man. Maybe it's because I wasn't looking for it, or just didn't give off that vibe; but I never saw any inkling of that activity. And so much of the film, with men spending forever standing side-by-the-side at the urinal and approaching each other as close as possible without touching, seemed mistaken. Of course, things may have been different in Taiwan, and movie theaters were the one place where gay men could meet freely. In big US cities, there simply may be too many other venues to accomplish that objective. But at least for me, these quasi-gay sequences subtracted significantly from the beauty of the film, not because I was offended, but because they seemed misplaced. Nevertheless, if slow, slow, SLOW sequences don't give you a problem, give it a try.

The best thing about this movie is its realism. Usually a director goes with a good guys/bad guys dichotomy so we have someone to root for. But this movie has little of that, except maybe a couple of bad dates. The lead isn't particularly likeable; she's often self-centered and somewhat spoiled, and lacks courage. But she's still appealing,and the dilemmas she faces are real. The middle-class Jewish family members are neither admirable nor hideous. And the plot, while not original, doesn't take the usual turns. So it's satisfying that way and makes for an unusual viewing experience, if not a terribly enjoyable one.

I always suspect in a movie about conservative Christians they are going to be portrayed as small-minded and hypocritical, and that their faith is a lie. And my expectations were not entirely dashed in this film. But there's enough sensitivity and nuance here that I felt like there were sufficient characters, including the lead, who were honestly wrestling with their faith, and the temptations of the secular world. The plot, if somewhat predictable, kept this viewer interested,. The lead was a good combination of the strong, young adult, and the childhood she was just leaving. I certainly recommend watching it at the free Kanopy service.

The best thing about this movie is that it's nuanced and sometimes surprising. Unlike so many movies, the director isn't into making it easy on viewers to make easy judgments, or give you lots of feel-good moments. The lead is a bundle of emotions, smart and savvy, but also insecure and capable of such casual cruelty. The film does make you think carefully of the wisdom of allowing adoptees to meet their birth mothers, and what are both sides' rights and needs in that regard. And unlike some other IMDBers, I thought the movie moved at a good pace and I was consistently engaged. But ultimately, the viciousness of this lost woman made me lose interest in her fate.

I made it through an hour. I'm not this big prude, and maybe the French are just more sophisticated about these things. But it's hard for me to be lighthearted about adultery. People get hurt. And she's the teacher of his kid for God's sake. And the plot and her incompetence about things, and her sentimentality about animals, are annoying. So it's wrong to give a mule a whack, but OK to cheerfully commit adultery, as if there isn't another party who is going to get hurt? Even if the adultery bit didn't bother me, it's not compelling. Her interactions with the donkey are not particularly amusing. The lead is winsome, but also rather silly and naive. If you can get the movie free on Kanopy, OK, but I wouldn't pay for it.

Given my interest in Japan after the war and my like of Kazuo Ishiguro, it's no surprise I enjoyed this film. It smoothes swiftly along, and to the extent I remember the book, seems to follow it closely. I do have two criticisms. First, the Tokyo it presents seems far too spiffy and attractive for the early postwar period. I realize we're looking at a higher end of society. Still, everything from the streets to the restaurants seem more like the Tokyo of the mid-1960s. Extreme hardship is rarely seen. Second, and more importantly, following the book as it does, is the issue of unreliable narrator. I realize from a real-world view, our recollections may greatly differ from reality, something which writers may want to capture. But for me as a consumer, my feeling is "you're the creator, so you know what happened....why the ambiguity?" But I have the attention span of a child; I get lost in a story. I often have to ask my companion or find out from the Internet what happened. Others may like Ishiguro's approach, but to me it leads to unexplainable surprises in the plot that dampens the enjoyment of this otherwise fine film.

So few movies nowadays are at all compelling or fulfilling. Those that actually tell a story of human relationships often get high praise when the content is so light, and the characters so uninteresting. No doubt some of that is, for most younger people in the West, war is now something you read about in school or online. And social strictures are fewer. For whatever reason, at the end of this movie you feel you've seen something rich and meaningful and rewarding. I know for women it's supposed to make an important statement. But I think women too can have enormous sympathy for a man who feels he has done everything right and yet it simply isn't enough. Ultimately, whether this film is truly about lesbian relationships is somewhat beside the point.

First off, and obviously, if you don't like quiet, understated films where "nothing happens," this film is not for you. And if you do, and you're like me, some of these are so plotless and inert that they are indeed boring. But although nothing much of consequence happens, there is much to contemplate: the inability of some children of the middle classes to become fully functioning adults, the nature of the arts/crafts world, the absurd love that some show for almost any creature not a human being. For cynics like me who like who like to think all of the art world is humbug, and most artists talentless and simply don't want to be part of the traditional middle-class, there are artists creating beautiful pieces of work that can move us.

It's an enjoyable film, certainly worth the time. My major issue with it is that it's predictable. The lead reminds me of Jeff Bridges in Fearless and William Hurt in The Doctor. Both have traumatic experiences that make relationships with current lovers difficult if not impossible; a change of life is called for. That's what these films apparently require for plot, but is that true? Millions of men return from war to the same wives, jobs, lives. Other check boxes are ticked off: the co-survivors to whom the lead now more strongly relates; the initial accusation of guilt, later disspelled; the noble member(s) of the minority underclass that gets the lead all through it. For these requirements, sometimes the plot has phony constructs. Having said all that, the movie keeps you entertained, if it isn't really moving.

I don't agree with the complaints of users that the movie is too long and slow-moving. It consistently held my interest. Yes, there are a few gaps in the plot. Many of the characters' personalities are too black and white -- there are basically good guys and bad guys. And the movie veers too stongly toward supports the notion of "the beauty of young love" -- young lust is usually more like it, with the unfortunate parents, portrayed as vicious here, left to pick up the pieces. Still, the movie is affecting, and you do feel for the main characters, even if, as I say, a little more nuance would have been nice.

A bore. I didn't like the music and the long interludes of their singing were unpleasant. The story is also a big nothing, trite, hackneyed, unoriginal. The guy is unrealistically sweet, the girl unappealing. Why is it that buskers are always portrayed as saintly, when most are actually annoying and unappealing? If I want to hear music, I'll ask for it. The whole business is just sappy. Maybe it's OK for free, but that I paid for it (well, used my hard-earned Amazon video credits) angers me. That Bob Dylan is a big fan of this movie is surprising, but he is indeed eclectic and has his own guilty pleasures. This one is obviously one we don't share.

I give a tour that includes a Japanese dry garden (karesansui) . I try to make visitors appreciate that Japanese aesthetics of wabi-sabi, ma, etc. - to grossly simplify, minimalism, emptiness -- make the garden a thing of beauty. But to be honest, as much as I love these quiet, gentle, pensive films, at some point I went, "Er, could there be a FEW more words? Could there be a LITTLE more plot?" Even someone who eschews action films and has never seen a car chase he has enjoyed (well, maybe Bullitt is an exception) can still wish for a bit more to, well, happen. Still, if you are a fan of such arthouse films, especially Japanese ones, by all means watch it.