Isherwood

The politics in Stone's films take some getting used to, though with this film the director is quite artful in keeping with the fact that he was making a story about a real person, even if the book is relatively sympathetic to his views. The small Vietnam section is technically amazing, and since most of the filmmakers head for the rainforest, its sand sequence is relatively original and all the more impressive for it. Nevertheless, the entire burden of the film rests on Tom Cruise's acting, which forced me to develop my own controversy about how someone who can play such a part par excellence can subsequently put himself down in all sorts of ways. The believably civil speech and the excellently handled parts (particularly the one in the veterans’ hospital is amazing) make Cruise a master actor in this film. It’s a bit unfortunate that Willem Dafoe’s space wasn’t utilized, as well as the momentary sentimentality, which, however, seems to be part of all this. It can be said that Stone has contributed a lot of interesting works to the issue of the Vietnam complex, which makes everyone think not only about how to treat retired soldiers.

In the flood of contemporary slasher films, this one is above average. It mainly benefits from the unpleasant atmosphere of the vast Australian outback, which eventually turns into the cramped environment of an old quarry, where a cruel hillbilly sets off an exceedingly harsh and detailed game of torture, which will leave the weaker folks reeling. It is unfortunate that the introduction was a bit unnecessarily long, which could have given way to the "more important" part. Yet my final impression is still one of utmost satisfaction, mixing a beatific smile at the idea that the genre is not dying with a somewhat uncomfortable feeling in my stomach. In my opinion, that’s the best result the Australians could have managed.

The first moment of the mistakenly acquired feeling of some novel "guilty pleasure" disappears the moment the creators come out with the paint and admit that they want to make a targeted parody. Unfortunately, the awkward parody consists of piling individual gags (which are not funny) on top of each other without any proper plot connection, meaning that the result is a desperately awkward attempt to be funny at all costs. This ensures that John De Bello, the director and screenwriter and the writer of the opening meddlesome song and God knows what else, puts himself in the rather unenviable position of a total bum who has no idea what filmmaking is and whose humor can also be successfully questioned. It’s unnecessary boredom, but it’s true that you don’t see this sort of thing very often.

Writer Dan Brown is definitely not going to become the new Umberto Eco, yet his book is quite readable. Unfortunately, the film version is rather unfortunate, given the literal adherence not only to individual scenes but often to the lines themselves, which somehow lose their meaning and logic without further explanation. This then becomes a continuous sequence of dialogues, from which the most fervent conspiracy theories, which so annoy the bigwigs in the Vatican, are suppressed into the background. Still, hats off to Ron Howard for making it flow relatively well despite the exorbitant runtime. If it wasn't for the awkward car chase that steals from The Bourne Identity and the rather clumsily filmed flashbacks, the film would have been more than decent because the scene where Langdon contemplates the cipher and the memory of Issac Newton's monument forms in front of him is amazing, as is the final kneeling. Tom Hanks is not suitable for the main role at all (the wannabe youthful look does not suit this actor), while on the other hand, Paul Bettany is excellent as the albino, including his precisely chosen accent. It’s a thriller worth a single watch, and if it hadn't had the heavy advertising, the copies in the video stores would have been covered in dust after a few months.

The stellar ensemble cast members have nothing to do for two hours, meaning that they look as tormented as the audience, who find watching (arguably) the most talked-about historical film as enjoyable as sitting in front of a church tribunal performed by Gabriel Byrne's Monk Juniper, whose role consists of sitting and silently observing the archbishop. Meanwhile, the archbishop, played by Robert De Niro, comes across as nothing more than a standard 18th-century church boogeyman. Only Harvey Keitel makes an effort, and perhaps it is thanks to him that the last half hour brings in the real emotion that was so lacking before, which is due to the fact that the convoluted (maybe not even that in and of itself, but the director tries to sophisticatedly weave in the impossible) story revolves entirely around unfulfilled love, both physical and spiritual. There is in fact no controversy, so in the end it’s a waste of time.

It is a strongly contradictory work in all respects, affecting each viewer in a completely different way. The formal experiment combining computer animation with live-action succeeded for the filmmakers, but at times they are a little too blatant in showing how special they are and how the viewer's jaw should drop in amazement. However, the transitions between these two "worlds" are presented in a non-violent way, so after five minutes you won’t have any issues getting your bearings. The problem is more so in the content. Although it appears to be a perfectly interwoven mosaic of the futuristic world of 2095 (a rather bold time horizon for what we see in the film) and Egyptian mythology, it is instead a ridiculous puzzle in which there is no point in looking for deeper meaning. Immortal is more or less a successful thief. This is despite the fact that the N.Y. City set design in the style of Blade Runner and The Fifth Element is an homage in its own way (albeit a bit on the edge). Nevertheless, given my review of the film, my impression is extremely positive and I will need to watch it again, if only because of the somewhat confusing introduction. PS: Linda Hardy is incredibly beautiful in a fragile way and Thomas Kretschmann, on the other hand, is as cool as ever!

Even the strong cast doesn't make the film higher than average. It has too much formal modesty and occasional overcomplicated plot passages that are unnecessarily drawn out even with regard to creating the psychology of the characters. Moreover, the director is not skilled enough to mix humor, a bit black in this case (the corpse in the fridge), with serious themes (unresolved partner relationships), so the result looks a bit awkward. There’s also the fact that the entire film is conceived too blandly (but it’s not boring), which makes the overall impression on the viewer somewhat bland, and you’ll forget about it after a few days. If you want to go to Alaska and you have to do it with Robin Williams, then only in Insomnia. -Blockbuster 07/06-

The "submarine subgenre" is not exactly a goldmine for plot themes, which is why the mixing-in of ghost plots is relatively innovative and interesting. Unfortunately, the result is more than an embarrassing mess that the director of Pitch Black and the screenwriter of Requiem for a Dream can’t be proud of. The plot, which is incredibly shallow and highly predictable, starts to get lost after a few minutes in the director's insistent attempt to shake a darkness out of every shot. The result is too much of an effort to have boogeymen under the bed, which is most evidenced by the exaggerated failure rate of the light bulbs on the vessel. It’s all killed by the breakneck ending, whose attempt to shock comes out very much as a self parody. The acting is relatively decent. Bruce Greenwood, in particular, is supremely charismatic, and Graeme Revell's soundtrack tries (unfortunately in vain) to add a bit of tension where the director forgets to. However, the incredibly cheap special effects under the sea, a lot of bullshit chatter about nothing, and the overall impression of a more expensive TV movie force me to give it a poor review. Inexcusable even by "stupid B-movie" standards.

The formal aspects, relying on the now standard games with camera filters and editing, are very impressive, but the main trump card of Russell's film is the script. The initial comedic overtones (the cow on the mine) turn into a direct indictment of the whole Desert Storm operation. Moreover, it is told from the perspective of ordinary soldiers who actually confronted the civilian Iraqi population. Russell avoids unnecessary moralizing and inserts plenty of truths into the dialogue, both from the Iraqis themselves, who are demanding clarification of the American invasion, and from the American soldiers, whose every other word is a learned phrase of army propaganda in the background. Yet the film strictly moves away from the patriotic outcome, but at the same time does not put the Arab world in the position of a helpless pauper. This precisely-dosed mixture is then embellished with several exemplary action scenes that prove that Russell is a very skilled craftsman who simply knows what he is doing, and thanks to the perfect compactness of the film, it can be watched several times.

There were two ways this could have been filmed. Either as a hyper-pathetic monstrosity perceiving every Arab as a terrorist and every American as a patriot willing to die for his country... or the way in which it was filmed. Paul Greengrass doesn't dwell on any motives that led the terrorists to act, but rather portrays them only as people who are pursuing their goal with confidence, and instead views the passengers as a group of people who, in an extreme situation, were able to perform a single radically desperate act of defiance. It all happens in real-time, which is then transferred from the control room to the plane and captures the immediate action through a handheld camera, all without getting involved in creating psychology, relationships, or quick links. This makes the entire film feel much more believable and raw, and the final 10 minutes will forever go down in film history! For those who can sympathize with the plight of ordinary people, this film is the ultimate celebration of civilian heroism. Those looking for theories, politics, and social criticism should wait for Oliver Stone's World Trade Center.