Reviews

Ridley Scott has tricked me. I really thought I was going to watch a movie about Napoleon. But two hours into it I realized I'm actually watching a movie about the English. Scott made short shrift of Napoleon's victories and spent 40 minutes on Waterloo. One of the greatest tactical minds in history and the man who terrorized the whole of Europe is reduced here to a grotesque caricature. Phoenix, otherwise an excellent actor, lacks charisma as Napoleon and the two protagonists (Napoleon and Josephine) have zero chemistry. Given the hype created around it, I consider the movie a flop. Scott has fallen knee deep into the trap of artistic hubris, as he arrogantly believes he's entitled to remake and reshape historical figures with impunity. If he wants full freedom, there's always fiction, an endless reservoir of stories, but when you're bringing to the screen one of the most (in)famous characters in history, more reverence is needed. Scott's iconoclastic bravado is now being punished by the public. It makes me very nervous to think that he's working on a new Gladiator. That's truly bad news.

GoT was such a hot mess. The producers left nothing out. Dragons, knights, zombies, medievalism, orientalism, Egyptian pyramids, God of Light, they threw in everything but the kitchen sink. The setup lacks originality and their writing strategy is to distort historical cultures, rather than create something different. It's very obvious to any educated viewer that Westeros is medieval Western Europe, the Wall is Hadrian's Wall, the raiders from the cold north are the Vikings, the Dothraki are the horse-riding Mongols, the exotic cities of the east embody the decadent Orient with its slave based society (some colonial flavor here) and the list goes on. On top of all this mess the viewer has to make sense of a bewildering number of characters. Some simply disappear from the story for half a season. Some of the main characters never meet and some of the stories never connect or you have to wait several seasons for them to be tied in some way. You watch season after season wondering how the situation on the Wall connects with the one in Meereen and the other places visited/conquered by Khaleesi. It feels like you're watching two different shows on the assumption that at some point it will all be tied together. GoT lacks focus more than any other show I've seen. If this wasn't enough, the viewer has to put up with graphic violence and pointless nudity which to me is the ultimate hallmark of mediocrity in moviemaking. It's basically like saying: we give up, we don't really have much going on here, so we'll throw in some soft porn scenes and some hands getting chopped off to draw in the audience (sensationalism sells). And that is all very clear when you pay attention to the events and developments, many of which make no sense. So basically between the writer's obsession with male sexual organs (cutting them, in particular) and female prostitution and the effort to figure out what the characters are about the viewers inevitably end up prating for the damn dragons to grow up faster and put everyone out of their misery.

Great acting from Cillian Murphy and Helen McCrory and the guest superstars Tom Hardy and Adrien Brody. Some good scenes in seasons 1-2. Everything else is repetitive. The script is very derivative as the show turns into Godfather meets Scarface type of story. I can tell Brody had fun playing a stereotypical New York Italian gangster, but really added nothing to the genre and this is just one egregious example out of many. Also, Birmingham gypsies speaking Romanian, seriously? More depth and more professionalism was needed to make this a high quality series and not just a popular one, catering to the plebs only.

Beautiful image, very good acting, good story with powerful symbolism and bad music. That sums up the movie. For excessive verbosity and self-important attitude you can read other reviews below.

Stayed true to the original in many ways and that's important for fans of the original BR. Remember that the original BR had a pretty cold reception in the early 80s. Who knows how this one will be perceived a decade from now. And yes, I do miss Vangelis; the movie really came to life when they played pieces of his original music. Zimmer just didn't seem to understand the project.

Those who complain that the movie is long and slow clearly have the attention span of a 5-year-old and should probably stick to Fast & Furious.

Blade Runner 2049 could have been more but it could have been a lot less too. Thankfully enough it wasn't. I'm not ecstatic, but not disappointed at all and I realize that my expectations have been incredibly high. I will go see it a second time for sure.

EDIT Oct 13 after seeing the movie a second time (in 3D). I'd like to upgrade my rating from 8 to 10 if y'all don't mind. Blade Runner 2049 is a 150-million-dollar gift to a small but dedicated fan group of the original movie. Thank you for that gift. I don't think there's any sequel in the history of cinema that stays true to the original to the point where even the tiniest details - noticeable only by hardcore fans who've watched BR 1982 thirty times - are being transplanted into this new film. And, no, BR 2049 did not make Blade Runner mainstream as some complain here. On the contrary, it kept its secrets open only to the same group of initiates, with the possibility of others from the younger generation to join, if they have what it takes. As many of the reviews below testify this movie still remains a mystery to most people out there, whose ability to digest abstract ideas is unfortunately very low.

Season 6 was an unnecessary agony for this otherwise enjoyable show. It is obvious that Paul wanted out of the show after season 5, as it clearly drops in quality (it's probably the worst season) and Paul barely shows up in season 6 episodes culminating with this episode when he is completely absent. Duncan is no longer the main character in most episodes of this season, he is just a guy who other immortals (main characters) go to for council or for sex (female immortals). Plus I don't think I have ever seen a TV show where none of the main characters was present. A couple more episodes after season 5, just to have a closure would have been a much better solution than letting the show go down like this.

The easiest way to tell if a movie is good or bad is to look at the comments and see how many people really understand the message; for this movie very few people did, which confirms the fact that we are indeed dealing with a very artistic and highly complex film. It was painful to read all the garbage written by some reviewers before me, and it appears very clearly that they understand very little the spirit of the 1950s as it was superbly encapsulated by this film. A lesson of history and less brainwash by contemporary politically correctness will certainly help understand this movie properly. It is not about a wedding, it is not about a village wiped out, or about communists, it is about historical destiny and humanity. Those who have seen beyond the comedy understand what I mean by that. The rest of you should really stick to shallow movies, because anything beyond that will confuse you unnecessarily.

This is an excellent action-thriller movie about the resistance against the communist regime in the 1950s Romania. The script had to pass the special Romanian communist propaganda committee, so that the resistance members in the mountains were officially called bandits and outlaws fighting against "democracy". In reality the resistance against communism was fierce and the regime had to struggle more than ten years to wipe it. They are all now considered local heroes and freedom fighters in Romania. Nevertheless, due to the fact that the movie was released during the communist regime, it had to sustain the official propaganda, so the writers and directors had no personal choice, beside giving up the project. Still, the movie has the "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" effect, where the public is emotionally attached to the villains in the film, an effect that the communist propaganda could not control. It is really an interesting movie to see: great action, great actors and a climactic ending.

In artistic terms the movie is great. The story is superb, the acting is excellent too. Nevertheless there is an issue that should be taken into account when a director decides to make a movie with an eastern European setting. Films like the ones directed by Emir Kusturica or Nae Caranfil and now by Nemescu reveal and insist on revealing only one side of the Balkans. This facet is often exaggerated for artistic purposes and while it identifies the Balkans in certain aspects, it can also be very hazardous on the longer term. The Romanian, Serbian or Bulgarian societies are certainly more complex than the instances and the characters depicted in "White cat, black cat", "Philantropica" or "California Dreamin'". This picturesque facet constantly addressed by film makers represents a reality of the region but should not be generalized. This is the hazard of making such movies. Westerners and Americans, not very accustomed to the history and the society of the Eastern Europe might reduce them to this narrow view: gypsies, easy and shallow girls, the general poverty and corruption and a scene populated by low-lifes and scums. Everyone seeing this film should enjoy it for what it is, but should also keep in mind that, although true at a certain level, Romania means more than that.

'Cu mainile curate' (With Clean Hands)is more a political pamphlet than anything else. Although any political/ historical movie had to be checked by a special division of the Communist Party, Nicolaescu managed to elude their vigilence on one hand and exploit their ignorance, on the other, to make a film which apparently presents the communists in a positive way. In reality there is a lot of subtle political irony, definitely noticed by the public, hence the great success of the film. The story of an apolitical commissar using old methods against the gangsters, very different from the communist view is very interesting especially because the communist view (although ideologically very dear to the Party) was very naive and utopical and of course the public understood the message very well. This commissar has a partner who was put there by the Communist Party, who was a former rugby player. This tells a lot about the irony in the film. The movie is very well made, very careful to details with a great atmosphere of Bucharest in the aftermath of WWII and in the turmoil of the communists ascension to power.

If I were to be very objective I would probably rate this movie a 7. But because I know Sergiu Nicolaescu's work in detail and because I know his inventivity and resourcefulness as a director I will give it a 10. "Duelul" is really a homage paid to the American gangster films portraying the 1930s or the documentary movies about the city children made in America during the 1940's. Nevertheless it should not be considered that Nicolaescu simply made a clone movie. The historical setting was Bucharest during the late 1930's and Nicoleascu superbly manages to bring to life the perfume of the inter-war era, in what seems to be a more romantic view easier to understand when you think that "duelul" was made in 1981 during the hardest stage of the communist era in Romania. This is a movie really worth seeing for Romanians and foreigners alike (if they get their hands on a translation)

During the communist era one had to be very cautious when talking about the old regime, and especially the "Iron Guard" or general Ion Antonescu. It is almost a miracle that Sergiu Nicolaescu was able to make a film set in the historical frame of the early 1940's. Although the Communist Party made different modifications into the initial script, adding scenes or lines praising the activity of the communists, the film remains a milestone in the history of Romanian cinematography and the historical events depicted are quite accurate. Perhaps the best thing now would be a director's cut where the scenes forcibly imposed by the Communist Party to be erased.

I have read several comments on this film across the internet "Best movie on prohibition" "Comparable only to Godfather". I believe the movie is really about friendship and sacrifice. What is remarkable about this film is not only the screenplay but the remarkable ability of director Sergio Leone to create three movies in one with disregard to any chronological sequence of events. I have seen the movie two times in one week and I still have to watch it over a couple of times to fully understand the message.

The most dramatic part of the movie is towards the end, when Noodles decides to call the police hoping that Max would be arrested and therefore give up his plan to rob the Federal Reserve Bank, a complete suicidal act. Upon his call the police comes and his friends are killed, than Eve, his girlfriend is murdered by the police.

The movie begins in 1933 and ends with the same scene, with Noodles played by de Niro smoking opium on the bed at the Chinese place. This led a number of critics to the conclusion that actually Noodles is fantasizing about his future and I think this interpretation is correct. His devilish smile at the end of the movie is probably one of the most enigmatic pieces in filmography. Why is he smiling about? He just called the police and gave-in his friends who died in a shootout. is he smiling because everything is over, like some critics argue? I don't think so. He didn't seem unhappy up to this point, or at least not that desperate to explain such an emotion. Is it because he failed? I think this could be a possible answer. He was telling Fat Moe" You can always tell winners and losers" and he thought himself a loser. So the hysterical smile can be connected to a resignation in face of his fate. Logically, the movie should end in 1968. In a way or another. But it ends, strangely in 1933 with Noodles on a dose of opium and with a mysterious smile on his face. I think he dies that night along with his friends, the rest being just a premonition of what would happen if he stayed alive. The fact that Max survives in his fantasy is only one more reason to see it as a fantasy. Max was more than a friend, they seemed connected in life and death and the fact that Noodles was seeing him again in 1968 is just a projection of this close relationship, his brain refusing to accept that he practically murdered his best friend along with his other two childhood friends and his girlfriend Eve.

The fact is even more dramatic and striking as you see the friendship of these boys starting in a harsh neighbourhood in the 20s and you see them sticking together ten years later. Noodles tries to save them but instead he kills them. His smile is only an ironical resignation of his failure. In his premonition, he meets Fat Moe once again in 1968 and at a point Moe says: "I would have bet everything on you" "You would have lost" comes the reply from Noodles. This is the essence of the movie...and it is a true masterpiece