Reviews

Am I the only one? who have seen the amazing "L'Apartement" with V/ Cassel & M. Bellucchi??? Seems like it is. Look for an original one. This is a very WEAK and bad copy of this film. A standard American attempt to export some of the best European cinema achievements and then re-making them in a very primitive manner a-la American Pie. Though it is almost a DETAILED rip-off! Except a sugar-sweet bulls***t happy ending. Everyone is horrible in that movie, especially Josh Hartnett (quite possibly, that the leading role casting couldn't be worse), but though Diane Kruger was quite nice. Overall - I really could have spent my time better than watching that horrible and amateurish so-called re-make.

Well, I've been expecting that film version of Webber's masterpiece for a very long time to come! Being a strong fan of stage version (I watched it in London about 4-5 times) I was afraid of disappointing in the film version. Well, first of all the good aspects of the movie - the scenery, costumes and orchestrations are truly excellent - Schumacher and Webber did a really remarkable job here. The masquerade sequence was directed and filmed excellently! But that's all the good points. Now, for a casting. Butler turned out to be and excellent Phantom, despite all my fears (he was a rock band singer). But Emmy Rossum...First of all, I'm not sure if Schumacher have checked her acting skills before signing the contract. Yes, she's got the voice (altohough it's not as powerful as Sara Brightman's or of the girl in modern London cast). But when she sings 'Think of me' and then goes like 'a-a-a-a-a-a-a!', I really couldn't stand her I-am-your-sweetheart horrible grimace. Then, in the dungeon, when Butler sings 'The Music of The Night' she starts to turn up her eyes in a comic passion and performs somewhat what may seem a fake orgasm. The girl simply can't act! That was horrible. Raoul turned to be a pretentious cheesy-handsome narcissist with no charisma and a really weak voice (check out the Original London Cast CD and compare). All the others were okay. Then, I could'n see the point in having J. Schumacher directing the film. As far as I remember, his strongest achievements were mainstream politically correct thrillers like 'The Client' and '8 mm'. Could't Webber hire someone like Baz Luhrmann? The film could have been MUCH better. And we wouldn't see any fog at a SNOWY graveyard.

It's certainly not a brief, inaccurate retelling, but it's neither a history captured. Hollywood with the help of Czechoslovakian immigrate Ivan Passer and famous movie stars offers quite a simplified vision of a terrible man Stalin and his crimes. The history of Russian revolution and USSR from 1917 till 1953 appears as a screen version of quite honest but so much oversimplified cartoon-like cliches and sketches. For every Russian spectator all the characters (beginning with Stalin) are unbelievable in every way from make-up to behavior. Seems like all of them escaped from an amateurish waxwork museum. Even the magnificent Russian actors Feklistov, Tabakov and Larionov had skillfully degraded and performed very brief roles which is a great shame considering their high level. Quite a Hollywood is an American attempt to warmer a Monster type with a lyrical story line of Stalin's relationship with his daughter Svetlana who is telling the story.

This film is Francois Ozon's debut, which made him one of the most promising young directors of Europe. Here we have a story, which can be treated as taken as modern 'The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie' by Luis Bunuel. Here a typical French family alters in the most disturbing way. The whole madness starts when father brings home a lab rat. Next the son at the dinner stands and declaims that since that moment he is a gay. Then his sister jumps out of the window trying to commit a suicide...And so on. And the story keeps going till the unusual end, which contains one of the most bizarre sequences in modern European cinema. Acting is at very high level, and so is the directing. Dialogs are pretty witty and memorable. It is difficult to name a genre of this movie, but the closest is - black comedy.

Ok, let's be honest, that film is NOT 'Schindler's List' and (except Williams) doesn't have any one Liam Neeson or Ben Kingsley lookalike credited. Don't expecting anything new I spent my time on this film. I don't feel sorry for them, but... Everything except Williams' acting is lower than average - wooden directing, so-so dialogues... It possibly was about to repeat the triumph of 'Life is Beautiful' (which I simply dislike in any way)but remains a grey copy of a Bravado a-la-Benigni. Robin Williams here is great (as everywhere) of course, but this is surely not the director's triumph, I cannot see any directing here... And listen, people, does Robin Williams associate in your mind with this Kind Jewish Grandpa somewhere in occupied Poland or Hungary? I think not. I think it will rather be 'Good Will Hunting' (I think brilliant role), 'Mrs. Doubtfire', or 'Hook'. And 'Schindler's List' looks so shocking and realistic mostly because we did not have Bruce Willis or Tom Cruise as Schindler, Julia Roberts as his wife, and Bradd Pitt, Nicole Kidman, Gwyneth Paltrow, Tom Hanks (and so on and so on and so on) as miserable jews. Only that way the story can be told as powerful and thought provoking as it was done by Steven Spielberg. Or maybe I misunderstood something? Maybe that's another Holocaust comedy? Then it's thousand time worse. Even worse than "Life is Beautiful' And then I've read somewhere on IMDB that this movie costs about $20 millions. Whaaat? 'Schindler's List' was about $32 millions. Is that a joke? Ok. Ok. On the whole I cannot strongly recommend you this one, cause this movie is so inert, empty like... I even don't know what. Seems like Peter Kassovitz didn't care much of this topic - it's not even 10% as deep as in Spielberg's heart. So what we have is a pretentious movie which you'll forget as easy as you watch it.