Reviews

Ingmar Bergman is somewhat of a philosophical director,there is a intellectual group that lift his films to class of masterpiece,mostly it is based pholosophical level. He is historically important director and the most prominent Swedish one so far but his film are not for broad audience entertainment.

Here Max von Sydow plays Antonius Block ,a crusader returning from the battlefield to his homeland Sweden that is in the midst of the plague, he debates for himself if life is worth living through all of its pain,cruelty,lies and betrayal. A traveling artist group that represent joy,rejuvenation of life,love and mystery cross thier path with the crusader,giving him hope,positive energy to carry on the burden of questioning life . It is symbolically a beautiful film even though Bergman bent the rules of the meaning of the reaper by having him kill someone( the grim ripper should not itself kill but appear when your time is up)

So I finally watched this film from recommendation of someone that like conspiracies and odd films., my intuition proved me right. I need to say it's not a bad film but disorienting and with loose ends. It starts in Vietnam as US soldiers take a drug and the hell breaks loose, it's hard to make sense of it but this is explained throughout the movie. My problem is main character Jacob Singer enlist to serve in Vietnam after his son Gabe dies, late mr we get to know he was in love with his wife ,happily married and had 2other sons, but for some reason he abandon them for a reason not explained to go to Vietnam???

After Vietnam he is postal worker with hallucinations but has a loving relationship with his girlfriend, while trying to get this he meets few people from Vietnam that fill in the gap but doesn't explain the illogical reasoning and parallel storylines of the life of Jacob Singer.

I write this as just watched the first adaptation and I come to conclusion that this one is way better,both are adaptation of the same novel but this time in Mexico instead of Italy. Tony Scott shows the relationship between Creasy and Pita much closer and realistic, you see it develop more naturally and not one sided but also not showing the kidnappers or the state of Pita put the audience in the same level of emotion, Tony's choice of photography and angles he choose depending on the relationship of the characters is recognizable here, the contrast between the wealthy part of Mexico city to the gritty and dirty of the city is as evident as Creasy before and after the kidnapping I have always enjoyed Tony Scott's style of directing of many back and forth of close ups to long shots , bold colors and showing details of the location between dialogues.

Overall a bittersweet story of a young woman that has contact with her biological mother after living in Sweden with adoptive parents since she was 4. She travels back to Iran after some bureaucratic huss&fuss and finally meets her biological mom and extended family, the title is childish and sugar coated as her mom is anything but a princess but was a single mother with three children that divorced a a drug addict husband ,the reality is much more harsh. The director should give some more information of locations ,time and place and who the relatives are as discripted text below to set the base of people,time and place gives the audience a platform. The story is also very repetitive and repeats the premise multiple times without moving the story anywhere, Once she comes back home to Sweden she has a more real grasp of her background,this personal development make a this documentary worth watching.

I've read some of the reviews and it feels like people bias against the Shah cloud thier judgement,this documentary is about forgiveness,moving on and accepting realities.

Farahs hesitant of meeting one of her critics and later the developing friendship that unfolds holds up the documentary,now both exile and regular civillians they both have the same platform to build on. Persson gives a background story of the national events for non Iranians and a personal story for everyone before meeting up with Farah. She didn't Push Farah or ask questions that Farah was not responsible for and for all I know Farah was gracious queen that represented Iran in pivotal trying times.

Remember the late 80s film "the Golden Child"? Eddie Murphys character had despite his scepticism and his own idea to look after a gifted child and travel with the child to Tibet well this is very much like it and has something from all other sci fi films. The story is still interesting and offers a moral dilemmas, it questions who really is the heartless machine here, the Military or AI which is designed to help humans and who lies to whom that absolute power by design becomes evil because it has detach itself from humans for a larger goal, its is beautifully made with natural landscape for humans and the high tech machines for the military and has philosophic undertones.

Th story itself is not so complicated and if you break i it down it reminds of JC first success "the Terminator" doubtful? Let me explain

-The Terminator takes place in future and present time, this takes place in past and present but what connects the two is a picture/drawing of the female lead Sarah Connor/Rose Dewitt

-The female leads feel out of place, unsettled and looking for her break

-a man from different world enters their life when they least expect it and their coming romantic interaction will change their life

-the male leads die only after the safety of female lead has been guaranteed

it has everything a love story should have as lost love, set during epical event, told in flashbacks, brief but full, but since its elaborately done and in great detail it makes it one go The best love films of history of cinema, I was 17 when it was released and right that age when stories like this sets a little deeper because of emotional development of those years.

A well made robbery scene in the post office takes place and after that is chase after the robber with loose ends, the motives and characters involved doesn't make sense, the characters relation to eachother and thier motives are never explained,why would a robber associate with high level politicians,witnesses we don't know they seen anything after they're dead some of the witness storries are filmed without actually adding anything to the overall story,a car chase takes place and the followed doesn't know he is being followed and still almost gets away. Scenes are added without giving the story any direction

I did like the conversations between the two inspectors and thier arguments,the film was inspired by American style cop movies ,it's not a bad film but messy with loose ends and very unlikely coincidences.

I watched this not having read the classic literature by Jane Austin. As a film it has beautiful scenery,cinematography and costumes,as for casting some where type casted like Donald Sutherland as a understanding father,Judi Dench as a stern bossy lady and Keira Knightly as pretty lady, this story set in Georgian England before the industrial revolution romanticized a era which woman were set off to be married at young age so they won't a financial burden to parents,many died before reaching ripe age for marriage due to illness and harsh standards of living in poorer families but this is not about that,this is about how a couple beside having to overcome the gap in thier social class also had to fall in love before marriage and learn to know eachother.

Doesn't deserve 7,5 I gave it 5 and I rounded up because of no decimals i rating this is a Guy Richie with some Quentin Tarantino feel rip off with no substantial dialogue and fast editing that doesn't build up to a climax but prolongs the film.

Sandra Bullock has done similiar roles before as a commenting sidekick as in "Speed" and "Demolition man" As soon as the story starts dragging another assassin shows up instead of a story plot and all over again is everybody trying to kill eachother,enough assassin in one train to lose track why they are there and not do we longer who they are. Entertaining at time though.

Young woman with much more need for intimacy and love than the guy struggles to keep the relationshi going, the guy might as well be in her head because it doesn't feel like he is there with her,a passive existence a.....nd thats all.

If you liked the original,you'll have a hard with this remake. For me the original 1986 version is special because of where I was in my life how it related to me personally. This remake was sloppy and carelessly made because they threw in the lines from the original here and there with no motivation than it was in the original script. The characters relation to each was completely off, in the original the focus was on Danny&Debbie, Bernie and Joan were side supporting characters that didn't like eachother and made comic sideline The whole chemistry,blocking and flow of the original story is not there,Iam also very annoyed with Kevin Hart which needs all the attention all the time and felt was trying material doing this movie In the remake there is a scene Danny and Derbie are watching the original film together,isn't it wierd that they then used the same lines in that film in thier life?! sometimes even the wrong character or opposite character said the lines of thier partner Just watch the original

This is directed by a theatre actress and probably why entire film takes place inside a small apartment and barely any ext scenes, it ridicules Iranian men and has a twisted extreme leftist feminism take on the world,it's a waste of time

This show would get a higher rating if it ended with Charlies death, but they had to drag it on with Kutcher. He doesn't have the weight and celebrity status of Charlie Sheen to carry on the show