Reviews

The movie raises good feelings. It treats the children and their world with kindness. The Christian message is not pushed - one can interpret prayers as actually working, or as the internal world of the children. The world of the children is not black and white, but challenges and makes kind jokes at gender and Christian stereotypes.

The film is, however, too short and leaves avenues unexplored. For example, there is definitely a budding romance between Minni and Ruttu (who bravely pushes Minni away from the robber's car), but it does not lead to anything (a kiss would have been appropriate). Perhaps the producers ran out of money?

Living in a DDLG relationship (where both partners are adults and the other adult partner enjoys age regression to a teenage girl) we watched this together in a local art cinema with my partner. Enjoyed it immensely. My girl changed her ringtone to the theme song of the film.

We could recognize many themes of the movie in our own relationship. The silliness and playfulness of the girl, which is at the same time both infuriating and lovely. The mutual love, which nevertheless does not carry over all obstacles. I happen to write at home, so it is easy to identify the constant interruptions and the agravation caused by them. Nevertheless, Twinky loved Scott and tried to be silent, but also took the demands of silence personally. One of the most touching moments of the movies is the line where Twinky tells Scott, that he has to take both the roles of father and lover. Is it possible?

Grown up partner - younger girl relations are nowadays almost invariably portrayed following to the Lolita trope, in which the old partner is abusive. Twinky was a lovely movie, which portrays realistically the mutual attraction between an adult male and a young silly lively girl, which can grow into love, but also the challenges caused by the gap in age and sentiment. It is worth to note that despite Scott's and Twinky's relationship not standing up to the test of time, both still cared deeply for each other even after everything.

Filmography had some neat tricks, but nothing spectacular. The movie is courageous in exploring this theme, which was possible in the more relaxed times of the 1970's. Despite touching some deep themes, the movie itself is not very deep, but playful - which from another perspective perfectly suits the theme.

Ok movie. As a fan of the series I enjoyed it. But not great.

In my opinion the greatest problem is that the movie attempts to bring almost every stoyline in the series to an end. Because of this, it is too crammed with stuff. Even serious issues only get some 5-10 minutes of time. In the TV series, they would have unwound slowly. The characters lose depth. Some of them appear to have been used only for laughs (e.g. Mosely). Anyway, the movie made me laugh, with some surprisingly witty remarks by the characters. That was positive.

This tying of lose ends in my opinion also leads the film to focus too much on Thomas Barrow's homosexuality. In this area the film acquires a preachy tone in a blatant attempty to pander to the liberal elites of today. In a conservative series like this... This is also divergent from the TV, in which the writers apparently were able to keep themselves at bay. A more subtle approach would have been better. This also breaks the historic believalibility, which for me is a significant part of the Downton magic.

I left the cinema mildly disappointed. The series would have deserved a better closing fanfare. The movie neither leaves much anything open still to be explored. Leaving the theatre I was overcome with sadness. Fortunately, in The Crown series we have something to look forward to.

This movie was paraded by the national broadcaster during Pride week as being prime quality and winner of the Cannes Golder Prize. Now I do have to admit that the cinematography is next to perfect. Visually the movie is very beautiful and absolutely stunning.

However, the plot is ultimately boring, progresses very slow and is not at all credible. I enjoy psychological movies a lot, but to me the plot point of Adele not finding herself with her boyfriend, but instantly falling in sexual fantasies at the first sight of Emma passing her by the street is not at all psychological, except perhaps as a projection of the producer's psyche and fantasies. It would indeed be interesting to follow a homosexual person finding her own sexuality, if it were not done as such a faery tale manner. And then all the extended sex scenes... Beautiful, yes, but length and repetition makes also them ultimately boring.

World deserves a better motion picture of the exploration of the lesbian psyche.

In this Disney movie men are burned alive, used as slingshots, bashed, blown, stomped by giant trees and in general subjected to all kind of cruelty. This is fun, however, as all men are evil, albeit for two wimpy exceptions (of which one is actually a crow).

One should never trust men. Men are incapable of true love. According to this movie the only reason men approach women is to use them as a stepping stone to benefits. Men are greedy thieves, who lust for possession precious stones and valuables, whereas women merely admire their beauty in the nature. (How did I laugh at this vision, as in real life it is usually women, who use their sexuality on men to get glittery things).

In this movie there is no positive portrayal of male-female relationships or family life. In the first such relationship the man cuts off the fairy's wings (implied rape). In the second relationship (king Stefan and her queen) the queen is a passive background figure given only one scene. In the third one the prince is a wimp bereft of personality, so it remains for Maleficent to save the day (and kill the evil king). Princess Aurora is raised by three fairies and the ever-guarding Maleficent. Maleficent's parents are dead. And the princess's will be soon, too, by Maleficent. Women don't need men as parental figures, as men can only violate women. True love can be given to a young girl only by a strong, latex-clad, female authority. Yes: you can see what I am aiming at: Maleficient comes close to a lesbian fantasy. The single point where a man (who is evil) is required, is to give seed. After that the three fairy women and the strong female (who replaces the mother that lives with an evil man in an evil traditional marriage) will take care of the upbringing of young Aurora, to make sure she has no contact with men.

Some might consider their seclusion a stupid decision, as after all a true love's kiss is what is required to wake Aurora from inevitable doom. One could think that it would be good for Aurora to live among other youth of her age, so that there would at least be the chance of forming an equal and mutually respectful, loving relationship with a good young man. But as we now know and as the movie has taught us: there are no loving, equal and mutually respectful relationships between men and women (as all men are evil). Therefore young women must be protected from men and taught to hate them, so that there is no possibility of an evil man breaking a woman's heart. Fortunately, however, true love can be found between the latex-clad horny female and the young girl. This love is so natural, that despite Maleficient being a scary dark horned creature who actually cursed the little child, Aurora could not but love her and pursue her company already as an infant. Their love story is as inevitable and as magical as if it were written in the stars.

So, Maleficient should be good material for those parents who wish to prepare their girls for their older female lover already at an early age. For others... well, my 8 year old boy was so annoyed with the portrayal of men as evil as well as an evil creature being made good (he has seen Sleeping Beauty), that he did not bother to watch the movie to the end.

I could have written a lot also from the perspective how an interesting Disney villain is destroyed in the movie, but others have written a lot about that. It would perhaps indeed be wise (though probably beyond their wisdom) for the script writers to ask, why the title character of the movie is named "Maleficient", i.e. in Latin: evil-doer; one who does evil, if she actually is not evil, or does not begin as evil. What kind of parent would name one's child evil-doer? Except, if malice was indeed somehow respected and natural within that species or culture? Could we next get some kind of Disney film portraying Satan as a hero - who inexplicably just happens to be named Satan? Or perhaps a remodeling of Star Wars to tell how Darth Vader is actually a nice guy, whose peaceful and beautiful Empire full of magical creatures is attacked by the evil Rebels that wish to rob its riches? Please, Disney..? I can see endless possibilities with this approach. Perhaps give us the evil Allied vs. benevolent Nazis? Or Snow White, the seven She-Dwarfs and the evil King?

It seems people have either loved or hated this movie. I watched it for the first time recently with my kids, as I have a soft spot for 1980's family movies. The movie had some promise, but was very confusing.

First, I loved the cinematic style of the film. The images of Christmas lights, snow falling and suburban life in the 80ies are very beautiful. I also appreciate the fact that in the movies of the period of 1980ies to early 90ies the life of ordinary people people is treated with great respect, unlike in most modern flicks. The struggling family which is at the center of the plot is very likable. The movie also has an important message that Christmas spirit can be found in the middle of the challenges of ordinary life.

On the other hand, however, the angel plot is treated in a very confusing manner. As a theologian I might point out that dead people do not become angels. That might be beside the point, as the movie apparently tries to be a magical children's tale in this respect. But when the theological idea, that an angel is sent by God, is replaced by an angel sent by Santa Claus, the result becomes quite confusing: Apparently good people are sent to the North Pole when they die, to work at Santa's Factory. Santa then has these people in his service as Christmas Angels, who he can send to other people to raise Christmas spirit. However: If the dead people go to Santa, why is it, that Santa is unable to bring the dead father of the family back to life? Or at least, send him back as another Christmas angel? Moreover, is the North Pole a place existing in the real word, or some kind of magical place accessible only with the help of an angel? These questions were not thought through, and because of this, the 'metaphysical' structure that functions as the staring point of the story is weird and non-functional. One can of course say that one should not take these points seriously, but because they are important for the central plot issue of bringing the dead father back alive, they unfortunately cannot be dismissed.

Moreover, many people, including me, were quite confused with what actually did happen at the conclusion of the story. I take it that time was reversed to the point where Ginny and Jack departed on their evening walk and Ginny met the angel, giving her a second opportunity to make the same choices, this time right, as happens in the movie Groudhog Day. The movie also resembles the famous Christmas classic It's a Wonderful life. The other option would be that the bad things which happened were some kind of a dream caused by the angel, so that they did not actually happen at all. With this answer one could skip some of the metaphysical questions regarding the rule of Santa over the dead and the nature of the North Pole. However, the problem is, that what happened is not clearly explained. The viewer is left with confusion regarding the mode of the conclusion. This is especially bad as the movie is nevertheless aimed at young children and portrays very tragic events. The parent cannot tell the kids what happened, if he or she does not understand it either.

I would have very much wanted to the like the movie more than I can, as the foundational message is very important. However, in an attempt to escape a serious exploration of the topic of angels the movie is built on so confusing 'metaphysical' assumptions regarding the capabilities of angels and Santa, that it is almost impossible to get a coherent picture of what actually happens in the movie. In other words, though the message is good, the means used to deliver it do not work.

I have somewhat mixed feelings about this one. On the surface level this film is quite dull. One car chase to a promised haven which has ceased to exist, second chase back, and that's it. The promise of the Green Place stimulates imagination, so it is a big disappointment as actually no mythical green land is found. The terrain is also very monotonic. The battles are too long, dull and repetitive. Very much attention is paid to detail of the objects, though. Technically the film is splendid. Rated on this level I would give it a 5 out of 10.

However, the film also spoke to me on a deeper level. The post-apocalyptic scenario is used to create a world in which people are exploited like livestock, and the whole culture has has decayed to accommodate this abuse. In the beginning of the film Nux is just one warboy. He follows blindly the dictates of his leader, sugarcoated by promises of glory for those who die valiantly in battle, that have allusions to the Pagan Norse religion. In the course of the film Nux is forced to make personal choices, to choose who he is and wishes to be, so that his life gains independent value.

The same topic is also explored through the five wives of the gang leader Immortan Joe, who in the course of their escape are trans-morphed from objects to subjects. Their original childish/girlish, irresponsible and spoiled behavior contains in my opinion heavy critique towards modern women's culture. One does not need to be a feminist to see this side of the story - rather, the film shows that the golden cage is not built just by men of power, but requires from women a decision to pursue the path of a trophy object. The wives are granted a personal liberty, but use it to make different decisions, some wishing to flee the rough real world back to their captors. Also for Imperator Furiosa the Fury road is a road to personal liberty, though she takes more an active role.

On this level, therefore, the film can be considered an existential movie, which explores the relationship between personal choices and cultural pressure: a story of the birth of an individual personality, when one is liberated from the pressure created by oppressive cultural forces. The journey of the film can therefore be seen as a kind of allegory, in which fleeing to the emptiness of the desert represents the flight from those cultural forces. It even carries a hint of a religious journey towards a Promised Land, though in the bleak atheist(?) existential view of the film the Promised Land no longer exits, so that each person is given the task to forge his or her own destiny. On this existential and allegorical level I am willing to give the film an 8 out of 10. When I consider the both scales together, emphasizing the existential merits the film does in my opinion deserve a total 7 out of 10.

Many people seem to condemn this movie on a value basis as homophilic propaganda. I personally am a religious conservative opposing gay marriage, but nevertheless recognize this as a quality film.

What I most enjoyed in this movie were the multiple intellectual discussions on the philosophy of history, i.e. what "history" in its essence is. Having done academic work with the history of ideas many questions and different types of approach were familiar to me from the Academy. Some people find the intellectual banter of the boys, laced with absurd situation humor, untenable, but I can personally testify, that a lot of wordplay like this takes place at academic circles when there are enough people immersed in certain discipline around. It is rare to find this at a regular high school, because usually one class carries only a couple of persons destined to humanistic studies on university level. But the setting of the film was in my view just to explain, what might happen, when such rare occurrence takes place among youngsters.

The second point, which many viewers condemned as unrealistic was the strong sexual tone of the film. Now I do agree, that the film promotes a homosexualist agenda, but does that make the portrayal unrealistic? Yongsters coming at age are actually very much brimming with their sexuality, and it is not a rare thing they come up with direct proposals to their teachers. Been there, had the wisdom to decline, but the scenes between Dakin and Irwin are something that in my opinion is fairly common at least in heterosexual relations, as girls are exploring the limits of the power of their sexuality on an authority figure. Now what I do find justifiable in the criticism of the film is, whether the same dynamic applies to homosexual youth, as in their case the recognition and expression of one's orientation might be a much more difficult progress. In this I am no expert to comment, but at least in a heterosexual setting the same dynamic is realistic and in my opinion it is a strength of the film as a piece of art to explore this very dynamic, in spite the society might wish to pretend it does not exist. Is it not a marker of quality art that it explores issues of human nature which are difficult to touch and would be wished away by many in other forms of public discussion?

There is of course also the question whether it is believable, that the two best history teachers of the movie happen to be gay. One can of course see this as an attempt to show homosexualism in an idealized light. However, I do have a few friends who have done graduate studies at Oxford, and in their account the old universities indeed do have a sizable number of eccentric gay persons in their faculty - some of whom are also using their position to get in the pants of the younger scholars. It is contemptible that such things happen, but again I make the point, that it is the task of art to show humanity as it is. In spite of the fact that I find homosexual sex in general and especially adult teachers fondling younger boys quite repulsive, in my opinion as a Christian it is important also to see the redeeming qualities of each person. The movie shows us, that neither Hector nor Irwin have had an easy life: they are no idealized romantic subjects, but have been forced to descend to objectible measures to get even one touch from the objects of their longing, or to repress their sexuality, both condemned to a loveless life. However, especially Hector has come into terms with his situation through art and poetry, an objective quality which we can recognize in him. This recognition is not an approval of his deeds, but a recognition of that persons are more complex than just carriers of sexual identities, which should be a think to keep in mind amid all the cultural wars that tend to make everything either glorified of horrified.

I am a great fan on Scorsese's previous works depicting the rise and fall of a power hungry individual. I was expecting to see something like Casino and Goodfellas all again, but in the end was left disappointed. Granted, there were many similar pieces in the built-up of this picture. Some of the scenes were mind-blowing in style and energy. But the grand picture was missing. In the blu-ray extras Scorsese and the actors discuss the movie, and it may give an explanation for why I felt this is the case. It seems that Scorsese and DiCaprio went for a too documentary approach on the material. In the interviews the original book was described as not any great work of literature. Without having read it I can say that in my opinion this is reflected in the movie. There is a lot of flashy glitter on the surface, but deep moral questions remain untouched. In a sense, the movie does not have a heart. It just focuses on glitzy lifestyle and the persons remain empty. One cannot very well connect with them. In my opinion it would have helped, if one would have explored more of agent Denham's side of the story and his motivations. So, to sum up, great cinematography and great individual scenes do not make make up a good movie, if the grand plot is weak. This is, in my opinion, unfortunately the case with this movie. Scorsese should have taken a more active and independent approach on the source material instead of just trying to copy it on the silver screen.

Unlike most of the reviews here, I see this films as a treatise on broken and betrayed love.

First there is the innocent love of the family daughter who looks up to Jeff as the hero returned from the war. This love is betrayed by Jeff not being the man of her dreams, but rather somewhat proficient womanizer who acquires interest in Vicky, the wife of his work colleague Carl.

Second there is the love of Vicki to her husband Carl, which is betrayed by Carl's stupid and insensitive character. Carl, having been fired from his job because of his rowdy nature, pushes Vicki against her will to 'negotiate' the job back through Vicki's former 'contacts' to a top level railroad employee Owens. Vicki refuses multiple times - a history of abuse is hinted between her and Owens. However insensitive Carl fails to catch the reasons of Vicki's refusal and pushes her against her will until she yields to her husband. Only when now disillusioned Vicki returns from a hours long 'negotiations' with her former boss and heads to the shower Carl begins to suspect something is wrong.

Third, there is the brutal, dependent and jealous love of Carl to his wife Vicki. Carl, smitten by jealousy, develops a plan. He forces Vicki to play along by writing a letter summoning Owens to a secret rendezvous in a train sleeper carriage. There Carl murders him and takes Vicki's letter from the body to be used as a guarantee against her.

Through Carl's actions love between them is broken. Consequently Vicki begins an affair with Jeff, who saw her in the train at the night of the murder. The relationship develops into love, with the pair meeting behind Carl's back at railroad yard shacks and Vicki's relative's apartment. However in a small town such an affair cannot be concealed. The ill-fated and ill-chosen desire causes suffering and alienation. A plan develops to rid Vicki of Carl - now a once again sacked drunk who drowns his sorrows at the local watering hole. But Jeff can't bring himself to kill such a defenseless man. He grabs the letter, unknown by Carl, and returns it to Vicki at the same time dumping her. Vicki, who is now free, pleads and cries for Jeff to take her, but he refuses coldly and walks away from the mess, while suspecting that Vicki has for the whole time only been using him.

The definitive moment of the movie for me comes at the train car in which Vicki, now free but manifestly alone, plans to ride away. Carl stumbles in the car and just in the same way as Vicki moments ago he in a humiliated manner laments his love and need for her and pleads for her to stay, even offering to give her the incriminating letter (which she already has). But as Vicki had learned nothing. Just like Jeff walked away she too rejects Carl's desperate plea, similar to her own. When the train with Jeff in its cabin - dance tickets given to him by the employee's daughter in his hand - speeds in the distance, Carl strangles Vicki in the compartment.

Love is actually not the Hollywood solution to everything and the force that makes one overcome every obstacle. Rather, it can be very ugly, confusing and depressing human desire.

I'm giving this movie a rare 10/10. Aside from excellent directing and especially wonderful lighting (e.g. Jeff and Vicki in the rail yard shack: when you try to hide, you are actually right at the spotlight) I very much enjoyed Lang's interpretation of the source material. Unlike Zola's original, which seems nihilistic to me, Lang's interpretation is realistic and does not fall into unnecessary celebration of inhumanity. That is it's strength. Though the murky waters of depraved love abound, there is yet hope and a glimpse of true love in the form of the dance tickets in Jeff's hands.

I've always enjoyed the first Harry Potter movies up to the Prisoner of Azkaban, which in its time travel twist is in my opinion the best one of the series. However after that one every subsequent film has been progressively worse. That is the case with the Deathly Hallows (part 1) too.

The reason for this are the magical rules (or the lack thereof) of the world of Harry Potter. The problem with Harry is that the magical world carries in the movies no deep metaphysical meaning. It is a concoction of quirks, popularized fantasy and easy jokes. Now this works very well with a more lightweight children's film such as the three first Harry Potters (which I greatly enjoyed), but as the story takes deeper and darker turns, the rules of the world in which it is played would need more coherence and predictability. If that is missing - as in my opinion is the case with the Deathly Hallows - you just can't take the story seriously.

The seventh movie suffers of this worst. It is manifested in most of the problems being solved - or not solved - in an ad hoc manner. Take Hermione's purse for an example. At one moment, when Ron is almost splinched in apparition, a cure is speedily available, but at other moment, when Dobby is hit by knife, no one can come up with anything to cure him. Why, after all the miraculous escapes from death by the protagonists? This is also the case with spell battles, which are completely unpredictable.

The viewer feels like one is stuffed a story, the internal logic of which one cannot justify. And because of this, who dies and who lives, when one is captured and when one is able to escape etc. seem completely arbitrary. That is just plain bad storytelling. It will work in a more light-plotted story, but not in the drama that the producers are trying to present. Therefore I cannot give this movie more than 6/10, even if I would like to.

I watched this film expecting to see a good noir. However it was not a film noir, it was not a melodrama (as many reviewers have classified it here). It was a tragedy. And what tragedy it was! - prompting me to write my first review on the site.

From my point of view Mildred Pierce tells the story of a woman too strong and stubborn, unable to yield to the discernment of her husband. In a sense the movie is a story about women's liberation: Mildred breaks many taboos of the 40ies driving her husband out, yielding to sex with another man while still married, being the active party to pursue a divorce, becoming a successful businesswoman and remarrying. But to what end? To protect her selfish and spoiled daughter Veda, who grows ever more despising of her mother the more Mildred tries to provide for her.

Aside from the frame report involving murder the story begins to fold from Mildred and her freshly unemployed husband Bert getting into a quarrel over household money, which Mildred has earned herself by selling pies for neighbours. Instead of using the money to pay for bills as Bert would have it, Mildred has bought Veda a dress (which Veda soon despises because it is too cheap.) In the ensuing conflict with Bert Mildred holds her own head. This results in the unemployed Bert moving away from the family home - which Mildred unemotionally accedes to. I see this as the stroll of the strong woman over a man whose self-esteem has been weakened by the circumstances, reflecting the changing role of the sexes in the society in general, when the man whose role has traditionally been to bring bread to the table while being the man in the house is driven to concede his position as the supporting force of both the household and general society.

But does this change bring happiness? The answer of director Michael Curtiz is in my opinion a resounding NO. While Mildred is able to grow from an unskilled housewife into a successful businesswoman with a restaurant chain of her own, she is unable to exercise the needed authority at her own home. Mildred's 'motherly love' to her daughter Veda that pushed her into conflicting and driving away her husband consists of trying to serve Veda's every spoiled demand. But without boundary setting fatherly love Veda only grows to hate and despise her mother more and more, finally wishing to escape from the all-encompassing and all-forgiving tyranny of Mildred's motherly embrace.

In my opinion the message of the movie is to demonstrate what happens in the family and society in general when the ordinary working family man is pushed out and is not present to suppress the whimsy behaviour of girls growing into young women. This is aptly demonstrated by the upper class playboy Monty Beragon who enters the life of the family becoming for a time Mildred's lover while actually trying to get into Veda's pants and milking every available penny (and finally her successful restaurant chain) out of Mildred's hands. This morally depraved character who capitalizes on the sexual freedom of the liberated woman with his inherited status and swinging lifestyle with which the ordinary man stripped of his role as the head of family cannot compete, replaces the father Bert as the role model whom Veda looks up to and aspires to imitate for her peril.

Most of the reviewers at this site have for some incomprehensible reason seen Mildred either as the victim or a non-responsible object of melodramatic turns and twists. However in my opinion it is clear that Mildred is the actual culprit in the movie: Veda growing up the way she does is the result of Mildred's actions. Note, that Bert's supposed cheating with Ms. Binderhof is never shown. It is Mildred who brings up the accusation, while it may be, that Bert is at that point only looking for a listening ear which Mildred does not provide, not necessary anything more. In the final parts of the movie Binderhof marries, but not Bert. When Mildred asks for divorce, Bert refuses, and agrees only after having witnessed Mildred's relationship with Beragon. Even after Mildred has remarried and supposedly murdered her second husband Bert is chivalrously willing to take the blame for the murder. Mildred's affair with Beragon on the other hand, while being separated but still married with Bert who refuses to divorce, is shown in detail. The negative morality of the deed is illustrated by the death of daughter Kay immediately after.

I found the movie a most interesting commentary on the demise of traditional values and the mayhem that follows. It may be that those who see Mildred as a victim of an unsatisfactory husband or melodramatic circumstances have grown so far from traditional concepts such as lifelong marriage that they are no longer able to comprehend the underlying ethical framework. From my opinion the movie is an insightful early commentary on the changes the woman's liberation was causing in the society. One of the few movies to receive 10 / 10 from me.