Opprinneleg publisert på imdb. Difor er denne teksten på engelsk. Vil truleg gje noen oppdaterte kommentarar på desse meldingane ved behov.
Regi: Stanley Kubrick (1999)
Stanley Kubrick was and is a master of filmmaking, so how could he fail with Eyes Wide Shut? The movie isn't boring, it isn't bad just totally uninteresting. The conflict isn't really a conflict, and there is to many scenes in the movie (usually with nudity) that could easily been left out.
How can I judge Kubrick's filmmaking. The creator of 2001, Barry Lyndon, Full Metal Jacket, The Shining, Lolita, Spartacus, The Killing, Paths of Glory, Dr. Stangelove and A Clockwork Orange. I find all these movies great, but "Eyes" is missing something, maybe he have repeated some scenes once to many and thereby lost any sign of naturallity from the actors. Nicole Kidman is great the first hour thou, with her laughter-kick as an all-time high.
P.S. ***SPOILER*** I recogniced Sydney Pollack's eyes under the mask.
6/10
tirsdag 28. september 1999
La bête humaine
Opprinneleg publisert på imdb. Difor er denne teksten på engelsk. Vil truleg gje noen oppdaterte kommentarar på desse meldingane ved behov.
Regi: Jean Renoir (1938)
Question 1: What makes a person kill another human being? Psychological incorrect would be the best way to make a summary of this movie. There's no common sense just the worst kind of animal behavior all through the movie. An adulterer is murdered. But the wife can't be with her husband after the murder. She finds herself a new lover. She wants her lover to kill her husband. No sensibility here just wanting, having, getting. This is called the peak of the french poetic realism, but question 2: Can you call this film realistic?
See this movie if you're interested in Renoir, Gabin or early Film Noir, but if you're NOT into films with deeper psychologic meaning just stay away. And tip 1: read the opening by Émile Zola it sort of explains everything.
5/10
Regi: Jean Renoir (1938)
Question 1: What makes a person kill another human being? Psychological incorrect would be the best way to make a summary of this movie. There's no common sense just the worst kind of animal behavior all through the movie. An adulterer is murdered. But the wife can't be with her husband after the murder. She finds herself a new lover. She wants her lover to kill her husband. No sensibility here just wanting, having, getting. This is called the peak of the french poetic realism, but question 2: Can you call this film realistic?
See this movie if you're interested in Renoir, Gabin or early Film Noir, but if you're NOT into films with deeper psychologic meaning just stay away. And tip 1: read the opening by Émile Zola it sort of explains everything.
5/10
fredag 17. september 1999
Idi i smotri
Opprinneleg publisert på imdb. Difor er denne teksten på engelsk. Vil truleg gje noen oppdaterte kommentarar på desse meldingane ved behov.
Regi: Elem Klimov (1985)
Oh, this is just one of those boring social-realistic russian movies. That was what I thought before I saw this movie. But I had to reconcider radically afterwards. Forget The Thin Red Line, forget Saving Private Ryan, forget Platoon. Do you want to see a realistic and bizarre war-epic this is the one. Many weird moments but it all symbolize life or death, and the documentaric style often leaves you stunned and suprised. Oh, and if it was possible: Would you go back in time and kill Hitler?
8/10
Regi: Elem Klimov (1985)
Oh, this is just one of those boring social-realistic russian movies. That was what I thought before I saw this movie. But I had to reconcider radically afterwards. Forget The Thin Red Line, forget Saving Private Ryan, forget Platoon. Do you want to see a realistic and bizarre war-epic this is the one. Many weird moments but it all symbolize life or death, and the documentaric style often leaves you stunned and suprised. Oh, and if it was possible: Would you go back in time and kill Hitler?
8/10
tirsdag 7. september 1999
Sofies verden
Opprinneleg publisert på imdb. Difor er denne teksten på engelsk. Vil truleg gje noen oppdaterte kommentarar på desse meldingane ved behov.
Regi: Erik Gustavson (1999)
I have read the book Sophie's World (in norwegian) and both the book and the film never go deep into the history of philosophy just bumps into it now and then. The worst part is that this is the good thing about the movie. (If it had dug deeper I'm afraid it would be boring too.) The acting (especially from the teenagers) don't work, thou Sophie get a "ok" grade. The sound-mixing is awful, etc etc. This is the most expensive movie in norwegian history but where the money went is really THE big philosophical question.
2/10
Regi: Erik Gustavson (1999)
I have read the book Sophie's World (in norwegian) and both the book and the film never go deep into the history of philosophy just bumps into it now and then. The worst part is that this is the good thing about the movie. (If it had dug deeper I'm afraid it would be boring too.) The acting (especially from the teenagers) don't work, thou Sophie get a "ok" grade. The sound-mixing is awful, etc etc. This is the most expensive movie in norwegian history but where the money went is really THE big philosophical question.
2/10
Abonner på:
Innlegg (Atom)