Even though the ending was surprisingly witty and even though the actors like Steve Carrell and Catherine Keener are nice to watch, this film confirmed my suspicion - at least 50% of the scripts of the Hollywood products are written by a teenager sitting in a W.C., thrusting his hand deeply in the dirt, looking for obscene and swear words and curses. Seriously - half of the script came out straight from the toilet and half of it - straight from the cliché world of 'phrases we use in Hollywood when we make a film about love'... And why did everyone in this movie looked so artificial? I have to watch all those films because this is what I do for a living - but can't you, God, just spare this crap? If I had seen in one day Dukes of Hazzard, Deuce Bigallow: European Gigolo and this one, I would have put a bullet in my head.
Reviews
10 Reviews
Garden State
(2004)
Wake up and smell the flowers... while you can!
13 January 2005
I am not sure that Garden State defines a whole generation. But then I might be wrong - I am not an American, so how can I gudge that properly. What Garden State defines for me is the urge of the main character - a 26 y.o. young man - to be alive, to really feel even if that means to feel pain. He decides to feel pain as opposed to feel nothing, and this is what strikes me the most. In a world where anti-depressants are the new religion and more and more people depend on those pills to feel something at all (because they have a certain time of influence and after that you can go on being numb and safe without emotions) - choosing real life, real emotions, even if that means pain - is quite brave, and original... and sad for that matter. So, all you boys... and girls, who are scared to breathe in the pain of reality and to fill your lungs with it, it's time for you to watch this film and lose your virginity. The fun starts after you accept the fact that pain is just part of everything!
King Arthur
(2004)
Warm winters in the past?
20 August 2004
I never knew winters were so warm in Britain about 2000 years ago! The sexy Guinevere dressed in a gown that would probably be more appropriate for an Oscar ceremony than to shoot arrows in a forest among the snowy trees made me roll my eyes in disbelief. And so did so many scenes from this "epic tale", the so called true story of King Arthur and his knights. I did find amusing some of his knights, though, namely Bors, whom I think is the prototype of the typical English soccer fan. Ioan Gruffud tried to be more handsome than believable as Lancelot and with this he reminded me of Orlando Bloom. What I loved in this film was King Arthur himself, the gorgeous Clive Owen. Hopefully I'll be seeing more and more of him, even if that means I have to swallow more Jerry Bruckheimer productions.
Something's Gotta Give
(2003)
Funny romance
26 February 2004
It is wonderful to know that romance can bloom even when you least expect it or when you already have lost desire or hope for it. I really liked the idea of the middle-aged romance and I think that the main actors - Nicholson and Keaton were perfectly chosen for their roles.
I didn't though like several director's decisions and the too bright, reassuring and feel-good feeling of the film. I didn't like the scenes with too many smiles (like when Keaton and Nicholson were having a picnic on the beach; or the last one in the restaurant with Keaton's character's daughter and few other characters - I wouldn't like to spoil the plot) or the over-the-top scenes in which Keaton got so hysteric. I mean, she was supposed to be suffering and I didn't like it that the director wanted to make a laugh out of her suffering.
As a conclusion... Hey, isn't Paris already a cliche as the most romantic city in films? Haven't any of those Hollywood film-makers been to Barcelona? Or Prague? Or... just elsewhere!
I didn't though like several director's decisions and the too bright, reassuring and feel-good feeling of the film. I didn't like the scenes with too many smiles (like when Keaton and Nicholson were having a picnic on the beach; or the last one in the restaurant with Keaton's character's daughter and few other characters - I wouldn't like to spoil the plot) or the over-the-top scenes in which Keaton got so hysteric. I mean, she was supposed to be suffering and I didn't like it that the director wanted to make a laugh out of her suffering.
As a conclusion... Hey, isn't Paris already a cliche as the most romantic city in films? Haven't any of those Hollywood film-makers been to Barcelona? Or Prague? Or... just elsewhere!
25th Hour
(2002)
Good but nothing more than that
27 November 2003
"25-th Hour" is an ambitious film and at times I felt like I was watching a great movie. However there were some disappointing points that let this film stay among my personal collection of "good but nothing more than that" films. I think the film had a great story, with one flaw - the main character's job. Why should I care for a drug-dealer? What is he unique with, so that I could swallow and forget the fact that he sells drugs? Yes, we all do mistakes and deserve a second chance, but I just could not care for the character, could not sympathize with him, nor the fact that he was what he was as a result of his childhood made any difference to me. Also I think that an intelligent film-maker as Spike Lee should know the difference between cheap propaganda and deep, insightful messages. But the American flag was in display in every second scene and in the end I felt that it robbed the story form its potent universal meaning and grounded the story In America, only.
Monty's monologue in the bathroom of the bar where he was with his father was really strong, perhaps the strongest moment in the film. And the weakest for me was the the one in which the father envisioned his son's new future - or was it the son envisioning a different future for himself before waking up to reality? It was a bit cheesy and so flat.
Monty's monologue in the bathroom of the bar where he was with his father was really strong, perhaps the strongest moment in the film. And the weakest for me was the the one in which the father envisioned his son's new future - or was it the son envisioning a different future for himself before waking up to reality? It was a bit cheesy and so flat.
Hollywood Ending
(2002)
Rather dull
31 July 2003
I expect an intelligent and funny film whenever I choose something directed by Woody Allen, but this time I was unpleasantly surprised. The film lacks the originality of most of his previous scripts and I was hardly ever amused by the dialogue (My favorite lines being, "I quit." "Why?" "I was fired!"). The acting was o.k. but Mr. Allen's habit of surrounding himself with women so younger to him this time looked rather distasteful than anything else. The film would have been great if it was much shorter than hour and a half.
Samsara
(2001)
India is not Tibet
28 July 2003
I have read all the comments on this film here and I was surprised one more time to see how differently people react to one and the same film. What struck me also was that some of the viewers clearly mistake Tibet for India, because apparently they don't know that there are Buddhists in India as well.
Buddhism has its origins in Hinduism itself as it is believed that Buddha is a reincarnation of lord Vishnu The Preserver, one of the three main Hindu gods. But through the centuries Buddhism slowly developed as an independent religion. The film was shot in Ladakh which is in the Indian Himalayas, not in Tibet and two of the characters go to the town of Leh which is the capital of Ladakh and hence it is also in India. I thought that it is important to clarify these details as I don't think that one should mistake Tibet for India. India is not just Bollywood and as a country living under the phrase "unity in diversity" it surely has lots of different religious communities and lots of different cultures.
As for the film itself - I loved it, not only because it has been so beautifully shot (by the Bulgarian D.P. Rali Ralchev) and not only because it meets us with a part of the world we barely know, but mostly because I could identify with the characters and their desires, anguish, pain, joy, dreams. "Samsara" (the Hindu concept of reincarnation) asks some philosophic questions in a very earthly manner, I think. The ideas of Buddhism, the detachment from earthly life in order to reach enlightenment, the conquering of ourselves, our ego, our earthly desires (to love, to have family, to enjoy the simple but earthly life of a farmer, to possess objects and to command love from the others) are ideas or rather dilemmas that many of us face from time to time. Buddha has said that the middle way is the right way to follow, but how can this way be found? Is it through experiencing the earthly life, then renouncing it and then devoting oneself to the life a monk, choosing the spiritual life in search of the almighty truth and the great soul? This was the way Buddha has chosen - being a prince himself, having a family, and then renouncing it and devoting himself to the life of a recluse, but of a recluse who has reached the enlightenment and a recluse willing to share the truth with the others.
Everyone chooses one's own way. Tashi is a person who asks himself questions and he's a person who searches for his own right path. To say that he is only an egoist who leaves his wife when he gets fed up the life of a family man and a farmer is quite simplistic, I think. I believe he has been very honest from the beginning to the end and that is why he left the monastery at first and came back to it in the end. The important idea that I have discovered was that no matter what kind of path one will choose there will always be an anguish along the way. Maybe it is because of the eternal question unanswered - what to choose - to satisfy all desires or to conquer the one and only? No matter what we choose we will always doubt from time to time that maybe we should have chosen the opposite.
What I really liked about this film also is the fact that it presented us with the female point of view in the final monologue of Tashi's wife Pema. She was given no choice from him when he decided to go back to the monastery. She had to stay behind and take care of their son. She was shown to us as the keeper of the traditions (not allowing her son to play with the modern toy his father bought him from Leh) but at the same time she had that free spirit to make love to the unknown Lama and afterward to even marry him. I liked the sensitivity of the writer / director who cared not only to show us the pain of Pema when realizing she's losing his husband, but also to make her an intelligent woman who thinks and who turns out be as wise and devoted as her Lama husband.
Buddhism has its origins in Hinduism itself as it is believed that Buddha is a reincarnation of lord Vishnu The Preserver, one of the three main Hindu gods. But through the centuries Buddhism slowly developed as an independent religion. The film was shot in Ladakh which is in the Indian Himalayas, not in Tibet and two of the characters go to the town of Leh which is the capital of Ladakh and hence it is also in India. I thought that it is important to clarify these details as I don't think that one should mistake Tibet for India. India is not just Bollywood and as a country living under the phrase "unity in diversity" it surely has lots of different religious communities and lots of different cultures.
As for the film itself - I loved it, not only because it has been so beautifully shot (by the Bulgarian D.P. Rali Ralchev) and not only because it meets us with a part of the world we barely know, but mostly because I could identify with the characters and their desires, anguish, pain, joy, dreams. "Samsara" (the Hindu concept of reincarnation) asks some philosophic questions in a very earthly manner, I think. The ideas of Buddhism, the detachment from earthly life in order to reach enlightenment, the conquering of ourselves, our ego, our earthly desires (to love, to have family, to enjoy the simple but earthly life of a farmer, to possess objects and to command love from the others) are ideas or rather dilemmas that many of us face from time to time. Buddha has said that the middle way is the right way to follow, but how can this way be found? Is it through experiencing the earthly life, then renouncing it and then devoting oneself to the life a monk, choosing the spiritual life in search of the almighty truth and the great soul? This was the way Buddha has chosen - being a prince himself, having a family, and then renouncing it and devoting himself to the life of a recluse, but of a recluse who has reached the enlightenment and a recluse willing to share the truth with the others.
Everyone chooses one's own way. Tashi is a person who asks himself questions and he's a person who searches for his own right path. To say that he is only an egoist who leaves his wife when he gets fed up the life of a family man and a farmer is quite simplistic, I think. I believe he has been very honest from the beginning to the end and that is why he left the monastery at first and came back to it in the end. The important idea that I have discovered was that no matter what kind of path one will choose there will always be an anguish along the way. Maybe it is because of the eternal question unanswered - what to choose - to satisfy all desires or to conquer the one and only? No matter what we choose we will always doubt from time to time that maybe we should have chosen the opposite.
What I really liked about this film also is the fact that it presented us with the female point of view in the final monologue of Tashi's wife Pema. She was given no choice from him when he decided to go back to the monastery. She had to stay behind and take care of their son. She was shown to us as the keeper of the traditions (not allowing her son to play with the modern toy his father bought him from Leh) but at the same time she had that free spirit to make love to the unknown Lama and afterward to even marry him. I liked the sensitivity of the writer / director who cared not only to show us the pain of Pema when realizing she's losing his husband, but also to make her an intelligent woman who thinks and who turns out be as wise and devoted as her Lama husband.
Siberiade
(1979)
Very impressive, but not surprisingly
21 May 2003
I have seen the film a few days back on a video tape and even though it was hard to swallow it at one take (because of its length and story), I liked it very much. I was impressed first, by the script and then, by the realization of this script. The film takes you on a ride, but that is not an easy, joyful ride; it goes through time and different political regimes and shows the influence of them to ordinary people's lives. What I loved was the inner logic the film followed; logic, which just like logic in life, was rather illogical and confusing at times but in the end, when I thought about it, all the events and twists made sense. It makes no sense though to try to re-tell the story as it spreads in more than 50 years of time. I also liked very much Nikita Mikhalkov's character Aleksei and the way he played it, as some critics would saw, with restless abandon. What I didn't like about it, was that I think he later played characters that remind me of Aleksei in films like "Cruel Romance" (Zhestokij romans, which I actually love) and to some extent in "The Insulted and the Injured" ("Unizhennye i oskorblyonnye"). "Sibiriada" shows, I think, what a great film-maker Andrei Konchalovski was before he went to Hollywood and made forgettable films like "Tango and Cash" and less forgettable like "Runaway train". I would prefer "Kurochka Ryaba" to them...
Letter to America
(2000)
Unique mixture of feature and documentary
18 January 2002
Letter to America is an interesting film to watch. What makes it worth seeing is the unique blend that its director applies to it. Iglika Trifonova is primarily a documentary director and her film certainly carries authentic feeling. The plot is simple and even touching. What is more important is that the film has a storyline to follow and it actually follows it. Those who are aware of recent Bulgarian films (not that we have many of them) will perhaps agree that our directors usually tend to make general philosophic conclusions that might be interesting to some scholars but not to the audiences. The actors make good try to fit in their roles, especially Phillip Avramov, a theatre actor. Peter Antonov, one of the famous new faces of Bulgarian cinema, makes a short but impressive role. Perhaps the most interesting aspects to the foreign audiences will be the traditional Bulgarian music and the ride through several picturesque villages of Bulgaria where the time seems to have stopped.
Letter to America
(2000)
rather the opposite title
9 January 2002
I have been very eager to see the film as it is a rather rare occasion to have a new Bulgarian movie made in the past decade. I liked it though not of patriotic feelings only. I think that it has something very important for every film - a story line, and if you're a Bulgarian you'll know what I mean - our directors usually "forget" about the story line and crave to make great philosophic observations about life as such, immortality, etc. instead. Do they succeed - that's another question. I'm not sure that the title is the most proper choice for I felt the film rather carries a message to us, Bulgarians and not to Americans.
The acting is quite good - the film features some of the best actors of the new Bulgarian generation - Ana Papadopulu and Filip Avramov are famous theatre actors and Peter Antonov has an impressive acting experience in theatre and films as well. What I think will be most interesting to foreign viewers is perhaps the traditional Bulgarian music and the genuine feeling of authenticity which the director plausibly creates.
The acting is quite good - the film features some of the best actors of the new Bulgarian generation - Ana Papadopulu and Filip Avramov are famous theatre actors and Peter Antonov has an impressive acting experience in theatre and films as well. What I think will be most interesting to foreign viewers is perhaps the traditional Bulgarian music and the genuine feeling of authenticity which the director plausibly creates.
Tell Your Friends