mohit_sinsniwal Reviews

Dr. Brain (2021– )

Aesthetically thriller and overwhelmingly impressive.

[7/10 · 4 November 2021]

• You will be connected to this series from episode one

Acting 10/10

• Not only the lead hero, but you will feel the emotions of supporting actors too.

Direction 10/10

• You will find some scenes which are a combination of Mystery and thriller, which will be better than many horror movies.

Background Score 10/10 Background music will give you goosebumps

• Camera-man makes you feel that you see every frame in 3d; all shots are tough, just like a parasite; yes, while watching this series, you will think of parasite, and I think this first Korean-language series on Apple TV+ is going to be a big hit like a parasite.

Article 15 (2019)

Extra-awesome performance by everyone! Must watch movie (prefer this over kabir singh)

[8/10 · 28 June 2019]

The caste discrimination is a reality if you say it does not exist in modern times then why dalit is killed because of intercaste marriage. there is many who is saying that it is false story but cruelty is real and no one can deny the cruelty against dalit by caste Hindu. Many don't like this movie because they can not face this movie actually, they do cruelty and caste discriminate against Dalits. After watching this movie if one person's heart will be melt down that will be the victory of cinema and art. However, cinema is a emotions not science nobody make cinema on facts rather emotions.

The caste discrimination is a reality if you say it does not exist in modern times then why dalit is killed because of intercaste marriage. there is many who is saying that it is false story but cruelty is real and no one can deny the cruelty against dalit by caste Hindu. Many don't like this movie because they can not face this movie actually, they do cruelty and caste discriminate against Dalits. After watching this movie if one person's heart will be melt down that will be the victory of cinema and art. However, cinema is a emotions not science nobody make cinema on facts rather emotions.

Dog Day Afternoon (1975)

WOW!

[7/10 · 1 June 2019]

I've watched this film for the third time in a few years last night. Instead of writing a straight review, I'd like to jot down ten thoughts just off the top of my head concerning this exquisite movie:

1) Watching this film will change forever your perception of the bank heist genre, making you question the contrived cinematic conventions these films usually make use of.

2) The source of this film's paradoxical and/or farcical elements spring from life itself, not from film or pre-existing cinematic conventions. Sometimes, the absurdities of life are so great, they dwarf those included in any form of fiction. Without even trying to make that point, this film captures that concept beautifully.

3) Its tone in relation to the homosexual theme is ahead of its time. In fact it's ahead of OUR time, even, in hardly making an issue out of it at all - it just IS.

4) It captures the climate of the 70s in a manner so sober, you'll remember its unshowy yet authentic feel forever.

5) Lumet's film brings to life the concept of the distorting lens of the media and how different groups with different agendas will turn an outlaw into a hero, with far more efficiency than Oliver Stone's brash, bloated, childish and repetitive Natural Born Killers.

6) Watching this film will illustrate to the younger generations exactly why Al Pacino has earned himself the legendary status he probably no longer would deserve with his performances of the last 10 years alone. **SPOILERS**: Just watch those last ten minutes of him handcuffed against the bonnet of a car, where he doesn't say a word, but speaks volumes with his eyes and his soul just oozing out of every frame at the end of the movie; you'll remember those eyes for as long as you live!

7) Watching this film, you'll realise that firing a gun-shot is a BIG DEAL in real life, and that other films make too much use of gun fire in a highly contrived way.

8) All that tension deriving from pointed guns unable to fire a shot OR move away you realise Tarantino must've taken notes sometime along the way.

9) No genre is old or done too many times before if it's handled with this amount of freshness, inspiration and talent.

10) Watching Dog Day Afternoon for the third time has filled me with the same amount of wonder at the power of truly inspired but unobtrusive film-making as it did first time round.

Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949)

WOW!

[8/10 · 1 June 2019]

Undoubtedly one of the most perfect, brilliant comedies ever, this movie is extremely fun and revels in its dark, clever humour. What can one say about a comedy centred around a dapper, charming, likable, impoverished young English gentleman who is at the same time an utterly remorseless, ever-calculating killer who has no qualms about killing an entire line of relatives who all stand in his path to inherit the family fortune? On top of that, he all the while takes great care in preserving his demeanor and status as a gentleman; all the relatives he must eliminate are brought to life by the genius of Alec Guinness; and there's an executioner who takes pains to show proper respect to his social "superior." The dialogue, indeed pretty much all of the humour, is a shining example of "British humour" at its best. It is subtle, clever, dark, and full of irony and satire. It is pure, brilliant entertainment that doesn't stop. Comedy really can't get much better than this.

A Fistful of Dollars (1964)

WOW!

[7/10 · 1 June 2019]

A Fistful of Dollars (1964) in my opinion is the second best one in the spaghetti western series, that is Sergio Leone's first best masterpiece in "Dollars Trilogy", that started all. It is my personal favorite western movie of all time. I love this movie to death and I will always cherish it.

A lot of people are going for The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and Once Upon a Time in the West and of course Eastwood's Unforgiven as their best favorite western films. But no one talks about this one: A Fistful of Dollars, which in my opinion is a classic & Sergio Leone's first masterpiece! This was the third Clint Eastwood's western film that I saw as a kid and I loved it every since. What can I say? Except I love this movie and it is my second favorite Clint Eastwood western movie. This one is in my top 5 Eastwood western films. I just love this movie to death and I love the story and the actors that it is in this film.

This movie is shorter for only an hour and 39 minutes long, which is not boring, it is fast paced and it is filled with classic moments. A Fistful of Dollars is a classic and I can always watch and enjoy it, without been bored. Clint Eastwood stars as the greatest Western character of all time, ever created - "The Man With No Name" in the greatest Western of all time. The story is an unofficial reworking of the Akira Kurosawa film Yojimbo from 1961. What I love about this film is Clint Eastwood's character who helps out a young family, who is torn apart from the Rojo's gang, he make sure that the kid goes in to his mom's arms, Eastwood was a heart in this movie. Also you have nice shootouts, Eastwood wears a boiler plate as a bullet proof vest, while Ramón Rojo (Gian Maria Volontè) fires his Winchester '92 rifle at "The Man With No Name" brilliant! Than "The Man With No Name" kills them all with his colt, excellent! Ramón fires the Mitrailleuse machine gun, killing dozen of Mexican Soldiers, awesome! Gian Maria Volontè as Ramón Rojo was a terrific villain and he did awesome job.

The plot start's faster and it is a stone cold classic that started all. Clint Eastwood is the coolest actor in the role playing the famous character of all time, that made him an icon. Every second on screen, he chews up the scenery and even today remains as bad ass as ever. Eastwood's character has been mimicked and copied numerous times over the years and yet he still stands up to modern scrutiny. Despite the character being so cool, there is still humor to be found, like the fact that he ALWAYS has that cigar in his mouth even when he's lying in bed. You also have the classic "Mule" scene which manages to be bad ass and funny at the same time. Sergio Leone directs everything to perfection and considering the film is from 1964, it's extremely well paced with plenty of action. The score was provided by Ennio Morricone, who for some reason is credited as Dan Savio. The music is another element that has been copied by practically every other Western since. It set the standard of what a Western could be and once you watch the film, the tune will go through your head for hours.

Not only that this movie is a classic but two movies ripped off the story from this film: Bruce Willis's Last Man Standing (1996) which completely ripped off the story from this film and Sukiyaki Western Django (2007).

This is the beginning of the Man With No Name series. The visuals are beautiful, the character of the Man With No Name menacing and mysterious, the score is brilliant and the action is a blast. The greatest "spaghetti" western ever. The one that launched a thousand copycat versions, even the wonderful score by Ennio Morricone. A Fistful of Dollars is a legendary, with bullets, as loud as the explosions and close ups extreme. The plot is simple (though not as much as the sequel, A Few Dollars More) but that is what enables Sergio to weave a masterpiece. Iconic score.

A Fistful of Dollars gets a perfect 10 by me and remains my all time best favorite Eastwood Western movie in the series that I absolutely love to death and I love Clint Eastwood's character. It's a genre that doesn't get enough love and it really should as it deals with all the familiar elements of action films, like this one is.

High Noon (1952)

WOW!

[8/10 · 1 June 2019]

John Wayne was totally wrong to call this movie un-American. Courage and cowardice are universal emotions, and the attitudes of the characters in High Noon are, I think, incredibly truthful and telling. I know that if I lived in the Wild West, had a job and family, and was asked to stand up and fight against a gang of gun-toting psychos I would probably not be able to do it. That's why Gary Cooper's Will Kane is such a remarkable character in terms of self-respect, morality and inner strength. It's the way he MUST uphold the law even though it will perhaps cost him his wife and his life. It is the various townfolk with whom most of us will identify, even if it makes us feel shame or unworthiness to admit it. No matter how bravely we act, nor how much we want to think heroically of ourselves, 90% of us would cower in the shadows when the time came to do what Will Kane does in this movie.

On his wedding day, dependable lawman Will Kane (Gary Cooper) has just handed in his badge and is preparing to leave town with his bride Amy (Grace Kelly) when he receives devastating news. An old adversary, Frank Miller (Ian MacDonald), has been pardoned for crimes that he should have hanged for and is on his way to Kane's town of Hadleyville to get revenge. He is due on the noon train, leaving Kane one hour to either run for his life or make preparations to fight. Kane and Amy set off at full gallop, hoping to put some miles between themselves and danger, but Kane doesn't get far before he feels compelled to turn back. With the new sheriff not due for a day, he just can't let go of the extraordinary sense of duty and responsibility he feels towards his town. However when he gets back to town he gets quite a shock - for no-one has the guts (nor, in some instances, the inclination) to fight alongside him against the Miller gang. As time ticks unstoppably towards noon, Kane gradually realises that if he's going to stop Miller and his boys, he's going to have to do it alone!

Cooper's performance is extremely powerful and he received a thoroughly deserved Oscar for it. Kelly is good as his bride, although many viewers will find her character hard to like. Lloyd Bridges has a brilliant early role as Kane's deputy, while the very best of the supporting pack is Katy Jurado as a Latino woman whose "history" with most of the men in town puts her in an unenviable position when the shooting starts. Fred Zinnemann directs the film outstandingly, making each scene fit into the grander scheme of things with literate precision. Any aspiring young film-maker wanting to learn how to pace a film correctly should watch High Noon with a close eye, for it is unparallelled as the most perfectly paced film of all-time. The music by Dmitri Tomkin - plus that incredible ballad "Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling" by Tex Ritter - is just one more element that makes High Noon one of the great masterpieces. There's nothing else to say - if you haven't already, go out and see this film NOW!

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)

WOW!

[7/10 · 1 June 2019]

This is still an exceptional film from the 1960s. Though some of the epithets are obviously softening much stronger words, the language is frank and brutal, Martha's bludgeoning body-blows balanced by George's icepick thrusts. Edward Lehman's respectful screenplay gently opens up Edward Albee's one-set play while keeping a certain claustrophobic atmosphere. Mike Nichols' first directing effort is stunning in its lack of artifice; rarely do you feel that the director has done much more than turn on the camera and watch four actors, all at the top of their game, tear into their roles. George Segal's work in this movie is criminally underrated, but his reactive work as studly, ultimately disappointing Nick should be mandatory study by all young actors. Sandy Dennis' fluttery turn as mousy, wifey Honey is powerful also; a lot more is going on than you might think. Richard Burton is staggering as George ("Georgie Porgie Put-upon Pie"), and his performance demonstrates the magic that he could bring to a worthy role. Elizabeth Taylor's work here still astounds. The physical transformation she undertook to become aging harpy Martha is amazing enough, but her performance seems to channel a hurricane's force and fury. By turns hilarious, maddening and then, at the end, exhausted and defeated yet again, Taylor demonstrates acting, particularly film acting, at its best. The film is by no means easy or "Hollywood" in feel-- the audience is as exhausted as the characters at the end. But this was a bracing, necessary antidote to the impossible ideal of marriage usually portrayed in the movies. A towering film

Anatomy of a Murder (1959)

WOW!

[6/10 · 1 June 2019]

Anatomy of an excellent movie:

Begin with an extremely tight and well written script, from the novel by the same name. While reportedly the story is based on a real-life case it is nevertheless a timeless story, almost biblical, presenting age-old questions of human conflicts and human dilemmas.

Add to that a sensational cast, starting of course with the leads, Jimmy Stewart, George C. Scott, Lee Remick, and Ben Gazarra, but also the rest of the cast, filled as it is with numerous accomplished and veteran stage actors and radio performers from days of yore. Character parts played by actors Arthur O'Connell, Eve Arden, Ken Lynch, Joseph Kearns, and Howard McNear. Someone paid careful attention to the casting for this film.

Perhaps the most masterful stroke as far as casting goes was the casting Joseph Welch as the judge. Welch was an experienced and renowned lawyer in real life. Welch turns in a very good and a very believable performance.

With the collision of those elements, a great script and a great cast, adding Otto Preminger as director, an overseer who knew exactly what to do with it all, you then have a very fine film.

More than any other movie or play, including modern day presentations like the television series Law & Order, this 1959 movie, Anatomy of a Murder, even though it is now 46 years old, is by far the most realistic and technically accurate courtroom drama ever produced. The conduct of the trial, the examination of the witnesses, the colloquy and bantering back and forth between the lawyers and between the lawyers and the judge, is spot-on. Every bit of it. Every question from the lawyers, every objection, every ruling by the judge, every admonishment from the judge, and the testimony of the witnesses, every bit of it, is realistic and believable, lines that were accurately written with care, and then flawlessly delivered.

Beyond the technical accuracies of the legal proceedings, some other aspects of the overall story were also spot on. The ambiguous ambivalence of lawyers, their motivations, their ethics, their relative honesty. Nothing is all black or all white. Shades of gray abound. Legal cases as sport. Being a "good lawyer" means pushing the envelope too far, bending the rules until you're told to stop. Not for justice. No, not that. To win. That's why. To win. Then sanctimoniously telling themselves that the system really works better this way. The movie accurately captures the fact that real-life legal cases are very often comprised of upside down Alice in Wonderland features. Innocent people are guilty, and guilty people are innocent. Good is bad, and bad is good. Everything is relative. Some call it cynicism. Others, cynically, call it realism. Anatomy of a Murder captures all of these and more.

I've read the criticism that Lee Remick was not believable, that as an actress she failed at nailing the portrayal of how a true rape victim would appear and behave, and that her character, Laura Manion, just didn't seem to have the proper affect nor strike the right emotional chord of a woman who had been raped. All I can say is that such criticism misses a humongous part of the point. It is almost mind-boggling that there are viewers out there who, after viewing this film, somehow managed to miss it. Let me clear it up: we the viewers WERE SUPPOSED to have serious doubts about whether Laura Manion had actually been raped. The question of whether she was really raped or not is central to the plot and story line. That's why Lee Remick played the part the way she did. And then, in turn, it was part of the story for the Jimmy Stewart character, Paul Biegler, to recognize this problem, and the problem that it presented to his defense. He worried that the jury would see it and would also doubt that she had been raped, and so that's why he propped her up in court, dressed up all prim and proper, with a hat over her voluptuously cascading hair, and with horned-rim glasses. So, yes, Lee Remick nailed it. Bull's eye.

Speaking of Lee Remick, some say that this was the movie that put Lee Remick on the map. She was stunningly beautiful here, at the ripe young age of 24. Even though the film is in black and white, her red hair, blue eyes, and porcelain skin still manage to jump right off the screen and out at you. Has any other actress ever played the role of the beautiful and sexy lady looking to get laid any better than Lee Remick? It was a woman she reprised several times in her career, sometimes with greater subtlety and understatement than others. This was her first rendition of it, and it may have been the best.

Anatomy of a Murder is a very complex movie, with multitudes of layers and texturing, where much is deftly explored, but precious little is resolved. It's a movie that leaves you thinking and wondering. I highly recommend it.

Notorious (1946)

WOW!

[7/10 · 1 June 2019]

Hitchcock introduces his stars with a cinematic blow that makes the opening of this dark, scrumptious thriller a monumental treat. He uses their star personalities and turns them round to dislocate us, teasing us with his unmistakable touch. The absurdity of the plot becomes totally plausible and the suspense is not merely unbearable but thrillingly entertaining. All of Hitchcock's favorite emotional and visual toys are present here. The icy blond, the sexual tension, the weakling villain with a castrating mother. A legendary kiss and a happy ending. Whenever I meet someone who hasn't seen any Hitchcock movies - and there are people in this world, believe it or not, who hasn't - I show them Notorious and always without fail, they are hooked forever. Just the way I was, I am and, I suspect, will always be. Cary Grant is allowed a dark unsmiling romantic hero and Ingrid Bergman lowers her strength to become a woman in love and in jeopardy but unwilling to appear as a victim. This gem of a film can be seen again and again without ever becoming tired or obvious. I'm sure you guessed it by now, this is one of my favorite films of all time.

Papillon (1973)

WOW!

[7/10 · 1 June 2019]

Henri 'Papillon' Charriere, was a lifetime inmate under the French government's harsh penal system in French Guiana. In his declining years he wrote his memoirs describing his years of incarceration, his cruel mistreatment and daring, multiple escapes. Weather or not he was the actual character of his own book, is disputed to this day. But the fact that he was an inmate is true enough and fits in with the actual site which came to be known as 'Devil's Island.' Court records indicate that Henri Charriere (Steve McQueen) later called " Papillon " which is french for Butterfly, was indeed a minor burglar and safe cracker. His claim he was innocent of murder, may be true enough, due to an unreliable source accusing him in court, yet producing little supporting evidence. Nevertheless, the infamous thief was given a twenty year sentence, which was extended due to his numerous escapes. During his imprisonment, he becomes lifelong friends with an equally famous treasury forger named Louis Dega (Dustin Hoffman). Don Gordon (a real life friend of McQueen) plays Julot, an experienced prisoner with his own intentions of escape. Anthony Zerbe is hideously interesting as Toussaint, a ravaged leper, who aids escaping prisoners. The entire film is one remarkable story and becomes an incredible journey, one which transcends the screen and offers audiences, the raw reality of life under the most severe and brutal penal systems in the world. The infamous 'Devil's Island ' today has become synonymous with a hellish place of unspeakable conditions. A fantastic movie for those in search of true-life Classic. ****

Solaris (1972)

WOW!

[6/10 · 1 June 2019]

I'm just starting out into the vast world of foreign film and having seen this film on many a video store shelf, and knowing that it was considered a sci-fi classic, I thought it would be a good way to spend an evening. Based on the case I was expecting something along the line of typical American sci-fi. Needless to say I was wrong.

I watched Solyaris twice in two days, because the first time I saw it I knew that I hadn't processed even a quarter of what I knew was there. I was taken completely aback. The second viewing was extremely rewarding.

It was unusual for me, raised as I was on the sledgehammer moralizing and we'll make our point so obvious that there's no way you can miss it because we have no respect for your intelligence way of American film. I'm a huge literature buff, and this was one of the very few films I've confronted that is thoughtful and has so many things to say yet does it in a literary or poetic fashion.

You will get out of this film what you bring to it. I've been to so many movies where the audience is not actually participating, it's being attacked. But true art is not domineering; it woos you.

So to sum up, I greatly appreciated Tarkovsky's unwillingness to manipulate the viewer. It showed that he had respect for me as a thinking soul, and it is this love and respect for humanity which makes this a truly great film.

Creed (II) (2015)

WOW!

[8/10 · 1 June 2019]

There's no other way to say it; Creed is a knockout.

From start to finish, this film exhilarates and crackles with brilliant on screen performances and masterfully directed fight sequences. It wholeheartedly captures what was so brilliant about the first film: the characters. Yes, I'll return to theaters to see the fights, but it's the characters, particularly Rocky and Adonis that truly captivated me from start to finish.

I can't say enough great things about writer/director Ryan Coogler. The way he masterfully captures the modern spirit of Philadelphia and the visceral tension of standing toe-to-toe with a man who wants to see you hit the ground is second to none. What stood out the most, however, was his writing of Rocky Balboa. The subtle nuances that we love about the Italian Stallion are effortlessly worked into the script and flow like water from Sly's crooked mouth. Speaking of, the script would be for naught if it weren't for the beautiful performances by Michael B. Jordan and Sylvester Stallone. I'm not ashamed to say I was brought to tears at various parts of this film.

I'm just so happy to say that this film wasn't a disappointment. This film exceeded my wildest hopes of a 7th Rocky installment and had me feeling amped up for hours after the credits rolled. I can't wait to see more from the talent involved in this film, and I proudly endorse and recommend Creed to Rocky fans and film fans alike.

The Night of the Hunter (1955)

WOW!

[7/10 · 1 June 2019]

I still hear the lullaby singing sweetly in my head, like a hazy, haunting dream that won't go away.

From the opening scene of the beautiful Lillian Gish and her children, watching over the world in a starry sky, this movie just sinks you into a mesmeric fairy tale land. The camera takes us down in one sweeping move to a scene of children playing, a hot sunny day, and right to the feet of a murder victim. And that sweet music turns on us like a twisted nightmare as the scene chases after a car speeding along a country road to find one of movies worst villains.

Charles Laughton, in sadly his one and only stab at directing, created a masterpiece of horror with Night of the Hunter. The moments of sugar coated sweetness only make this movie even more disturbing as you wonder how the two can inhabit the same world.

Mitchum is terrifying. More-so in a town full of simple folk ready to match him up with the local widow who needs a father for her lit'le n's. Its like he's walked into the middle of a Frank Capra movie and he's going to do what he wants to.

This is not just a great horror movie, but an artist achievement to rival Welles' Kane. The river scene is one of many moments of pure visual splendor. And that sound track just keeps drifting alone, as if trying to coax you into slumber, till the singing madman of your nightmares comes over the hill, relentless. "Chil-dren, Come along now"

You don't watch this movie, it watches you. ...Hush, Lit'le ones, Hush.

The Graduate (1967)

WOW!

[6/10 · 1 June 2019]

Many people who saw The Graduate on its original release, including critics like Roger Ebert, have misinterpreted the main point of the film. Ben Braddock is NOT a hero that is supposed to glorify the rebellion of the 60s generation. The viewer is NOT supposed to stand up and cheer after the final scene. Ben is supposed to represent the confused state of a college graduate stuck in between youth and adulthood. As best depicted by the scene where he holds the hotel door open for both the elderly group and the younger group, he feels alienated from both generations. He does not want to hear the loud music of the car next to him at the drive-thru, nor is he interested in 'plastics' or the materialistic pleasures of his parents.

He has no idea what he wants out of life, and only thinks that marrying Elaine will be the solution to this problem. As the last shot depicts (which may be the best final shot in film history), Ben only seems to be happy for a few seconds after he and Elaine get onto the bus with no money, no prospects, and no certain future. In fact, Nichols cleverly uses Paul Simon's Sound of Silence, and drowns out much of the background sound to show that Ben's is in the same position at the end of the film as he is at the beginning. He has not found what he really wants to get out of life and is as confused as ever. This scenario is not dated nor is it only appropriate for the 60s, it can apply to anyone who is lost or has no idea what to do with his or her lives.

Nichols' brilliant direction reinforces the complex exploration of confusion and uncertainty. The flow of shots after he first sleeps with Mrs. Robinson is incredible, as is his use of the swimming pool to enforce his entrapment. He effortlessly switches in and out of focus at different depths of each shot to emphasize certain characters and dialogue. It goes without saying that the performances by Hoffman and Bancroft are first-rate. Add Paul Simon's haunting Sound of Silence, Scarborough Fair, and the instrumentals of what would become Mrs. Robinson, and you have songs and images that downright haunting. As a recent college graduate who was not even born in the 60s, I can say that this film has not dated, and is deserving of its #7 ranking by the American Film Institute.

Roman Holiday (1953)

WOW!

[7/10 · 1 June 2019]

A comment made by Emma Thompson made me want to see "Roman Holiday" again. Miss Thompson said about Audrey Hepburn "she has no bite" Implying that Miss Hepburn wasn't much of an actress. Well, I don't know what she was talking about or perhaps she doesn't either. To see "Roman Holiday" again in 2017 was a moving and wonderful experience. Audrey Hepburn's performance is as fresh and enchanting as I remembered. Perhaps even more. So I arrived to the conclusion that Miss Thompson is talking about a different kind of acting. When a performance travels in time with the same power, decade after decade, for me that's great film acting. In "Roman Holiday" she took me with her and convinced me, heart and mind, that she was that princess and I loved her. William Wyler, the wonderful director, knew what he was doing - he always did. By introducing us to Audrey Hepburn he reinforced and reinvigorated his own prodigious legacy. I love Emma Thompson as an actress but she's totally wrong about Audrey Hepburn.

Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring (2003)

WOW!

[7/10 · 1 June 2019]

Perfect Simplicity

My review of this film should end with those two words. However, the 10 line minimum requirement that IMDb requires of all reviews belies the differences between my world and the world shown to me in Spring, Summer, Fall, Winterand Spring. I understand why IMDb does not want 1000's of (apparently) useless two-word reviews in their database. However, I would hope that they could make an exception for this film.

Perfect: The film is as close to perfect as a film could get. No shot is presented to us, nor a line of dialog uttered that does not make us ponder and understand at the same time. The film is also beautiful. (Like the previous reviewer, I am a fan of Asian cinema and never tire of the stunning ability of Asian directors to capture beauty on film.) This film exceeds most other Asian films I have seen in the cinematography regard. However, its beauty is surprisingly deceptive. Like most great films, it surpasses the 'cinematography' level of beauty and delves into the beauty of existence through its story. For example, the Old Monk has a different pet during each 'season' of his life. This is not discussed by the characters nor shoved in our face by the director - as would have been done if Hollywood had done this film. It is merely background we experience and come to understand. Two days after viewing the film, I am still finding new reflections in my mind that encompass the cinematography, the literal story and the underlying context of the film.

Simplicity: This film approaches a level of cinematic Haiku. While I don't recall the entire dialog with any specificity, I am sure you could print the script on one page of paper. The amazing part is that while you are watching the film, you don't notice this. Every shot moves the story along. The simplicity of life as shown by the story is reflected in the simplicity of the film. After the film ended, I had a strong urge to move away from civilization and live - or die - in peace with nature. I enjoy (and have come to be too dependent upon) modern inventions, so I will stay at home. However, this film will remain in my heart. It does exactly what good story-telling is supposed to do: Take us completely out of our world and put us in another. There is no wonder that this film was selected for so many film festivals.

The Killing (1956)

WOW!

[7/10 · 1 June 2019]

Stanley Kubrick's coming-out party from the mid '50s is a startlingly accurate prediction of film's future. By way of a non-linear narration and a few remarkably fresh transitions, Kubrick adds considerable weight and magnitude to a tangled heist tale and its focus on the crooks behind a slick, daring stickup of the local racetrack. Confused by the film's radical new approach to storytelling, test audiences hated the first cut, leading to studio meddling and an almost-complete disintegration of its marketing budget. Kubrick fought back, though, and with the obvious exception of a horribly heavy-handed deadpan narration, the finished product seems virtually untouched. Concerned mostly with the planning and hand-wringing before the big theft, The Killing tensely builds anticipation throughout before finally boiling over in a machine gun-paced robbery scene, terse payoff and all-too-brief elaboration on the major players' ultimate fates. Acceptably acted at best, the real stars of this picture are the complex plot and the harvest of fresh ideas going on behind the lens. A clear inspiration for Tarantino's big hits of the '90s, it's a daring and stylish major market debut for the famed director that hints at the lengths his development would ultimately take the medium.

The Road (1954)

WOW!

[7/10 · 1 June 2019]

La Strada brings two souls together to tell a story that ultimately displays humanity's finer aspects. The title gives a clue to the meaning of Fellini's masterpiece: The Way. The brute, Zampano, buys the urchin-like Gelsomina to be his traveling companion in his one-man carnival act. He is physically and emotionally cruel to her. Her longing to love and be loved, and her child-like, yet acute perception of life, and desire to live it, despite hardships, makes her the perfect complement to the selfish and despicable Zampano. Their unification affects each other. However, although Zampano's harshness adversely effects Gelsomina's life, it is her influence that will eventually, and more significantly, change him. This may sound like the familiar Beauty and the Beast fairy tale, but it is more than a love story. It is about love, but it isn't until the very end of the film that we realize it. More than love, it is about a man who gains insight and awareness because of love. It is his finale transformation that demonstrates both the frailty and vitality of the human condition. It overpoweringly suggests that the individual, no matter how depraved, is able to spiritually evolve.

Every frame and scene in this masterpiece has purpose and meaning.

The Big Sleep (1946)

WOW!

[7/10 · 1 June 2019]

THE BIG SLEEP has a reputation for being a film that gets lost in its own complexity and which fails to clearly identify all the perpetrators of all the murders that litter its scenes. There is a certain truth to this: like the Raymond Chandler novel on which it is based, the plot is extremely complicated, and it requires the viewer to mentally track an unexpected number of characters--including two characters that never appear on screen, a pivotal character who doesn't actually have any lines, and a character who is frequently mentioned but doesn't appear until near the film's conclusion. There is not, however, as much truth to the accusation that the film never exposes all the killers: only one killer is not specifically identified, but even so his identity is very clearly implied.

All this having been said, THE BIG SLEEP is one helluva movie. In general, the story concerns the wealthy Sternwood family, which consists of an aging father and two "pretty and pretty wild" daughters--one of whom, Carmen, is being victimized by a blackmailer. P.I. Philip Marlowe is hired to get rid of the blackmailer, but an unexpected murder complicates matters... and touches off a series of killings by a number of parties who have covert interests in the Sternwood family.

Perhaps the most amazing thing about the film is that you don't actually have to pick apart the complicated story in order to enjoy it. The script is famous for its witty lines and sleek sexual innuendo--much of it lifted directly from Chandler's novel--and the cast is a dream come true. Philip Marlowe would be played by a great many actors, but none of them ever bested Humphrey Bogart, who splendidly captures the feel of Chandler's original creation; with the role of Vivien Sternwood Lauren Bacall gives what might be the finest performance of her screen career; and the chemistry between the two is everything you've ever heard. The supporting cast is superlative, all the way from Martha Vickers' neurotic turn as Carmen Sternwood to Bob Steele's purring hit-man Canino. There's simply not a false note to be found any where. Although the film really pre-dates the film noir movement the entire look of THE BIG SLEEP anticipates noir to a remarkable degree--it would be tremendously influential--and director Hawks gives everything a sharp edge from start to finish.

Two versions of THE BIG SLEEP are included on the DVD: the film as it was originally shot and the film as it was released to theatres in 1946. The actual differences between the two are fairly slight, but they prove significant. Although the original version is somewhat easier to follow in terms of story, it lacks the flash that makes the theatrical version such a memorable experience; it is easy to see why Hawks elected to rescript and reshoot several key scenes as well as add new ones, and both newcomers and old fans will have fun comparing the two. The DVD also includes an enjoyable documentary on the differences between the films and the motivations behind them.

I don't usually comment on picture quality unless there is a glaring issue, but several reviewers have noted portions of this print have a flicker or seem a bit washed out. I noticed these problems, but I can't say that they in any way distracted from my enjoyment of the film, and they certainly don't prevent me from recommending it--be it on the big screen, television, video or this DVD. And I recommend it very, very strongly indeed.

The Hustler (1961)

WOW!

[6/10 · 1 June 2019]

"The Hustler" is steeped in the seedy atmosphere of smoke-filled pool halls in the ugly urban hinterland of America. The Ames Billiard Hall is funereal in feel. When 'Fast Eddie' Felson walks in with Charlie, his manager, Charlie remarks, "These tables are the slabs they lay the stiffs on." The film is about the talented men who perform, but equally about the talentless predators who exploit them. The habitues of the pool hall cling to the shadows. They wince when a blind is opened and sunlight gets in. A new hustler enters, and these vultures gather silently on the margins.

Eddie is the youngster hungry for glory. He and Charlie pose as salesmen and Eddie feigns drunkenness, hooking the punters by repeating an almost-impossible shot. For all the slickness of the con, Eddie is impatient for bigger things. He wants to challenge Minnesota Fats, the best hustler in the land.

Newman gets his name above the title, but this is a film with four exquisite pieces of acting. Jackie Gleason as Minnesota, Piper Laurie as Sarah and George C Scott, playing Bert Gordon, turn in wonderful performances.

Eddie matures as the story progresses. He starts as a cheap chiseller, hustling ten bucks, but ambition carries him to Louisville and the world of the high rollers. Sarah's love opens emotional dimensions in him which he previously lacked. Bert Gordon confronts him with his own spiritual inadequacies, forcing him to understand himself. Eddie is jejune in the first game against the Fat Man, but by the second meeting he is emotionally strong, and completely his own man. He has made the spiritual journey from the whining "everybody wants a piece of me" to the inner knowledge that Sarah bequeathed him - that only those who give can truly live.

Bert Gordon, with his dark glasses and hawkish features, is a creature of the night. Loving the 'action' of a clash of talents, but lacking any talent of his own, Gordon is the predator on the sidelines. Hearing of the new hustler's presence, Gordon arrives soundlessly and sits watching intently for hours. His dark genius sees the weakness in every soul. In the bar, when he and Eddie talk business, Gordon is foreshortened to look tiny alongside the talented youngster. For all his money and sharp wits, Gordon will never be more than a parasite living off the ability of others. Finally, Eddie and Fats walk into the sunlight, heroes who have proved themselves. Gordon remains perched on his gloomy barstool, a prisoner in his own dark kingdom.

If Sarah is the vulnerable, physically-disabled woman who relies on drink too heavily, the victim of the men she encounters, she is also the heart of the movie. She destroys Gordon's certainty and she shows Eddie the meaning of love. Her tragedy is Eddie's salvation. She and Eddie find each other in a deserted bus station in the dead hours. They are both lost souls, Citizens of Hell. She is the deformed girl with the empty life, and he is the emotional cripple with no resources of education or character to sustain him. They cling to each other as if shipwrecked. When the seduction comes, Sarah hesitates. She knows this will lead to suffering. "Why me?" she asks, then surrenders to her fate.

The time when Eddie's hands are in plaster is Sarah's brief season of happiness. She stops drinking and even makes progress with her writing. Somebody needs her, belongs completely to her. It cannot last.

"I made you up, Eddie," Sarah tells him, and in a sense she did. She imagined him to be loyal and stable. On the night when the truth dawns, Sarah goes from feeling pretty in her new dress to being a rain-sodden wreck. She is supplanted in Eddie's attention by the sinister Gordon, who asserts the new power-balance in the railroad dining-car. The hotel suites are adjoining, and though Sarah closes all the doors, she can't keep Gordon out. By Findlay's party, she has hit the bottle again. The patterned dress which Eddie bought her, a symbol of her incarceration, has the shadow of the ballustrade projected onto it, seemingly magnifying her sense of ensnarement.

Though Jackie Gleason does very little in this film, he dominates it. On screen for a fraction of the film's totality, and having neither great speeches nor grand gestures, he impresses by his sheer presence. Stillness, self-containment and an ironic amusement make Minnesota Fats the perfect foil for the angry, ambitious Eddie. In the final showdown, Fats' quiet poise outshines the grandstanding of the others. Gleason conveys beautifully the fear at the core of this big dandy. When Eddie has him in trouble, the Fat Man begins to lose his sartorial integrity as his confidence unravels.

This contrast of stillness and motion is effective in the first meeting of the hustlers. Fats and Gordon, who know what they are about, remain motionless and tranquil. Eddie the incontinent wannabe gradually loses control of both mouth and limbs. The film is rich in symbolic language. The cheap rooms which Eddie rents are mere boxes for hire, like the bus station locker which he lives out of. When he and Sarah meet for the second time, the inevitability of their coupling is conveyed in a scene without words or gestures. Eddie's plastercasts are manacles - without his hands, he is nothing. A sumptuous restaurant and a happy couple are transformed when the brutal truth emerges. The camera angle is reversed, and Eddie and Sarah are now separated by gaunt shelves of crockery. The illusion has been shattered. When Eddie sneaks out on the sleeping Sarah with the stake money in his hand, it is the betrayal of Charlie re-enacted.

A marvellous film is enhanced by a superbly sleazy jazz score (Kenyon Hopkins) and the violence is all the more gut-wrenching for being suggested, rather than shown.

The Celebration (1998)

WOW!

[6/10 · 1 June 2019]

This surprise success based on an uncomfortable subject has become an essential reference adapted for theater in many countries. The film immediately gives the impression of having been filmed with a dysfunctional iPhone of the 70s suffering from a perfectible autofocus. This is certainly the expression of Dogme 95, a manifesto of a strong desire of the directors Thomas Vinterberg and Lars von Trier to move away from a cinematographic world they consider too licked, too clean, too artificial, returning to a sobriety more expressive, more original, more formal, with an excessive despoilment of any aesthetic ambition. This impression will last until the last minute. After this rather negative observation, the film is excellent: between the dialogues, the acting and the unfolding of the story, it keeps you out of breath and you will wait for the epilogue with an unbearable impatience. A must see!

Stalag 17 (1953)

WOW!

[6/10 · 1 June 2019]

William Holden is always in the shadows in 'Stalag 17', he's always behind the characters or off to the side of the camera. You see, despite Holden's character Sgt. J.J. Sefton being the film's main character, he is only seen through the eyes of his fellow POWs, rarely ever alone. When they start to think he's the spy so do we. Oh, sure, we know he isn't the rat (movies don't do things like that), but since the story is told by all of the POWs who think Sefton is the rat, we start to think like them too. That is the mastery of Billy Wilder's 'Stalag 17', it takes the film's most interesting character and sets him apart from the rest for most of the film, letting us learn about him as the characters do.

The story focuses on a group of POWs living in the American section of Stalag 17, supposedly the 's best POW camp. Among them are barracks chief Hoffy (Richard Erdman), Price (Peter Graves), Shapiro (Harvey Lembeck) and Animal Casava (Robert Strauss). They all have their own special job when their fellow prisoners try to escape, Price, for instance, is 'security'. The film starts when two prisoners try to escape the barracks. Everyone inside is enthused, thinking the two will make it very far, except Sefton, who bets precious cigarettes that they wont make it past the outer forest. When he turns out to be right the POWs start thinking there's a rat and that rat is Sefton. And as the first hour passes we think so too, it's only logical, Sefton has any luxuries because of his deals with the s.

The POWs start to bully Sefton, and once they beat him to a pulp he decides to discover who the real rat is (at this point, of course, we know he is ). His investigation isn't handled with dialogue though, we get this by seeing his facial expressions and his lurking in the shadows of the barracks.

So, what starts as a light, 'gung-ho' type war movie (there's lots of comedy in the first hour) turns into a dark, sort of gritty thriller with a twist that left me with my mouth open. I wont reveal it, but I'll just say that Sefton smartly solves the mystery and redeems himself to the rest of the barracks (I didn't spoil anything, come on, it's expected).

As I said, there's lots of comedy in the first hour and some in the second, mostly from Strauss and Lembeck's characters. Some of the comedy is key in showing how these characters cope with their nearly hopeless situation, handled well by Wilder and the actors (Strauss' performance even gained him an Oscar nomination) but some of it just seems tacked on and out of place, like when a drunken Strauss thinks that Lembeck is a hell.

But that is a small qualm, and the rest of the film is excellent. The direction and writing are great in showing us a war film, a mystery, a thriller and a dark comedy all at once. I'd have to say I like the acting the most though, Holden (who won a leading Oscar for his work in this) is suave and charming, as well as mischievous and cynical, he creates a real 'cool' character without trying too. And the rest of the cast - Graves, Otto Preminger - are admirable as well. The POWs aren't clichés or caricatures, they're all their own separate people.

'Stalag 17' is great as a war movie, a mystery, a thriller and a dark comedy. It's a classic film, for all who appreciate good cinema, 8.5/10.

Rope (1948)

WOW!

[7/10 · 1 June 2019]

Rope is one of the finer films that Hitchcock made. Philosophy, sociology and psychology are contained in equal parts. The plot is simple, the characters are complex and Hitchcock's treatment of the Leopold and Loeb parallel quite deft. The final soliloquy from Jimmy Stewart's character, Rupert, is not only one of the finest examples of Stewart's acting abilities but also of film-making.

On the subject of filmmaking - Hitchcock filmed this in as much of a single take as possible. I believe there are only five edits in the whole thing. I can wholeheartedly tell you that it was no gimmick on Hitchcock's part. The play's plot requires that a certain amount of tension be maintained. Tracking shots are used for this purpose and quite well in my opinion. Timing, position and prop movements alone are to force us to stand in awe of a logistical challenge. All the actors are played superbly. The dialogue is natural and flowing. The finest bit of timing involves a swinging kitchen door, the rope, and the fear of discovery.

In short, this is a fine film that cannot disappoint. Highly recommended and will be well worth your time.

Underground (1995)

WOW!

[7/10 · 1 June 2019]

Those who have seen "Underground" have probably noticed that we are not watching one film but a collection of at least 10 films in one single masterpiece!!

I watched with great enthusiasm the work of Kusturica after "Underground" in films like "Arizona Dream" or "Black Cat White Cat" films which prove to be more elaborate and "smoother" in terms of direction (brilliant works as well!!) but none of these films could ever equal the "nerve" and strength of a very young Kusturica at his best! One could see the passion and boldness that is at stake in this motion picture. It's as if he gambled his own life doing "Underground"

How else can you describe this work of art if not a mixture of devilish and holy images that take the shape of a flawless piece of theater-dance!!

The actors speak, dance and create (more than interpret) with a vigor rarely found outside the Balkan Circle!

In terms of theatrical aesthetics the film incorporates Stanislavski( realism at its best), Brecht (at certain points the actors step out of their roles and mock at themselves) and Artaud (they are flames more than humans)

Needless to say more!

Shocking, raw, heart-breaking!!

One of the most beautiful I have ever seen! 10/10

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

WOW!

[7/10 · 1 June 2019]

"This is the west, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend". - Maxwell Scott, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance In John Ford's most mournful tale, the legendary director asks the question "How did this present come to be? Just how did an inferior race of men whose only weapon was that of law and books defeat the old gunslingers of the great West? Just what exactly happened to the Western heroes portrayed by John Wayne when law and order came to town? How did the wilderness turn into a garden? In The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, John Ford depicts a world where everyone has got everything they wanted, but nobody seems happy with it sound familiar to anyone? Senator Ransom Stoddard (James Stewart) arrives to Shinbone on a train with his wife Hallie (Vera Miles) to visit the funeral of an old friend named Tom Doniphon (John Wayne, remarkably the film opens where this iconic star is dead). The newspaper men have never heard of him, so why would such a powerful political figure visit the town to attend this funeral of a "nobody"? Through the use of a flashback, Stoddard tells us the tale of how he came to the town as a young lawyer but was immediately attacked by the psychotic villain Liberty Valance (terrifyingly played by Lee Marvin) who teaches him "Western law". The rest of the film tells the tale of how the man of books eventually defeated the race of the gunslinger and what sacrifices had to be made for that to happen.

In truth, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is more of a melodrama than a Western. Gone are the vibrant landscapes of Ford's landmark movie The Searchers six years earlier, which was so proudly promoted as being in VISTAVISION WIDESCREEN COLOR and instead the film has given way to a bleak, claustrophobic black and white tale, with so many enclosed sets and not one shot of Monument Valley.

There's a lack of a real bar scene, lack of shots of the landscape, lack of horses, lack of gunfights. It's a psychological Western, probably unlike anything ever filmed until maybe Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven.

Why is this movie so good then? In basic terms, it's about the sadness of progression and without giving way too much away the film tells a remarkable tale which truly does examine what Ford's view of the West as promoted in his earlier work truly meant. It's a tragic and pessimistic movie but it's a rewarding one, with huge replay value and one that leaves you with so many more questions than it does answers.

Do we prefer the legendary tale of our heroes or the truth? Are tales of people such as 'The Man With No Name' just more interesting than Wyatt Earp? Is living a lie as a successful guy better or worse than quietly dying as a hero? The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is one of the most complex Westerns that has ever been put on film and is a remarkable film when you consider it was directed by a guy who made his living telling grandeur tales of the American West. Well acted, very well written and is one of the most rewarding Westerns for replay value in the history of the genre.