letrias's reviews

Upon reading through 20 or so of the last reviews of "Guilty by Suspicion" it dawned on me that the majority of the reviewers are only vaguely familiar with the history associated with the film. Robert De Niro's DAVID MERRILL is an almost direct representation of real-life director ELIA KAZAN, known for such great films as "A Streetcar Named Desire" and "On the Waterfront". Only the names have been changed, but the main points of KAZAN's struggle are all intact. Even long-time friend Arthur Miller and wife Marilyn Monroe make an appearance (under different names, of course).

The story depicted in this film is not only perfectly representational of the black list era Hollywood, but is actually perfectly factual and accurate down to the small details. Reviewers should really do more research before "guessing" at what they just saw.

Someone, apparently strung out on crack, said this film was realistic - it's anything but. Then again, who'd expect realism in a horror film?

Despite this, it's a fine film for what it is. Decent acting, competent direction, and an interesting atmosphere devoid of the overdone tension of Hollywood-style filmmaking, combine to create a low-budget horror masterpiece. People rave and rant about that cheeseball of a film EvilDead, yet truly interesting topics about the dark side of humanity are ignored. What a smart world we live in...

With all that said, it was no match for Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. And that's why, kids, Confessions of a Serial Killer will be the only film Mr. Blair gets to make. Should he try again? Lets hope so. Good luck.

Note: "Potop" means "Deluge", and is labeled such on some international covers of the film, though not all.

This is one of the greatest post-medieval war films, yet unfortunately is largely ignored by audiences today. Perhaps it is because this is Polish production based on a historical Polish novel. However, although the story is based vaguely on Polish history, nearly all of the characters, except for the Polish king & some members of Polish aristocracy, are fictional. That is not to say the events or characters are untrue to life - just the opposite: they are wonderful representations of people thrust into universal situations of desperation. It is easy for anyone to identify with many of the characters depicted in the film. Director Hoffman has created people, not just characters, they seem so real that one feels almost able to reach into the screen and touch them. Another interesting factor is that they are people from all walks of life. Unlike Kurosawa's "Ran" (another fascinating film about post-medieval warfare), the people represented on screen are not just the leaders responsible for the actual war. Everyone from peasant folk to the highest ranking military personnel is covered - and they are all deep characters, with emotions and feelings, not just hordes of faceless crowds running to battle to be slaughtered. This creates a full tapestry of characters unlike anything seen in any film of this kind.

The cinematography is another factor worthy of mention, especially regarding its intended relation to the depicted events. The locations reach from breathtaking and beautiful images of Polish forests to the cold and hopeless feeling of winter. It's interesting to note that the mood of the cinematography quite often directly reflects the mind-set of the characters, especially the character Andrzej Kmicic (played by Daniel Olbrychski). Kmicic, without a doubt the most interesting personality in the film, is often a very irrational man. He lapses, quite suddenly, from emotions of extreme hatred and rage, to feelings of unquestionable love, and the cinematography perfectly reflects this instability. This becomes especially evident in the latter portion of the film, as the Swedish army encroaches Poland, and the situation becomes desperate for all the characters involved. The landscape at this point becomes desolate and cold, as if the invading Swedes brought with them not only weapons of death, but also the excruciating winter of the Scandinavian north. Even the music reflects this atmosphere of desolation, as is best evidenced in a scene of the Swedish army marching into Poland. The music at this point becomes powerful to the extreme, yet it is a simple tune played by many instruments, creating an atmosphere that conveys feelings of the freezing winter by aural means alone.

"Potop" is flawlessly directed by Jerzy Hoffman, one could say that this was his greatest achievement. His previous film "Pan Wolodyjowski", based on the third part of the same trilogy of books, was also wonderful, but it failed to convey the chaotic and senseless nature of war as well. With "Potop" Hoffman has created a masterpiece. It is dark, cruel, and ruthless, as war always is. The editing, supervised by Hoffman, is flawless. In 1999 Hoffman brought the first part of the Sienkewicz trilogy to screen in the form of "Ogniem i Mieczem" ("With Fire And Sword"), but left the editing to a young editor who tried to impress young audiences with pointless fast edits, which made that film nearly unbearable to watch. With "Potop" we can see a master at his best - there are a few fast edits where such editing is appropriate, and many long perfectly choreographed shots that reflect both the beauty of the landscape, and the desperation of the characters involved.

The acting is another factor that makes this such a wonderful film. There are so many interesting characters and excellent performances to match, that it would be impossible to cover them all. However, two actors that truly stand out here are the late Tadeusz Lomnicki in the role of Michal Wolodyjowski, the same role he portrayed in "Pan Wolodyjowski", and of course Daniel Olbrychski as the erratic Andrzej Kmicic. The only oddity here is that Daniel Olbrychski actually appears in all three parts of the trilogy as three very different characters. In "Pan Wolodyjowski" he plays the evil Azja Tuhaj-bejowicz, and in "Ogniem i Mieczem" he is Azja's father Tuhaj-Bej. This makes some sense in terms of the first and third part of the trilogy, since we'd expect the son to look a little like his father, but in "Potop" he plays a Polish noble. This can be a little distracting when you see all parts of the trilogy, yet it is impossible to deny that Daniel Olbrychski is one of the best actors of the last three decades, so it's no surprise that Hoffman wanted Olbrychski to appear in all three parts of the trilogy.

Overall, this is one of the greatest war films of all time. Because of its ability to create real humans out of characters, it is also a fine film compared to any genre. Unless you are deathly afraid of subtitles, you will surely agree. War is hell, and this film represents that perfectly! Highly recommended.

Lets get real, people, there is no good reason for a filmmaker to force some kind of point on someone. Do you watch films to get lectured for 2 hours, or because you enjoy films? When you look at a bed of roses, do you try to figure out what they mean? No, you enjoy them for what they are. Why should it be any different for any other visual or aural experience? If you want a lecture, go watch an episode of 7th Heaven.

With that said, "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" is a film without much of a point, and rightfully so. It is shocking not because of graphic violence, but because how the violence is handled - we are left unaware of the full extent of the murders, forcing us to use that wonderful thing called imagination. These days many films have forgotten that lost art of giving the audience the credit it deserves by allowing the viewer to imagine what may or may not be. As Fritz Lang once said "It is best not to show acts of violence on screen because the viewers will imagine the worst". "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" had an interesting approach to this method: the violence was implied, sometimes vaguely shown, and its after-affect celebrated in its full and splendid glory. The result is an unfinished painting, yet enough evidence is provided so that anyone with some imaginative sense can paint in the missing parts. Of course, it's an unfortunate fact that not all of us are blessed with this gift of imagination, and those poor individuals are unlikely to appreciate what they see here. So, if you like horror and gore, but lack imagination, please feel free to check out those lame Scream movies, or the 945867987 episodes of Friday The 13th, or EvilDead. But if you're able to use your brain, then you should be able to recognize "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" for the important work of art that it really is.

Highly recommended jolly-good family fun for all!!

Some directors choose to direct films that are easy to watch, stories that expect us to be satisfied with a plot that leads exactly where we expect it to lead. Thank god that Fellini is not such a director!

Like the majority of Federico Fellini's work, "La Dolce Vita" is an aural attack, its dialogue is relentless, and often seemingly meaningless. On top of that, at least 2 hours of the film seems to be composed of scenes that do not directly relate to the plot. And what about the plot? It seems uncertain, as if it had no intention of going anywhere. So what, then, makes this, or any Fellini film, deserving of such praise as it has received? The answer is: all of the above, and so much more.

Watching this film for the first time can be excruciatingly confusing. Had the ending been the first scene of the film, then perhaps it would be easier to watch for those with little patience. Had he cut 2 hours of the film, then it would have been easier yet. Fortunately, Federico's love for the cinema prevented him from committing such crime. The reason, of course, is that there is, indeed, meaning in the confusion. The film, from beginning to end, is saturated by symbolic images and words. Some of the symbols are obvious, such as the dead fish for instance, others, like the white kitten, are rather obscure and require some knowledge to grasp the full meaning. Yet they all paint a canvas that leads right into the ending sequence, quite likely the most powerful image in the film. The opening symbol of the virgin mary is an especially interesting theme that is revisited twice throughout the film, although it may take several screenings to understand how they all relate. The onslaught of dialogue seems simplistic at first, but it, also, all leads up to the final conclusion, though some scenes must be played several times before their relation to the main theme becomes apparent.

In conclusion, like all the great films, this is not something that can be fully grasped after just one viewing. One can get the general idea, but it's not enough to be able to appreciate it for its true quality. The symbolism is often vague, but it is there from start to finish, watch out for it, and only once it all comes together for you will you be able to appreciate the unparalleled genius of Federico Fellini.

Some directors choose to direct films that are easy to watch, stories that expect us to be satisfied with a plot that leads exactly where we expect it to lead. Thank god that Fellini is not such a director!

Like the majority of Federico Fellini's work, "La Dolce Vita" is an aural attack, its dialogue is relentless, and often seemingly meaningless. On top of that, at least 2 hours of the film seems to be composed of scenes that do not directly relate to the plot. And what about the plot? It seems uncertain, as if it had no intention of going anywhere. So what, then, makes this, or any of Fellini film work, deserving of such praise as it has received? The answer is: all of the above, and so much more.

Watching this film for the first time can be excruciatingly confusing. Had the ending been the first scene of the film, then perhaps it would be easier to watch for those with little patience. Had he cut 2 hours of the film, then it would have been easier yet. Fortunately, Federico's love for the cinema prevented him from committing such crime. The reason, of course, is that there is, indeed, meaning in the confusion. The film, from beginning to end, is saturated by symbolic images and words. Some of the symbols are obvious, such as the dead fish for instance, others, like the white kitten, are rather obscure and require some knowledge to grasp the full meaning. Yet they all paint a canvas that leads right into the ending sequence, quite likely the most powerful image in the film. The opening symbol of the virgin mary is an especially interesting theme that is revisited twice throughout the film, although it may take several screenings to understand how they all relate. The onslaught of dialogue seems simplistic at first, but it, also, all leads up to the final conclusion, though some scenes must be played several times before their relation to the main theme becomes apparent.

In conclusion, like all the great films, this is not something that can be fully grasped after just one viewing. One can get the general idea, but it's not enough to be able to appreciate it for its true quality. The symbolism is often vague, but it is there from start to finish, watch out for it, and only once it all comes together for you will you be able to appreciate the unparalleled genius of Federico Fellini.

Superb direction, excellent acting, chilling cinematography, wonderful use of light and shadow, and a plot that simply could not have been more pointless. The story, although similar perhaps in approach to Kafka's work, fails to convey the underlying meaning of the man's work. It seems highly likely that the script-writer read some literary reviews of Kafka's stories, and found that to be sufficient research for his script, ignoring Kafka's actual work altogether.

It's difficult to put this massive (and quite unforgivable) flaw aside, but lets try our best. This is actually one of the best Film Noirs to come out of the last several decades. True, it borrows many ideas from Reed and Wells, but utilizes them very effectively, something that can not be said for the many thousands of other Film Noir directors who have attempted to copy the same elements. The dark and ominous nature of the film is extremely interesting, and the gradual build-up of tension is executed flawlessly. All of the actors do a splendid job, especially the very talented Jeremy Irons. So what went wrong? This film would have greatly benefited if the story had been even slightly less ludicrous. Unfortunately, it's not. Had it something to do with the real Kafka or his stories, then maybe this would have been one of the best films of the 90s. However, it's really impossible to take this movie seriously knowing that it ignored everything about the man for whom it was titled, and instead churned up one of the dumbest plots of the entire 20th century!

In conclusion, this could have been something, but instead is just a waste of time for anyone, except perhaps fans of Film Noir. Although, no doubt, they, too, will be insulted by the stupidity of the story. This does not even work as a parody of Film Noir. Shame, shame, shame on Steven for failing to read the script before he agreed to waste his time directing this pointless film.

Regarding the issue of manipulation, lets face it people, all documentaries are manipulative - every documentary filmmaker is attempting to make a point, whether or not they care to admit it. It is the documentaries that give the impression of being "objective" that are, in fact, the most manipulative. In the case of "The Thin Blue Line" the purpose of the documentary is clear, and the viewer is not tricked into believing that they are watching something objective. Instead, it is quite upfront about its purpose, and therefore is a much more honest piece of work. People should never accept anything they see in a documentary as fact, it's important to understand that documentaries are simply an attempt to present the director's perspective of a real-life situation. It is the great documentaries that present their perspective in a convincing manner, and do so without boring the viewer to sleep. Here "The Thin Blue Line" succeeds very well: it is powerful, it is engaging, and it's extremely convincing. Does that mean that everyone should be convinced? Lets hope not. However, it certainly should give everyone something to think about.

The only real problem with the film is its over-use of re-enactments where they are not really that necessary. For example, there is an image of a clock, representing the futility of time, which is too long for its own good. The milkshake scene was also (intentionally)annoying. However, this is a minor problem, and not one that should bother most people. Overall: great film, and highly recommended.

This is pretty good directing for a pop rock music video. The entire film is basically a series of music videos glued together with a story that becomes impossible to believe before any of the major plot elements are introduced. If this wasn't in German probably it would be a good hit on the international MTV, but as it is, maybe the German MTV will show it a few times.

The film, though highly predictable, is not anywhere near as bad as people make it out to be. It's not boring unless your attention span is that of the typical Hollywood absorbed moron. The acting isn't anything worse than the typical product of that filmworld - though it is slightly better. The story, also, is not a completely typical waste. Now that I've mentioned all of these things about the typical, that is unfortunately exactly what this film is: extremely typical beyond comprehension. Everything, down to the lame, supposedly romantic, slow motion scene of Johnny Depp riding his horse, has been done 3049090348 hundred thousand times before. Most of the story makes a remote amount of sense, except that the Russian soldiers who force Ricci's family to leave Russia for some reason that I must have missed are peaking Polish. Well, in the end, since the composition is pretty interesting, and the music is great, it is worth seeing - unless you have no idea about these things and would rather watch Bruce Willis blow things up.

This is not a film that attempts to portray events entirely realistically; instead it creates caricatures out of characters in order to present a very real and indeed true-to-life issue. There is some fantasy depicted in the film, which might throw some viewers off guard, though again this is because realism is not the issue the film addresses. Action scenes are shot in a dramatic manner very much like that in the typical Hollywood action film, but the overall excitement of the film is created with the purpose of catching the attention of a mass audience, and then leaving this large audience with something to think about. In this the film succeeds splendidly. The action, however, is not the central point of the picture, it is a philosophical movie rather than an action flick. Films like Little Big Man, and Dances With Wolves were both excellent, but they concerned events that occurred in the past, hence were not especially relevant to what is going on right now. Many people who watch films like Little Big Man do not fully realize that the situation for Indians has not changed all that much, some even choose to believe that there are no problems at all any longer. Those films, especially Dances With Wolves, were also highly sentimental, and therefore almost impossible to watch due to the fake sense of creating emotional appeal. Thunderheart does not bother with sentimentality; one can watch the entire film absorbing even the scenes of death and sadness without having to shed a tear. The drama is not undermined, but it isn't put into the focus of the film as if attempting to make the entire audience cry, instead it focuses on the important issues. Thunderheart is set in the 20th century, and it comments on the state of life for Native American Indians today. The United States is one of the richest countries in the world, yet life on Indian reservations is far more like that in third world countries. It is a life almost without any hope, and the only way out seems to be an abandonment of their traditions and their own language. A people should never be forced to forsake their own religion and beliefs in order to live decently, just imagine if someone suggested that all Christians abandon their belief in Christ or otherwise be subjected to living in third world conditions. I have been involved with the Indian community since I was twelve years old, and I have spent months at a time living on reservations. I have seen the inhumane conditions that the people at Viejas Reservation lived under ten years ago, and I witnessed the change as the casino was opened. Most reservations, however, are not allowed to have casinos, and life for them has not improved at all. Thunderheart is an excellent film because it opens the eyes of people in regard to an issue that deserves to be experienced by a mass audience; and the film achieves its objective flawlessly.

I have seen many films far more ambitious in their scope and execution, I have seen more than a dozen films that made far more important statements about the world, and I have seen films that moved me far beyond anywhere The Godfather could have moved me. But can the greatness of this film really be denied by anyone with even a vague knowledge about the filmmaking process? To call this film garbage is idiocy, there is no excuse, anyone who might make such a statement obviously has no clue about movies, even if they try to state otherwise. Despite the fact that in many ways it glamorizes the criminal life, The Godfather is the peek of excellence in film. It's a shame that people buy into the gangster formula created by Hollywood, it's a worse shame that people expect it, and when they do not see it they demand it! This film breaks out of the formula, and it does so shamelessly, but it doesn't do it thoughtlessly. There are truly excellent ironic statements all throughout the film, it surprises me that some people who claim to have some knowledge about film miss them. The baptism that Michael Corleone attends is just one example, the shots of the baptism are juxtaposed with intercut shots of brutal killings taking place at approximately the same time, killings that were ordered by Michael as he took over the "family business". It's a very powerful scene, almost revolting, it creates a very definite question mark as to the glamorous nature of the first part of the film. Once again, this is far from the greatest film, but it's a definite 10 - there is no question about it.

It is ironic how critics of this film point out most usually two facts: first that the depiction of Beethoven in Immortal Beloved is not entirely historically accurate; and second that it similar to Amadeus in many aspects, yet, none of them make the slightest effort to point out that Amadeus itself was far more distanced from the facts of reality. Immortal Beloved would without a doubt have pleased Beethoven historians more had it been more true to history - but would it have increased their appreciation of this great musician at all? Probably not. Would such a historically accurate depiction catch the interest of people who are not Beethoven fans already? The answer is again: probably not. Some people forget that this is a film, and hence an art in itself. The point is not to depict reality as it is exactly or historically, but to incite a reaction in the viewer. This film in particular excels in creating a character of incredible intrigue out of Beethoven. It presents us with an unsolved mystery in the man's life, and it offers an unlikely, yet still highly interesting theory regarding its solution. In the end we are given a story that is both entertaining and engaging, it makes the audience want to go out and pick up the soundtrack of the CD immediately after watching it. There is no movie that has been made about this man that more perfectly represents the passion behind his music. Gary Oldman was the most perfect casting choice to play Ludwig; he is the only actor who could have pulled off the madness juxtaposed with the passion of this composer. This is a wonderful film, though as a musical piece its direction and editing is imperfect, and this is the only flaw. There are too many cuts during performances, which distract from what could plausibly have been wonderful visual statements juxtaposed to the musical experience. Directors and editors of American cinema need to learn that a shot can last for longer periods of time without losing the attention of the viewers. I also wish that I could have seen the hands of the musicians performing the instruments a little more, it is disappointing to hear this astounding music and not be given a proper glimpse at the virtuoso skill of the musicians who perform it. These minor flaws do not distract from what is one of the finest period pieces ever contrived.

Simply excellent depiction of life for the Indian population of the mountain regions of most of Latin America. This film is based in a fictional nation somewhere in south America, but the events that unfold are everything but fiction, in fact they are based very closely on true events as they were described by people who actually lived it. A doctor, raised in the city and ignorant of the terror that exists outside the "civilized" part of his nation, sends a group of students on a mission to educate the Indians - this is his self-proclaimed legacy. When he finds that one of his students has abandoned the legacy he sets out to find the rest. What he discovers is a brutal trail of murder, torture, and rape. Was his legacy such the excellent idea that he claimed at the beginning? The murders seem to be in the hands of no one group, they are attributed simply to the men with guns: the soldiers, and the guerillas fighting them. The Indians are stuck in the middle, often subjected to torture and rape by both sides. The justification is always that they deserve the suffering because they are helping the other side. However, refusal to help means an equally brutal death, so they are left without choice. There are no uplifting fake Hollywood gimmicks in Men With Guns, no cheerful dialogue, and certainly no "happily ever after" endings - it is simply the truth about the life for the Indian people, not only in Guatemala, Mexico, or Colombia, but also their life in the United States not so long ago. This is a truly powerful film that should not be missed by anyone!

One of the best comedies of the late 90s. It is a satirical look at the gangsters of Poland and some teens who get into a mess with them. The humour is black, sometimes vulgar, and always hilarious. There are some "inside jokes" here that are not so simple to understand outside of Poland, however most of the humour is universal. Most of the actors belong to the new generation of Polish actors, and all of them are very talented.