danaelambros's reviews

I rarely write a review but this little gem fell into my lap quite unexpectedly. The animation is almost crude, but the story line is clever. Unless you have a basic understanding of Japanese culture, norms and the highly traditional gender roles that define Japan, some viewers may miss or not appreciate the many cheeky and sly cultural and social references in the story. Beyond that, the implausible story of a former, infamous yakuza boss turned dutiful househusband in Japan, with occasional outbursts of his former violent self and past life, is truly entertaining and hilarious. The title alone hooked me in from the very beginning. For those of you who like your humor cheeky, quirky and a little this side of whacky, this is for you.

I watched the first season of Mr. Robot and was very taken with the story line, acting, direction and overall development. I could barely get through Season 2: the story line is so confusing, the sound track and music so loud and interfering with dialogue that I found it frustrating to hear. (This seems to be a tendency with many new TV series that get swept up in a higher music to dialogue sound ratio and frankly, it's so annoying - even with a good bluetooth speaker). I struggled through Season 2 because I really like Rami Malek but I will not continue watching after the mess of Season 2. I found it incomprehensible, pretentious and lacking the cohesive punch of Season 1. I cannot recommend this series beyond Season 1 but I know others may feel differently. You be the judge but I do not want to waste my time.

I really enjoyed this film. I thought it was a cinematic glimpse into Berlin visually, as well as culturally. I don't feel it deserves the low ratings it's received on this site. I also heard people comparing it to Paris, I Love You and finding it lacking. I haven't seen the Paris version so I can't comment on that. What I DID like was the vignettes of life and love in Berlin, and that the love in these vignettes took different forms: the film isn't entirely dedicated to romantic love but to love in all its forms, including sacrifice, love for strangers and love as acceptance. The sound track and music were excellent, and the visuals very strong. I also enjoyed the acting, which felt very natural. It definitely has a European vibe: there's no Hollywood hype here or over-dramatic acting; at times, it shows a bleak side to life but I like this kind of realism. While this film might not be everyone's cup of tea, I think it's a breath of fresh air in the movie scene. Two thumbs up :).

This is a classic, understated and beautifully animated film. In the age of frenetic action movies and digitalized special effects, this may seem out of place but it is a reminder why Japanese animation and Ghibli Studios still reign supreme. Yes, the film is slowly paced, but the simplicity and beauty of the story, partnered with gorgeously hued hand-drawn and colored animation remind us why animation remains an art that few can master. The pace is slow, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. For those who are looking for things to "happen", this film may not be your cup of tea. For those who are ready to surrender to the story completely, this movie is pure magic. One of my all-time favorite animated films!

There are good indie films and then not-so-good ones. Welcome to Curiosity took on too much in its story line and was in need of a really good edit to condense and connect the inter-connected stories better. Amor Perros - the director Inarittu first film is a great example of several stories that intersect at one crucial moment, as well as his better known Traffic and 21 Grams. I thought the editing was quite spotty. This film doesn't stand up to British indie classics the 80's and 90's such as My Beautiful Launderette or Croupier, to name a few. Please watch these films, including Amores Perros (Known as Love Is a Bitch), to understand what I mean. Don't watch this film unless you have nothing better to do with your time. Some good ideas but poor script, editing and some lack-lustre acting, except for Someni.

This movie was a big disappointment as it really had some major issues with the script and direction. Even Fassbender, an excellent actor, couldn't save this mess of a film. The plot wandered and lacked an overall cohesive feel; much of the original material from the book was left out, and I found my focus wandering. The best thing - and the only thing commendable about this movie - was the snow and the atmospheric rendering of Jo Nesbo's novel into film. It failed to deliver in every other respect. The script adaptation was a big mess and failed to capture the tension, or character development, particularly of the main character, of the novel. As a viewer, I didn't feel invested in anyone's story or any one character. A big fail.

Go see this movie for Emilia Clarke's wonderful performance and the haunting atmosphere. Clarke proves that beyond her Game of Thrones fame, she has the acting chops to continue with a great acting career after GOT ends. I loved the atmosphere in this film. However, had the script been stronger, and the direction tighter, the film would have been outstanding. It seems this film will either please or disappoint; it's that kind of film. The moody cinematography sets the tone under mostly overcast Tuscan skies as the young, British nurse Verena (Clarke) comes to the ancestral castle of the recently-widowed sculptor Klaus (played by the excellent but underrated actor Marton Csokas), and his troubled son Jakob, who "hears" his mother's voice in the stones of the house. As this was Eric Howell's directorial debut, I think more credit should be given to what he has achieved; however, where this film falters is the script writing and pacing - perhaps due to the director's lack of experience. That being said, this movie will not be everyone's cup of tea. The slow pacing is deliberate and is an important part of the story, creating mystery and suspense. The history of the house and its somewhat bizarre traditions on which it was built adds a lugubrious tone to the film. As the film builds to a dramatic crescendo, the clever play between reality and fantasy, the sensuality of stone and candlelight, unexpressed desires and dreams, leaves the viewer wondering where reality ends and fantasy begins. I found the last third of the movie very suspenseful. However, the script and direction falter when the movie takes on a more romantic and sensual tone between Verena and Klaus. It could have been more believable had that relationship been better developed in the script as well as reducing one or two scenes between Verena and Jakob. I really thought the love scene was beautifully, sensuously filmed using ab interplay between flesh and the sculptor making stone into flesh. Verena struggles to help Jakob speak after many months of silence and the viewer starts to question whether the story is only about Jakob's struggle, or Verena's, or Klaus' pain - or all three of these elements: is she meant to "cure" Jakob or is she meant to be cured? Too many films nowadays leave you with more answers than questions. I liked that this film does not provide clear answers, which adds to the mystery and moody, romantic feeling that are its hallmarks. Is the ending a figment of Verena's imagination? Will she succumb to the "voice in the stone" ? - or is the ending real ? The viewer is left to make that decision for themselves. As a final note, it is nice to see Marton Csokas play a different role than the usual villain/killer types he seems to be often typecast as: He is an untapped talent, in my opinion and I hope bigger and better roles await him. Csokas makes the most of his lean dialogue and is very believable as the somewhat remote but bitter, grief-stricken Klaus - struggling to understand his silent, traumatized son. I give this somewhat uneven film debut two thumbs up for the acting and atmosphere alone.

It's clear this is a film adaptation of a play: in fact, it has the hallmarks of a play: little to no change of scenery, slow movements and focuses on the drama playing out among the actors. This explains why so many people who wrote reviews were split either calling it "the worst film" they'd ever seen, "boring", "without action", or "superbly acted". I do think the movie could have been shortened somewhat, and the script tightened up in the middle of the film where things seemed to wander somewhat. However, that being said, this is an acting tour de force. In the 21st C many people want to be entertained when they watch a film; but this film pulls you in by the sheer mental and emotional force of its characters, in particular Denzel Washington's Troy - the fast-talking, rigid, and sometimes bullying main character, while Viola Davis plays his quieter but extremely powerful wife. The supporting cast is excellent. Language is a vehicle for feeling and this is definitely a movie that allows these actors to display their acting chops and incredible talent. The writer explores some uncomfortable themes in a very honest way: the complexity of father-son as well as husband-wife relationships and responsibilities. For those who complained that the story was "bleak", I would simply say that not all story telling is about faeries and roses; life is bleak and miserable at times, people sometimes lose their dreams or become lost by giving up too much - an important message in this film - and it takes courage to write about these uncomfortable truths, and to examine them honestly and in such a powerful way on screen. If you enjoy superb acting, then this a great film. Viola Davis definitely deserved the Golden Globe and Oscar, and Denzel Washington brings all his talent and years of experience to the fore to play a not very likable but complex man who tried to do the right thing.

La la Land may not be everyone's cup of tea but let's look at why there are so many reasons to see this inspired film. To name a few important ones: go see it if you believe in the power of music, dance, romance and dreams. This film beguiled me and I can see how it beguiles its viewers through its lighthearted approach to a serious topic: how do we chase and hold on to our dreams without losing them? Hats off to Damien Chazelle for reviving the musical genre in an engaging and thoroughly entertaining way. The acting, writing and direction are spot on. The movie takes some time to build momentum in the story line, but when it does, it really takes you on a journey. Emma Stone is perfectly cast as the vulnerable and quirky young actress, while Ryan Gosling's character is a complex layer of jazz tradition, dreams, stubbornness, clarity and magic all spun together. I loved that the director saluted the hey day and romance of the Hollywood musical and that perhaps it's not a genre that is dead but very much alive. If you're willing to let the film take you on a journey, and suspend your expectations, the magic of this film will find its way into your heart and mind. I also say hats off to the ending, which was both inspired and realistic and not a typical Hollywood ending but still retains a lingering touch of magic, like the final note of a piano piece that still resonates in the air after it ends. Two thumbs up.

I loved this film for so many reasons but to outline just a few, here's what I truly enjoyed about this film: a great story about a family living an alternate existence; a family drama and how the father and children come to grips with this event, a clash of social views on how we should raise children and live our lives. Finally, the acting, script, direction and music all were first rate. I cannot imagine casting anyone other than Viggo Mortensen for this role: it's as if he was made for it. He is both strong and flawed. I also liked that this film dealt with the socially taboo subjects of mental illness and death. The film questions modern society in such an intelligent way: should parents be totally honest with their children? Should we be more open about sexuality when we speak with our with children? How do we talk about death and dying when society seems to discourage this in so many ways? Our society fears mental illness almost as much as we fear death and dying and we lack the ability to talk about it openly but this film takes this on as well. Most of all, there is a big, beating heart to this film: the flawed father who thinks his uncompromising anti-establishment views should be embraced and unquestioned by his children, but who sometimes is blind to their suffering. This film skillfully tackles these difficult subjects with a great story: the script and direction are so adroit, so beautifully done, that you cannot stop yourself even in those most difficult moments of emotional agony that pop up in this story. Viggo Mortensen plays the father living with his six children off the grid, proud of raising them to be critical thinkers, capable of being fully self sufficient in the wild, and incredibly resilient both physically and intellectually. However, this paradise is not destined to last when the family hits a dramatic wall that forces them to come into contact and conflict with mainstream society. This film takes you on a journey and it raises some important questions about the crisis of modern society, parenting styles, social values and intellectual bankruptcy, but also delivers an emotionally and spiritually satisfying story in the process. I think this film might be one of Viggo Mortensen's finest roles to date. The actors who play his children were a delight to watch as well. This film had me laughing and in tears. Two definite thumbs up!

In the main, reviews of the film have been positive and the few that were not that I came across labeled it, "superficial", "had potential", "simplifies a very complex issue", etc. However, I am coming out in strong defense of this film for the following reasons: excellent direction, (doubly impressive when one realizes this is his directorial debut), very good acting from the three leads, an intriguing musical score that highlights the tensions and intrigue at the right moments, and the right amount of symbolism, and movie-making skills to push a sci-fi genre with enough touch of mystery and thrilling aspects to make it entertaining. Is it a mainstream, Hollywood film? i don't think so. Did it and does it deserve a wider audience for the compelling questions it raises (far more than answers given)? Absolutely. We are on the threshold with artificial intelligence and do not understand its far-reaching implications. Where do science, morality, the unpredictable, the human spirit and the spiritual converge? This film - in my opinion - is both deep and entertaining and it leaves us asking more questions than it answers. For these reasons, I highly recommend this film. I should mention, I'm not a real sci-fi fan, but think this film will become - as another reviewer has already mentioned - a sci-fi classic in the future. Artificial intelligence and man's ability to create intelligence by design remain largely controversial topics for very good reasons. If this film gets you thinking and people talking, I say it has already succeeded.

Yes, there are some implausible elements to the plot, but this film is really about redemption, and certainly this is a true come-back role for Kevin Costner. It's too bad this film didn't receive wider distribution or a larger viewing audience. I've often felt that Costner has been misunderstood over the past two decades by film goers and movie producers alike. He really is a fine actor and living proof that actors do become better with age... Most of the supporting cast, with the exception of Gal Godot, were just average, given they didn't have much to work with because of the limitations of the script. That being said, I enjoyed this film and it has much to offer thematically speaking. It certainly deserved a better rating that what's been given here on IMDb. Costner is at his crusty best in the lead role, and has truly broken the mold of his former "good guy" roles. If you're a spy or thriller fan, enjoy the twists and turns of the plot, then just sit back and enjoy the ride. Criminal is a very satisfying film on several levels.Two thumbs up for Kevin Costner!

This was the thinker's movie about war and the costs - in human lives - on both the virtual side ( "eye in the sky"), and those on the ground. What I liked about this film is that there are no easy answers to the questions it raises but does not answer. A stellar cast, tight script and solid directing makes this a thriller worth watching. It's not an easy task to create a successful film that deals with all of these complex issues and leaves on the edge of their seat. What are the moral implications of war, including the killing of innocents to prevent the deaths of more innocent lives, as well as the political, government, military and ethical imperatives that complicate the chain of command in split-second situations? This film does an excellent job of exploring these issues within the context of drone warfare. Two thumbs up. Leave it up to the Brits to make an intelligent and timely film about this controversial topic. Alan Rickman does indeed have the best line in the film, a fitting tribute to such a wonderfully talented actor who passed too soon.

This is an incredibly silly film plot wise, compared to the original Zoolander. That being said, if you're prepared to suspend your expectations and comparisons with the original movie, then just sit back and enjoy the social jabs throughout this film. Yes the plot is lame but if - like me - you occasionally just want a fluffy confection of a film, the non-stop social parodies will keep you entertained. No aspect of the block-busters in fiction, movie, fashion or social media are spared in this follow-up. Set design, film locations and art direction were well done. If you're looking for superficial fun, this is your movie.

Don't believe the ratings when it comes to this film. Sure, there are a few inconsistencies here and there regarding the story threads, especially in the first third of the film, but if you can get beyond that and let the story and characters truly unfold, this is a little gem of a film. The acting is really spot on, particularly with Cooper, McAdams, Krasinski, the over-eager but slightly insecure Emma Stone, and the super- talented teenage actress who plays Grace. In fact, the final moments of the film were beautifully acted and embodied the whole spirit of this film. The most powerful feelings often cannot be fully expressed in words; but the power of gestures and in particular the amazing eye contact and non-verbal acting talent in this film, are what truly makes it so satisfying to watch. If you want a heart-satisfying story that mirrors the the complexities of real life, and the emotional layers that are often expressed through the power of gestures (the beautiful Hawaiian dancing comes to mind), then Crowe has served up a truly satisfying feel-good film. I highly recommend it.