temrok9 Reviews

The Ceremony (1971)

A masterpiece

[10/10 · 2 January 2023]

It's a mystery to me why Oshima, and especially his movie Ceremony ( although my personal favourite is Merry Christmas Mr Lawrence) doesn't get the recognition he deserves, among the greatest directors. Possibly because, apart for the famous In the realm of the senses, very few have watched his films. Ceremony, in my opinion, is his best film. It is extraordinary how he constructs the narration of this family saga, and how he makes it resonate with thoughts and feelings in every minute of it, putting in shame all of the more applauded asian family stories that became famous movies over the kast decades. But he also surpasses many acclaimed European directors of his time. Ceremony is an undisputed masterpiece that you watch shivering , a proof that cinema can be made out of pure magic!

Basic Instinct 2 (2006)

A perfect thriller

[9/10 · 31 July 2022]

Better, perhaps, than Basic Instict, and criminally underrated, this movie is not only an excellent thriller that grabs you from start to finish in its web, but also a very accurate look at psychoanalytists' matters - and practices- that I can not think of any other movie to match, with a sarcastic tone that can easily be overlooked. Overall, one of the best neo- noirs one can meet. The critics butchered the film; they ' d better go watch Vertigo again and explain why it's better.

Coatti (1977)

Another kind of cinema

[9/10 · 20 March 2020]

Maybe the most pure kind. Low budget, poetic in a personal way, part of a tendency for the abstract, the vagueness of acts, the wandering of the camera into the world, not really without a plot. In the manner of, say, Jean Marie Straub, early Wenders, and others less known. Stavros Tornes had a strong cinematic vision, and he is underrated, as his poetry never reached audiences and critics the way Tarkovski, Fellini or Antonioni did; probably that was due to the poor quality of his films, in technical terms; nevertheless, he was a genius ,in my opinion, perhaps the most important Greek director from an aesthetic point, and this movie is his second best, after Karkalu. You just have to immerse in viewing and leave the - logical- world outside.

The Snowman (2017)

A noir masterpiece

[10/10 · 15 October 2017]

Obviously we have seen different movies. Alfredson's The snowman is an excellent piece of modern cinema, built not on the conventions of a thriller, like Nesbo's book(although of course it works as a thriller), but on the tensions between the unfolding images, the mesmerizing effect of a hypnotic pace that encloses us in a dark and cold vision, the glorious revelations of landscapes(city landscapes, physical landscapes and human ones)that reveal themselves at certain points filling our regard with a sense of beauty. As the film went on, I felt immersed in its charm, building to an ending that creates not so much the tension one hopes to meet in a thriller, but a dark feeling, first as the killer sinks helplessly in the icy water(in a glimpse,as the film's narrative economy is extraordinary all the way through, in contrast with some other film that met glorious critical applause these days but needed 2.45 minutes of boring storytelling to make everything explicit), and second in the short epilogue, which is filmed in a way that creates a very strong impression, stressed by the music,leaving me shocked and thoughtful on the way out. I'll take it! .The snowman is an absolute masterpiece that deserves to be rediscovered in the far future, like many movies of the past have at some point been.

The Neon Demon (2016)

An Experience

[9/10 · 7 October 2016]

I understand the objections raised against Refn, and The Neon Demon in particular. One could really find the film boring, shallow, even repulsive or ridiculous at moments , and this is a legitimate way to react.On the other hand, it's all a matter of the kind of cinema one wants.Personally, I felt mesmerized by the unfolding of the movie that kept me captivated and made me wish for more. I don't feel cleverer for that. It's just that I care less for a plot and even less for the reconstruction of reality , and more for an experience, which definitely this movie is.Refn is a cinematic relative of David Lynch, Dario Argento, Stanley Kubrick (the master of over-stylizing), Mario Bava, Brian De Palma, Jean Jacques Beineix, and he succeeds in creating his own style, devouring all these influences. It is true that at the end I was a little bit disappointed, as I was waiting for a climax, and the final turn of the story left me somehow cold, but in general the Neon Demon is a fine representative of the kind of cinema I want to watch, so rare these days, and from that point of view it is precious to me. I watched the movie yesterday and its images keep coming to me and kind of haunt me.This is what I need a movie to be!

Independence Day: Resurgence (2016)

Is this a joke?

[4/10 · 27 June 2016]

I read in the Trivia of IMDb that Susan Sarandon rejected the role of the president in the movie because she found the script incomprehensible. Incomprehensible is the word that best describes this film, where in a storm of clichés and pointless action every sense of storytelling is dismissed.I wonder how some critics found it entertaining, since it gets boring very soon, and I even wonder how could it be that some people in the production found it possible that it would be a profitable-not to say good-movie(of course the last chapter in the Jurassic saga was trivial, but it gained a lot of money, but the problem here is that the movie looks like a joke).On the other hand, in the second half of the movie, after giving up trying to follow the story or the movements of the cast(who is where and who goes where),I started enjoying the movie, exactly as a big joke(with laughs too), focusing on the separate scenes,almost in a dreamlike surrealistic fashion, as if something was just what it was, with no connection with the story.In other words, I was glad to watch the process. In my imagination ,it became a kind of cult show I connected with Carpenter's Dark star(in another context and scale)and with the sci-fi comics of the 50s, with touches of parody.The problem is I am not sure if these things were in the intentions of the makers.There are some signs that maybe they were:the reference to Citizen Cane and the Rosebud, the phrase with which the movie closes(straight from the end of Carpenter's Ghosts of Mars).So, I am not disappointed at all, and I am even interested in what will happen next(if there is a sequel after all).However, I do not believe many people will share my kind of enjoyment with the movie.We are not accustomed to so expensive and ambiguous jokes.

The Revenant (I) (2015)

Into the wild

[8/10 · 24 January 2016]

This was the most anticipated movie of the year for me, for several reasons.Truth is it starts impressively, for almost half an hour, maybe more, it stands as a unique cinematic experience, an immersion in an almost savage stage, brilliantly directed, where the characters seem more parts of the situation than people who are good or bad. On the way, as the plot unravels, however, you get a feeling of repetition, plus a tendency to leave a message(about the Indians and the white invaders of their land), which comes a little unconvincing(Dancing with the wolves was more convincing in such an attitude).Worst of all, the plot left me indifferent.I didn't care at all about Di Caprio's pursuit, and I even found Fitzerald(maybe because he was Hardy, but not only for this reason) a more interesting character, and a more savage one, but not at all the bad guy the movie finds at the end to be its convenient scapegoat. Not a wise finale for such an ambitious film that might have been the best Nature movie ever.But as the value of a film lies not only in the production virtues, or even in the virtuosic direction, but in its general attitude, the Revenant lacks, in my opinion, the greatness of a Hertzog film(with whose films has a certain affinity).In fact, after Birdman, I expected more from Inaritou.He has evolved as a director(he is very impressive)from the times of 21 grams and Babel, but he still has to avoid the simplicity of the supposed messages he wishes to convey. Unfortunately, the Revenant turned to be, for me, a dramatically uneven movie, and the pace was somehow lost in the way.Yet, there is some greatness in part of it;maybe my ambivalence clears out with a second look.

The Hateful Eight (2015)

Pointless, as always

[6/10 · 9 January 2016]

With so many reviews already, I guess there aren't many chances one will read this one;despite the fact I found many things in other reviews I agree with, I wanted to put down some thoughts of mine regarding the cinema of Tarantino.From my rating, it is obvious that I am not among those who loved the movie;yet, I think we should take into account what he does in a general context which may explain the reason he enjoys a cult status and has so many devoted fans.To begin with, the cinema of Tarantino reflects a certain personality(of himself), it is recognizable at once, the way one immediately recognizes a Woody Allen movie;even the actors speak in the same way, not to mention the things they say and the pose they take to say them. To me, the dialogues seem pointless very often;I do not believe that phrases, even in a movie, serve only as information vehicles, but I do believe that they must bare a certain load of meaning, so I find small talk(as in some praised Linklater movies), or pose-talk(as in Tarantino movies) boring. I admit that every movie of his has a certain charm, and this is also true about these Hateful Eight, but this charm is based mainly on the concept(the basic idea) and his very interesting mixing of actors, music and other film memories in his own way that is sick with verbalism and pointless violence.When I say pointless violence, I must stress the fact that I do not object to it morally, and that I like a lot of movies who go for the gore, even having fun with it , as Tarantino does, but somehow in his films(in this one, for instance)he seems to do it in an exhibitionist way, not serving the purpose of the film, but trying to show off, to convince everyone, including himself, that he is clever. This way, his movies retain the personality I mentioned but they never have any meaning at all.What I mean by the word meaning is not some great statement about life(we hear many such things during his movies)-since I declare myself a fan of b-movies- but a certain attitude towards life every piece of art(adventure movies too) holds.From time to time, there are glimpses of meaningfulness, but the general feeling is of the narcissistic enjoyment of a supposed meta-look. What is the purpose of the 70 mm, for example, in this movie, since there is no meaningful use of it(watch the movie of John Carpenter or Robert Altman to see what cinemascope means)?So, was it fun?to me, so and so;sometimes I got bored, sometimes a little engaged. I guess others found it more suitable to their taste(and that is in no way objectable).Tarantino has a certain place in the contemporary cinema, and this movie is no stranger to this place.Every time I say to myself I won't watch his next movie, but every time I do.

Manglehorn (2014)

Poetry in motion(pictures)

[9/10 · 24 November 2015]

David Gordon Green continues to be one of the best directors of our time, and one of the most underrated.Every movie of his-with the exception of Your Highness-is terrific in its own way, and Manglehorn is no exception.In Greece it was the only one of the three movies with Al Pacino this year that didn't make it to the theaters, and when it appeared in DVD I ran to have it and watch it.I was rewarded.Green is a master director whose art is not pretension but pure poetry.All of his films are elegies that take us closer to the heart of humanity, and his craft is so admirable that he can change mood and technique from film to film without changing character. He is really one of the few auters in the contemporary American cinema;in fact, I believe that to consider his films in the general context of indie movies is not fair at all.I also think that it is a disgrace that he is never a candidate for the Oscars- although I suspect he mustn't be that interested-and Manglehorn is a film that would deserve at least a nomination-if not the prize-for the best direction of the year. I won't say anything about the plot;I will just mention the homage to Blow up(Antonioni's)at the end, with a somehow different context. An oasis for our regard!

Entertainment (2015)

the margin

[8/10 · 12 November 2015]

There is a thin line, in the world of independent cinema-and European and world cinema as well-between good intentions and an accomplished form that can work as a piece of art. The usual thing, especially in places of art festivals-such as the Thessaloniki film festival where I watched the film- is to meet films that are rather pretentious, wanting to look clever(one perfect example of the kind is the highly regarded by the critics Lobster, which may go as far as bare the title of the best European film of the year), or that through their pronounced emphasis on social situations demand to be taken seriously as movies about people -in contrast with exactly what? Robert Bresson's masterpieces could teach something to all those mediocre directors who claim a place in the history of cinema. So, when I encounter a film maker who has really the capacity to create a cinematic vision with virtuosity and precision I am very glad. This is, I believe, the case of the film Entertainment, which although not easy to enjoy, it is in my opinion a remarkable work of musical quality(it has a pace that is successfully maintained throughout the film) and a personality that is not the sum of its influences(perhaps David Lynch, David Foster Wallace among others?).All actors are perfect but the protagonist, I think, gives probably the best performance of the year.Surely it is a film that very few things happen, but they do happen in a context that is meaningful, in a form that shows that the director is a master of its means, despite the difficulty of the task. A rare experience, copious sometimes, of being in the margin, and what it is all about, strolling in the desert of our lonely damned hard seeking Entertainment souls.

The Martian (2015)

The Big Other

[8/10 · 2 November 2015]

At first look, I dismissed The Martian as a boring, repetitive,and overfilled with blah blah and clichés film that could be classified as average the most.At second thought-and view-I discovered that there was a certain logic, and a certain attitude and pace underneath the surface of the movie, a certain way of becoming entertaining in its own way. After reading the book, I return with some remarks regarding what I consider The Martian to be.I believe that the adaptation on the screen is a very faithful one, and despite the arguments about not being explicit enough(or at all) regarding the solutions the main character finds out to the problems he encounters, I think that it captures the essence of the book perfectly. Yet I have to add that in my opinion this essence is not survival, or even science(these are obvious themes, and, of course, targets of the story), but rather Communication, and, as Jacques Lacan would put it, Communication is always a matter of speaking with the Big Other.So, what I first thought of as repetitive-the continuous talking of Mark-turns out to be a means of showing(not necessarily on purpose)the mechanisms of language and the nature of being human. The whole movie and the whole book are a series of distant communications-Mark's discourse at the centre of them-and the main invention of the writer-putting Mark in the place of an evertalking subject-is a brilliant one that does not only enable a narration that would otherwise be impossible(all these actions and events while alone on Mars), but also stresses the need to be tuned to Someone(from the point of view of Mark, it is his need not to feel alone;from our point of view it is the need to be his constant listeners, his others).Being human is being translated through the Big Other, one could say, and that's what the movie and book show, using technology as the mirror through which this translation occurs. So, despite the simplicity of the look-sorry, this is no match to 2001-there is some complex form here that works well, becomes more obvious in the movie, is more powerful in the book, and is perfectly stressed in the ending of the film, when the whole crew of the mission-and the film-are on stage, one by one:the actors in a joyful play that's called Life.There's a starman up there indeed!

Love (II) (2015)

2001 of the erotic cinema

[9/10 · 31 October 2015]

This is probably the most erotic film ever made.I didn't expect such an achievement from the director of Irreversible(a movie I hadn't liked at all).Oshima had tried to do something similar-and was given more credit to his effort than Noe-but I believe Love is better than The Empire of senses. It is filmed as a hard core movie, only with the exception that it is about love and people who are in love and have sex all the time;there are all kind of perplexities in the relations stemming all from the very nature of human feelings and human sexuality, but the film sticks to the theme of love in a way we have never experienced again in cinema.There is also a stylistic approach that reminded me of Kubrick(I do not think that it is irrelevant that the main male character says that he chose to become a director because of 2001). And last but not least, in an extraordinary soundtrack you encounter- among others- the theme from John Carpenter's Assault on precinct 13 during an orgy which can be considered the climax of the film(and I assure you, as a die-hard Carpenter fan, there is nothing ridiculous about that).So, the film may not be for everyone, but is a unique experience that does what others pose of doing, a perfect antidote for pretentious rubbish-like The Lobster-and a romantic, sensual, original and touching-if not a little too long in some parts- film that breaks through with more courage and devotion than the Warhol movies that it is referring to .A film about love in its purest form , about love as the most rewarding and torturing experience of humans.And, of course, about loss as well.

The Lobster (2015)

Avoid at all cost!

[2/10 · 25 October 2015]

This is probably the worst movie I 've seen for years.I suppose I should support the film since I am Greek and Lanthimos is Greek too, but I'm afraid I 'm tired of this pretentious and meaningless cinema we are producing that gets its foreign distribution and recognition now.I thought that Dogtooth was a terrible movie too, but I was hoping that something might have changed with this one, especially as Colin Farrel-whom I like very much-was the lead actor;unfortunately, this is a dreadful movie, full of stupid dialogs, pretentious and pointless, stupid, and it asks to be taken for surreal or weird but Lanthimos is neither Bunuel nor Lynch.It even begs to be taken seriously as a symbolic comment on relations, which makes it seem even sillier. There are and there were great directors in Greece(Nikos Panagiotopoulos, Vasilis Vafeas and, most of all, Stavros Tornes, to name a few) but Lanthimos is not one of them ;he is a fake and I was angry I had to watch this trash of a movie. I'm still angry, so I wrote this review.

Regression (I) (2015)

Excellent

[8/10 · 20 October 2015]

It is rare in our times to meet a movie of the horror genre that shows a true devotion to the spirit of the genre, without being referential(to the past) and without aiming, first things first, at creating shocking scenes you are about to forget the next moment. Regression belongs to the great tradition of the poetic cinema of horror and fantasy, in the manner of Jacques Tourneur, where we follow a story in ambivalence regarding the paranormal elements that define it, up to the end when an explanation is offered.And exactly as we encounter in Cat people, for example, an explanation that is based on rational terms but we are still mesmerized by the journey in the world of fantasy and shadows, so do we in Regression meet an end that explains everything in terms of psychology (without bad guys and good guys)but after we have been immersed in a delusional universe, following the central character who has been deceived and terrified. This is a common theme in classic horror movies and is elaborated here in an excellent way, in my opinion, as the film unfolds gradually in the moody background of a rural American town, with dreamy scenes that create an engaging atmosphere, and a general feeling of sinking helplessly into paranoia. Whatsmore, the film is a study in the genesis of fear, judging it to stem from the mechanisms of repression, and despite the seemingly simple use of explanation-fit to the b-movie character the film has-the whole concept is faithful to the lessons of Psychoanalysis(which is never mentioned, instead there is a psychologist that practices hypnosis and supports the value of regression-a simplistic attitude towards the discoveries of psychoanalysis). Overall, an important film of the horror genre that people who love the cinema of the fifties and the sixties(and the seventies, perhaps) will appreciate a lot, I believe. I was glad to watch it( not paying attention to some negative reviews I encountered).

The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (2015)

Instant classic

[9/10 · 20 September 2015]

It's a shame that this excellent Guy Richie film doesn't seem to earn the money it was expected to, since of all the sequel-potential movies of the year(apart from the great Mad Max, of course), it is the one I would mostly like to see having sequels.At last, a TV series we used to love has the big screen adaptation it deserved(I think it is the best adaptation of a TV series ever, including the first Mission impossible, which I also love).Guy Richie proves to be a very underrated director;with true inspiration, he restores to adventure cinema the authenticity that the logic of the blockbusters has taken away-the logic that says that you must not present something different, because people will not get it-and brings in a cinematic delight that is stylish, funny, genuine and full of subtle feelings and memories.Superb acting, imaginative scenes, and an attitude that without effort makes the film a classic, being as close to a modern version of The man from UNCLE as possible without neglecting the retro elements that other movies chose to forget about(the terrible Wild Wild West, for example), and easily beats the new Mission Impossible, despite the fact that it was one of the best of the series.What's more, I consider it shameful that Tarantino, who begins with a similar love about cinema and the past , enjoys more critical appraisal because of his deconstructive- and shallow-use of cinematic means.Richie's cinema is also fun, but in a more subtle and at the same time deeply satisfying way and this Man from UNCLE may be his masterpiece till now.

Warrior (2011)

Angry

[7/10 · 10 September 2015]

It is not that Warrior is not a good film;in fact, from a point on it grabs you in continuous commitment with your heart pumping fast and helplessly.The truth is that at the start it looks like it wants to be something more than another fighting movie, with the roles of Nolte and Hardy, and the reading of Mobby Dick, some kind of elegy.And it could succeed at it, as the Hardy character-in one of Hardy's best performances-is built masterfully;yet, the other characters of the film gradually become banal, and whats worst-please do not read further if you have not seen the movie-at the end there is the most conservative choice one could imagine, as the winner is the family man who fights in order to pay for the home of his family, whereas the heroic-and anti heroic-veteran, looses everything.One could argue that the end is about reconciliation and the return to the unity of the family;in my opinion, it is a total fiasco that let me down and made me really angry. There should be some other way to discourage violence without letting down the most interesting character of the movie.His defeat is the failure of the film to be anything more than a family fighting movie to watch at home.Yet, for Hardy alone, I would very much like to watch it again.

Every Thing Will Be Fine (2015)

In the passage of time

[10/10 · 15 August 2015]

I had given up expecting anything great from Wim Wenders a long time ago;he still made it in my best five list of directors of all time because of his German films of the seventies, but my enthusiasm had diminished after The state of things-his last masterpiece, in my opinion, up till now-and as times went by he, unfortunately, became a replica of himself, seeming to run after what he one was but ending up with a feeling of an awkward imitation, no matter how beautifully shot his movies always were. So it was a very pleasant surprise to watch in Everything will be fine the Wenders I once adored come back.The film is a lesson in directing, so beautiful, solid, subtle and emotionally rich-it is the only film for years that made me cry-and at the same time it is discreetly under the spell of the personality of the man who once made Alice in the cities and In the passage of time.The trailer I had watched says much about the plot but nothing about the way Wenders drives his actors-unexpectedly excellent, some of them-and the whole movie to a kind of perfection we encounter only in the Great:Antonioni, Polanski, Bergman, and, yes, among others, Wenders himself.This also means that the movie functions perfectly not only aesthetically but transfers feelings and ideas with maximum impact through minimum means.A masterpiece!

She's Funny That Way (2014)

F is for fake

[8/10 · 2 August 2015]

It's easy to miss the point in this movie, since Bogdanovich was always an intellectual as well as a capable director, and what you have here is a movie that is not exactly what one would expect.To begin with, it's true that it doesn't work as a comedy in the way we are used to these days;there are, in fact, great laughs at some points, but in many instances the rhythm of the gags isn't the one that would provoke laughter.This is a danger when one works on this kind of comedy which, despite the similarities in text with Woody Allen's films, has more to do with the cinema of Blake Edwards and Bogdanovich himself;this is a meta-cinema, meaning that loyal as it is to the conventions of the genre, it also aims at being a kind of remark to the nature of art itself.I agree that as a comedy, the movie half-delivers;for some time I didn't find it funny at all, and then there were some great moments that had nothing to do with the kind of comedy Woody Allen makes(based on jokes);this is cinematic orchestration that sometimes succeeds, others it doesn't. The film, however, wins at the end as it reveals its theme, which is what Orson Welles would call F for Fake;art and reality intermix, roles and persons also.And the movie becomes the other side of Birdman, being less impressive in form, but more complex than Birdman and Woody Allen's films as well, in its elaboration of its context. Not a masterpiece exactly, but a very interesting and important work of a great director we hadn't heard from for a long time!

The Pervert's Guide to Ideology (2012)

Against Ideology

[10/10 · 3 April 2015]

I wasn't expecting much, I must say;I watched this movie because it was a gift of a magazine I bought and thought of giving it a chance.But at the first frame, I jumped up with enthusiasm;John Carpenter's They live is acknowledged as a masterpiece. Zizek is a very clever man and his remarks are brilliant.Furthermore, as the film unfolds, it becomes obvious that through the different topics there's a theory that is elaborated here, and it is so perfectly illustrated that it is better watched than read.I must say that I have read Zizek in the past, and I used to read a lot of Lacan, so I am acquainted with the ideas expressed, but I found them here expressed with such clarity, that impressed me and even influenced me, all the more since they fit with my way of thinking and the way I stand against Ideology.I even understood better why I am a devoted fan of John Carpenter and why I dislike Titanic and Nolan's Batman.Overall, a superb movie that makes you really think and consider things(Zizek is a brilliant thinker, lending his pair of glasses to look through), that does not cease to bring joy.An even resurrecting experience also, for which I am grateful.

Inherent Vice (2014)

the hallucinatory lightness of being

[10/10 · 3 March 2015]

Like Inside Llewyn Davis last year, Inherent vice is a movie I first approached with caution, finding it inferior to my expectations, but growing up inside me during watching it and after, to the extent of haunting me like no other film of this year, and making me want to go back and have another take on it.To begin with, I am not a fan of Paul Thomas Anderson.I didn't like There'll be blood and I didn't like The master;I am not a fan of Thomas Pynchon neither, since my readings of Gravity's rainbow, Against the day and Vineland were not rewarding(he lacked the genius of a David Foster Wallace).And when the movie started with a boring dialog, shot in close range, I said to myself it had been a mistake to go see that film..But soon I found myself dragged in a complex directory plan where the focus on faces created an effect of constant hallucinatory dimension, something unusual that has been tried, for example, in The Black swan, with fine results, but here the effect is so superb that almost counts as a breakthrough in aesthetics.So, this is a story of a certain period, and while the feeling of this period is masterfully recreated, the film stands far away from the typical historical references one would expect, and turns instead into an existential irony, inherent I suppose in the novel, that Anderson as a writer and director brilliantly understands and succeeds in building, through subtle-and new -ways.Altman would be proud of this movie(that won the Altman award this year).In the end, through the adventures of Mr. Phoenix(in his best role of his career, in my opinion), we reach a kind of knowledge regarding the state of things today;the state of an inner reality usually neglected in the name of the supposed- journalistic-real, also.We get lost in the final shot of an ambivalent will be, such as life really all the time is.I will even give Pynchon a second chance.A great movie that can easily be overlooked as boring if one does not get caught in the strange universe Anderson builds for us.About the hallucinatory lightness of being!

Blackhat (2015)

A Michael Mann film

[9/10 · 17 January 2015]

I was almost going to believe that this would be a very bad movie according to some nasty reviews, but as I usually enjoy Mann's films I chose to go check myself.I really can't understand what was registered in the brains of the people who disliked the movie while watching it.Maybe too much Hunger Games has harmed the audiences-and the critics- or maybe the trivial has emerged as SOMETHING in our everyday routine that when something really great appears we can not comprehend what this is all about.Mann is a great director, and Blackhat is a masterpiece of the cinema he makes, a cinema with similarities to that of Melville, as they both deal with police stories in their own way.This is a movie you emerge into or stay out at all.Like all great films, it's not about how believable is what we watch, but about how we connect with it.Mann creates a mesmerizing journey in cities, sounds and motions that consists a universe of its own(not realistic, not unrealistic my dear critics);in the aftermath, it is the individual against the law of men, and in the meantime there's friendship, love and, of course, death.Oh and yes, utopia as well!

Ida (2013)

mediocre

[3/10 · 14 December 2014]

The European art film industry could do better than acknowledging Ida as a phenomenal masterpiece, and, probably, the best European film of the year.Flat, pretentious and minimal in a bad sense, with characters immersed in a despair, socially constructed, gloomy without depth and without the existential background of a Tarkofsky film or the wit and the directory genius of a certain polish film called Knife in the water(yes it's the first Polanski movie), Ida is a film that I had to try hard watching without going to sleep.Yes I'm sure some people will find the meanings devastating and they will commend it's beautifully shot(I keep wondering, what's the purpose of the strange frames, with the faces at the bottom?), but I believe what we have here is a certain form of calligraphy, poor in ideas and totally trivial, I have already forgotten.It's a shame that this movie was selected to be the best European movie of the year, especially when there were such masterpieces this year as Calvary and Locke.

Interstellar (2014)

Glory!

[9/10 · 11 November 2014]

With so many enthusiastic reviews, I thought I might not have to add one more, but I felt I owe it, in a way, to Nolan,as I have been very harsh with his movies up till now, considering Inception and Prestige almost silly and the Batman trilogy average but not great at all.Well, in Interstellar, which I went to see fearing the worst(clichés of sentimentalism and incoherent-in a bad way-plot), I was very pleasantly surprised.From the beginning, I found I was very fond of the way the film was shot, and in the long run I watched with undiminished attention, feeling that I was sorry the film was going to end at some point. I do not care if at some moments some scenes were not as convincing or as spectacular as they might have been, because I really was inside the movie all the time, a movie that gives back to science fiction cinema the glory it deserves.I even found some comments of critics-especially here in Greece-that were suggesting that the movie becomes melodramatic and weak as it unfolds, as untrue, although I would be the first to condemn such characteristics in a movie-and I was afraid Nolan would easily succumb to them.Instead, I felt deeply moved by the connection between the cosmic and the personal Nolan offers, in a screenplay that, at last, shines, not with cleverness, but with true wisdom, a perfect incorporation of astrophysics theory(that could again get easily ridiculous,if not properly handled) and even glimpses of humor.An epic that deserves its place in film history as an absolute winner!

Inception (2010)

Dear god!

[3/10 · 8 November 2014]

I tried to watch Inception again on the TV one day, to give the movie a second chance, mainly since I lately discovered Tom Hardy and I wanted to see him in there.Tom Hardy was-as usual-a delight to watch, but unfortunately he was the only one not to be ridiculed by the stupid dialogues of this movie.I know Inception has many many fans, but I can' t really understand why.I suppose that many will tell me I did not understand the movie. I do not think I have such problems, especially with movies so naive and pretentious such as this total fiasco that instead of passing for masterpiece in film history should find its place in the panorama of biggest failures in film history, together with much more valuable movies that went overlooked.The way Nolan-who must take himself for a genius-heads for the dream world is superfluous, nonpoetic, mechanistic, and incoherent(he jumps from one idea to another leaving them all in suspense and we are supposed to buy that this reflects the nature of the plot).Perhaps his original idea was an interesting one but he needed a scriptwriter to make something of it.He preferred to do it all by himself, filling the story with clichés and dialogues so stupid that they are unbearable to watch and listen to.There is no philosophical background, only a pretentious plot that is supposed to mean something, and most of all it is aiming at impressing the audience, and in that it succeeded perfectly.I consider it a blasphemy to put Inception next to 2001 or Blade runner;instead I would suggest a comparison with David Cronenberg's Existenz;it's not Cronenberg's best film but it gives Nolan a lesson what messing with another reality means.Finally, I understand that these views I expose here are about to be the target of attack by many devoted fans.I can not but accept this position.

PS. I am heading for Intersterlar one of these days, I never learn;I already read people are in love with this movie too.I hope I fall in love too, but I have great reservations as I do not trust the director at all!I'll be back, however, with another review, since I've decided to fight for what I consider right these days(and to support great films I still have the pleasure to watch,like- very recently- the Judge and the Drop)

The Duke of Burgundy (2014)

The Duke of bizarre

[8/10 · 2 November 2014]

I declare myself a fan of the cinema of Peter Strickland, since I watched Berberian Sound Studio, so I went to watch The Duke of Burgundy with great expectations.The film does not disappoint, it does establish the fact that Strickland is one of the most original movie makers of our time, and an extremely imaginative director, who finds inspiration in the Italian horror cinema of the sixties and seventies(Bava, for example, who could be the director of this film, to some extent at least)but transforms it into a different and new aesthetic that in a perfect world might consist a strong influence for a new cinematic wave, with roots in the past and a vision of the future.At the same time, one is guessing influences from David Lynch(whose cinema, however, seemed to reach a dead-end with Inland Empire),although I'm not sure if those influences are really present or if it's the dreamlike feeling of the works of both directors that suggests some similarity.The Duke of Burgundy, however, didn't win my full enthusiasm, as I felt somehow unsure of what this was all about. I admit that it has a magical quality in the way it unfolds, creating a world of its own, in the same style Berberian sound studio did(the similarities of the two films are many, leading us to consider a certain Strickland style that was absent from his first movie), and the feeling we are watching a peculiar thriller instead of an erotic drama is very strong.The game, however, that keeps the two erotic partners chained to their cage-and the narration that explains or obscures it-couldn' t take for me a more generalised meaning that would help me connect.Of course, one could consider the plot as a clinical-and dreamlike-observation of a certain kind of (pathologic) relationship, with great knowledge of psychoanalytic(Lacanian)dynamics regarding the nature of sadomasochism and perversion and its relation with repetition, but in my opinion this is a poor reading of the movie that demands a more engaging kind of view.Furthermore, the lack of an ending, that clearly exposes the dead-end of the relation-and the circle that the universe of the movie ceaselessly follows-was very similar to what was happening in the end of Berberian sound studio, but here it seemed to me less satisfactory and it gave me the impression that it was unavoidable because there was a dead-end in the plot itself.Despite my reservations-which I would like to confront in a future second view of the film-The Duke of Burgundy is in my opinion one of the most perfectly directed movies I have ever watched and it consists such a unique experience that I think it's worth a try.Only enter at your own risk?