Change Your Image
gemina
Reviews
High Crimes (2002)
Been there already
How sad that good stories always have to be repeated, copied, edited, modified, while worsened with each new step...
After about ten minutes into the movie I knew it was a (badly done) remake of "Music Box". I knew how the story would eventually develop, I knew who were the good and the bad guys, I knew about all the surprises to come. But I suppose that no one would go and see an old Costa Gavra's movie if it was on the billboards, while I imagine lots of people (me included) have parted with their money to see this latest enhanced version.
So I am tempted to call this movie a scam, it promises to entertain with something new, but new it isn't. Apart from that, the movie is really average, the acting is mediocre, even Freeman is not convincing as the renegade lawyer, not to mention that the story of the redeemed drunken lawyer has been already seen in about 1,000 movies.
But the movie does worse, it convey some negative messages, I think, although I suspect that this effect was not intended:
1) Lawyers are not really coming out as a nice category, you see a media-self-complacent, couldn't-care-less, top-flyer Ashley Judd in the beginning and you already hate her. When things start happening to her you cannot really be sympathetic, she's just a shark in a pool of sharks.
2) The Marines Corp takes a severe beating, almost every Marine in the movie is either an ass, or corrupted, a stupid or a blood thirsty savage. Not to mention that the underlying message about Ron Chapman behaviour is that he acted like that because he was trained to act like that.
3) The FBI arrest in the beginning, with a squad of soldiers in combat overall throwing to the ground two civilians at gunpoint is disturbing, either it is not portraying reality, in which case it's gratuitous, or it is, in which case it makes you wonder how can this be the same country that blasts around about freedom, justice and human rights.
4) The whole El Salvador subplot makes you wonder once more: what were Marines doing in El Salvador?
Unfortunately, although I think that the movie makes a very good job in delivering these messages, and in this respect it is an interesting denounce, I have the feeling that this was not the intention of the director, and therefore the movie misses its target twice.
Der Himmel über Berlin (1987)
Perfect
I often heard people referring to this movie as an "Art Movie", as if to say: be prepared, it's going to be boring, long, bleak and sad, but you are supposed to say you liked it because it is art. If you think along these lines, then don't watch this movie, because it is going to deliver what it promises.
But if you have no preconcepts, a heart and a brain, then you will love it.
It is a movie that stirs thoughts and emotions, and you will find yourself thinking about what you saw for a long time. It touches difficult topics, heaven, angels, the human condition, the power of will, hope, love, and it does so with a grace and sensibility that is almost painful. On top of this, add superb acting, inspired photography, the city of Berlin, and a lot of children.
It is a little sad that 17 years have passed since Wenders shot this masterpiece, and nothing that followed (from him or anybody else) came even close to it.
It is not a movie that you want to watch every week, in fact one vision lasts for few years, the same way you don't need to read War and Peace more than once every ten years, and this is probably the best analogy: Der Himmel über Berlin is a classic.
One more note: I enjoyed the remake (City of Angels), it was somewhat good, but it never actually crossed my mind that it was intended to be a remake of this one, so far are the two from each other. It is almost offensive that Der Himmel sold itself to Hollywood and was saccharined into a romantic comedy, but I suppose that money rules the world.
The Recruit (2003)
Dumb
I was greatly disappointed. The movie starts well, it is well photographed, there's room for Pacino to steal the stage in more than one occasion and there is a very consistent "tone" or "mood" throughout it. You really want it to take off and deliver. But it doesn't.
The more the plot is unfolding the thinner it becomes, like the tail of a rat. There is a major inconsistence (which I will not reveal but I commented on it on the message board) and at the end you remain with one question: "why was this movie made?" it does not have a meaning and the plot is so dumb that I found it insulting to intelligence.
Also, if you are offended (as I am) by statements like "there is good and evil in this world and we are the good" or "information sometimes is more important than human lives" then don't watch this movie: you'll get angry.
I'm Alan Partridge (1997)
What TV should be, and a pity is so unknown outside the UK
There is an unmatched concordance among the user comments on defining this series "brilliant". It is mitigated by the fact that almost all the comments come from the UK, so let me add two voices not from the British Isles.
My girlfriend and I (she's American, I am Italian) both think that this is not only brilliant, it is really the work of genius. The writers, assisted by an exceptional set of actors, did a fantastic job not only in providing genuine humour at every corner, but in studying costume and society and taking advantage of real situations.
This is not your typical sitcom. It is not an effort of a bunch of people that have to fabricate a show a week forever; it is instead the focused effort of three writers that sat down for months to produce six shows. You can feel this in the perfection and consistence of every detail, from the name of the son (Fernando, from Abba) to the picture of Jet from Gladiators (to host a millennium barn dance at Yeovil aerodrome, properly policed, it must not, repeat not, turn into an all-night rave) that Alan keeps in his room.