A bomber makes for about as heroic a protagonist as you might expect. There is no reason to put yourself through the plodding pretentiousness of _The Specialist_ unless you, like I was, are on some sort of quest to watch the entire 80s-90s Stallone filography.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

I reckon this might be my favourite effort from Michelle Williams as she plays the eponymous screen legend who arrives in the UK to play opposite Sir Laurence Olivier (Kenneth Branagh) in "The Prince and the Showgirl". Meantime, budding writer Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne) is desparate to get into the film industry and so has been doorstepping producer Hugh Perceval (Michael Kitchen) for ages. Eventually, he gets a foot in the door the a chance introduction to Sir Larry leads to another one with Monroe and soon young Clark finds himself tasked with keeping this increasingly flaky woman on message as it's fair to say that her methods are not quite as rigorous or disciplined as those of her co-star. If you've seen the 1957 film, you'll know that it possibly isn't anyone's finest hour - except, perhaps, for Dame Sybil Thorndyke who here portrayed by Dame Judi Dench offers the American visitor some semblance of understanding and tolerance as tempers fray and the relationship between Colin and Marilyn starts to intensify. The narrative is based on Clark's two books on the subject, so it does offer us quite an authentic and sensitive insight into just how that one week padded out; how these contrasting personalities and their working practices struggled to reconcile and Williams looks entirely comfortable as the troubled actress as does the uncannily made-up Branagh as an Olivier all too used to getting his own way. Redmayne makes surprisingly little impact - perhaps because his character must remain objective as a narrator and not unsurprisingly Clark wasn't keen on embellishing his own role - intimate or not - with Monroe. Both she and Olivier are fascination creatures in cinema history and this biopic presents us with a glimpse of just how creative clashes can result in a positive spark.

Liked this one a bit more than the last time I saw it, a bit slow at times but, at least compared with Part III, better characters, but has some good and gnarly kills (one in particular when Jason comes out of the water). The biggest knock is the bad editing (one scene has Jason killing Crispin Glover in the kitchen and later the girl Glover slept with in the bedroom before a shot back in the kitchen) and poor continuity (the appearance of the family's dog was most noticeable). However, still found this entry entertaining enough. **3.25/5**

***Another entertaining sequel, better than Part III***
The first two films are serious in nature with the expected antics of youths at camp, but the franchise introduced a campy element with Part III, which pretty much plagued the rest of the series until the reboot in 2009.
Released in 1984, "Part IV: The Final Chapter" is an exception as it thankfully omits the cartoonish elements of "Part III" and serves up another take on the same basic story. This time several youths go out to their parents' vacation home on Crystal Lake to party where they meet the sister & brother from a nearby house, Trish & Tommy Jarvis (Kimberly Beck and Corey Feldman). Then Jason attacks! There’s also someone at the lake hunting Jason for vengeance.
Like Part III, this film was shot on the West Coast instead of the East Coast, specifically Santa Clarita, CA, and nearby Topanga Canyon, which is 30 minutes south of Santa Clarita, as well as Zaca lake, about 150 miles northwest. The geography is obviously dryer and an all-around contrast to the first two films, but this won’t matter to most viewers.
As usual, the film features a nice assortment of females. This time out, there are no "minorities" like the previous movie; the ladies consist of five white girls and a winsome petite mother. Trish is my favorite, the best heroine yet (until the next film that is), followed by Samantha; but they all have their points of interest.
BOTTOM LINE: Despite its title, Part IV is far from the "Final Chapter." There would be four more sequels before the 80s even ran out! In any case, this is another entertaining segment in the series with a fresh assortment of characters and a new female protagonist. This sequel is notable for introducing the character of Tommy Jarvis and hinting at the lingering diabolic Voorhees spirit.
Like its predecessor, Part IV was shot in dry Southern Cal and Jason, with his iconic mask, is bigger and more imposing than in Part II. While the movie is a step up from Part III it's not as effective as the first two films, largely because of the uneventful mid-section and the rather lame portrayal of Jason in the last act, although his unmasked face is great.
The film runs 9l minutes and the uncut version 97 minutes.
GRADE: B-

Doesn't divert much from the formula of the first three films, but does add two new elements which I actually enjoyed. I am curious though, when they made this one, did they **actually** think that this was going to be the final chapter, or where they fully aware they were gonna keep beating that horse for decades to come?
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

You got the curse?
Well we all thought Jason was dead, as he is here taken to the morgue after being mortally killed... But of course he revives and sets about establishing that he is in fact an indestructible killing machine. I wouldn't want to be living near Camp Crystal Lake right now...
In truth it's a good old 1980s slasher pic, but that doesn't necessarily make it worthy to anyone outside of the hardiest of hardest Friday13th franchise fans. The kills and gore quotient are high, bloody and gooey, with the kills not lacking for invention, but plot formula is tired and weary. Crispin Glover makes for something of a curio appearance in the piece, whilst a young Corey Feldman rocks up for a bit of Damien Thorn channelling.
Some series fans love it whilst others abhor it. Question is? We know it wasn't to be the final chapter after all, so how does it hold up against the others that would follow it down the bloody intestine strewn path?

The documentary is good and the story telling is easy to follow but I felt that it was too artificially turned into a spying movie ... even when it is the closest to a real spying movie, but it doesn't have to recall fiction.
In any case, I think the positive reviews and the importance of the documentary is much more because of what Snowden had to say and tell us about US' NSA, not that much about the documentary itself.

It is one of those films that you really feel for the characters. Its story is very engaging, heartwarming and heartbreaking at the same time.
I heard a lot about this film before. People kept saying it was one of the best films they have ever seen. While I cannot say the same, it is certainly a film I am glad to have seen now.
Would I watch it again? Probably not, wouldn’t want to stress myself that much again. Would I make my friends watch it? Yes to that.

Nothing. Something. Anything. Meh.
I think I understand why so many people are into this film, and I do understand why it's so influential. The thing is, I'm not sure I care about any of that.
Yeah, surrealism. So it's something. Or it's not something. Or it's anything. Or really, it's nothing. To me, it's meh. It's not bad, and I can't say it was nearly a waste of my time. Coming in at just over a quarter of an hour, I've spent longer watching the last two minutes of a basketball game when I didn't even care about who won.
While I don't think it was a waste of my time, it didn't really add anything to my day, either. Maybe I'll have to come back and review this if the film sticks with me, but I can't imagine this will do so. It's not my first experience with surrealism, and I'm certainly not the type to ponder of the concept for hours, especially not recently. I'd also argue that this film does nothing to provoke thought on its own. It might be a guiding point to long sessions of thought regarding existence and meaning, but I'm not sure how many people would get there without reading up on the film and surrealism at the least.
So, ultimately, meh.

Fruitvale Station is the heartbreaking story of Oscar Grant’s unjust murder by the hands of law enforcement. It is impossible to talk about this film without discussing the landscape of America today. This film was released in 2013, the murder occurred in 2009, and yet this same exact story is flashed on our timelines on a monthly basis. Nothing has changed. It is sick and disgusting that we live in a country where police can brutalize American citizens without any repercussions. We need change! For Oscar Grant, for George Floyd, for Breonna Taylor, for every American who has been murdered by the officers sworn to protect us…
As for the movie, Ryan Coogler handled this topic beautifully, showcasing the life of Oscar Grant and the beautiful aspects of his family, friends, and personality. It was paced well, allowing the audience to form a deep bond with Grant, which makes the ending all the more tragic. There is fantastic cinematography and amazing performances from the entire cast. Michael B Jordan is superb, giving an incredibly nuanced performance by having a rough and manly exterior with a soft and kind inside. His drive to good for his family is shown by not only his actions but by his facial expressions when he interacts with his daughter. It was stellar. The emotional scenes are impactful, and they linger for an uncomfortable period of time, letting the gravity of what occurred sit with you.
Overall, no matter how great this film is, it should have never needed to be made and that is the true tragedy of Fruitvale Station.
Score: 81% |
Verdict: Great

A very good film about an upsetting true event.
Michael B. Jordan (Oscar) nails it in the lead role, he gives an impressive portrayal. There are a few other good performances, the most notable to me being from the excellent Octavia Spencer (Wanda) - yet to see a bad showing from her. Melonie Diaz (Sophina) is notable, too.
The story is told in a straightforward but still highly meaningful way, there are a couple of times where you could argue it's too on the nose but even then it still gave me that dreadful feeling in the pit of my stomach. The ending, meanwhile, is tough to forget due to Spencer's performance.
'Fruitvale Station' is well worth a watch.

I never saw its teaser, nor read its synopsis, but straight went to see it. And I kind of not satisfied for the first hour of the movie. I just wondered what was the movies' idea to fulfill the viewer's desire. Right away I knew it was not an entertainer, then it must highlight something or give a message. Till the beginning of the end, I thought the same way. Then my perspective changed, actually it changed my previous stance about all the earlier narration.
**''I know y'all are upset, but got to lift him up.
Let's keep him lifted up.''**
After witnessing the crucial last scene, I was stunned by the incident that was portrayed in the movie. Realized all the initial developments were got meaning in this part of the movie. So I came to know it was based on the real incident. First of all it was not a person's whole biography, though it is told from his critical time of life. The incident can be viewed in two ways. The fight definitely took place on the sub-way, it was not the Oscar Grant's (lead man) fault. But still the consequences are expected, especially on the new year's eve the alert against violence cannot be negligible by the law. But, what cops did was the over reaction to the situation.
Such incidents happen in every country and many of them won't come into the lights. I'm glad about this movie, because it kind of creates awareness of such events. Hats off to all the cast and crew who brought it into the silver screen and now the whole world can know the truth. A must see movie among the 2013 releases.

So amidst a child custody battle, “Karla” (Halle Berry) takes her young son “Frankie” (Sage Correa) to the park for some fun. Whilst she takes an important phone call he gets snatched and she only just manages to see him squashed into a car. She quickly sets off in pursuit and for the next ninety minutes we follow her most unlikely chase. Unfortunately, she dropped her phone in the car park so has no way to summon help. Is it her disgruntled ex who is behind this? Is it maybe just someone on the production trying to save the kid from more screen time than absolutely necessary? Well mom ain’t giving up as they leave the city heading who knows where. She does manage at one stage to force a confrontation and is told that for $10k she can have him back, but that part of the storyline is so completely ridiculous that again you begin to wonder just what made Berry see anything worth doing in this increasingly preposterous film. To be fair to it’s star, she does imbue her character with a degree of panic and desperation as the thing moves along, but the scenarios are just plain ridiculous and serendipitous to be taken seriously on just about any other level. Maybe wouldn’t mess with her wielding a shovel, though,

**It's now or never! A mother's fight back!**
Truly shocking for people blindly following the words of critics. This is really a good film. I totally enjoyed it. Well, it was not like I never saw such film. In a century of motion picture history, hundreds of similar films were made. This is just another one, but there's nothing wrong with it. People wrongly judged it. The pace of the film was rocket speed. So basically, there's no time for one to keep looking for flaws. If they do, then they're not enjoying the show. They missed out everything, hence end up bashing it. Just like the clowns, aka film critics.
It was another kidnap film that Halle Barry in it, that's similar to her previous film 'The Call'. It did not take long to get into the action. A hardworking mother, going through divorce, fighting for her son's custody. While engaging in a phone call, she loses her son in an amusement park. The alert mother quickly jumps into pursuing when he was seen forcefully taken in a stranger's car. The remaining events take place on the road, with car chases, with a twist before the conclusion.
Nicely written screenplay and well performed actors, particularly Halle Berry. I have never seen she had played such an energetic role in the recent time. Whatever the storyline is, it's kind of an inspiring film. How a mother fought for her son. Totally a mother instinct. You can't simply expect like the film 'Taken'. It might not be realistic, but cinematically honest. The same thing happens in the animal world too. Sad that the film released after so many delays. Moreover, how people responded to it. Believe me, it is a nice film and I definitely suggest it to all.
_8/10_

Poorly crafted and pretty predictable, I do wonder how Halle Berry got to making movies like _Kidnap_. It's not awful, but it's obviously low-budget, and there's nothing to it that I can really see as being appealing beyond the paycheque.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

I'm not sure if Stephen Frears was really just trying to kick-start the Tony Blair fan club when he made this highly speculative and frankly rather unkind feature about how Queen Elizabeth II (Helen Mirren) - and, to an extent, her family - dealt with the aftermath of the death of the divorced Princess of Wales in Paris. Mr Blair (Michael Shannon) has only just been elected and together with his pretty openly hostile (to the monarchy) wife Cherie (Helen McCrory) heads to the palace for his appointment audience. When the tragedy does ensue, the Royal Family are at Balmoral in Aberdeenshire and the remainder of this film - intercut with occassional news actuality - postulates on just how the relationship between the prime minister and his Sovereign might have played out in the face of the growing and totally irrational public outpourings of grief and frustrations following the accident. Mirren and Shannon are both on great form here and even if the former is more of a mimic than an actress with this part, she still imbues enough characterisation for us to accept the plausibility that this might just have been the response of the actual Queen Elizabeth. It's beautifully shot and it was nice to see Sylvia Syms on screen again, albeit briefly and again, rather unsympathetically. I can't help but wonder how much of this has become the gospel in many people's eyes as to just how things did happen back in 1997. Somehow, I very much doubt it - but it's interesting to watch nonetheless.

Steven Spielberg took the helm for this rather classy, if very wordy, depiction of the celebrated legal battle that resulted from the mutiny of slaves aboard a Spanish ship in the late 1830s. A timely intervention from the US Navy rescued some of the crew, but then subjected the erstwhile cargo to an humiliating and debase battle for their "ownership". Roger Baldwin (Matthew McConaughey) takes up the cudgels on their behalf - at no small risk to himself, and with the assistance of former US President John Quincy Adams (Sir Anthony Hopkins) takes this principle all the way to the Supreme Court. It is most bizarre to watch this and even begin to contemplate a society in which the concept of one person, business, or nation claiming the possession of a human being is actually being discussed by rational people in a court of law, but here we have it. The film looks great, plenty of attention to the detail with the costumes and the sets but there is far too much incidental dialogue and the pace of the story seems more intent of delivering a story of epic length rather than meaningful drama. Sir Anthony delivers well in the last fifteen minutes with a most potent piece of oratory; this is probably the best effort we have yet seen from McConaughey and there are strong supporting roles from Sir Nigel Hawthorne (Van Buren); an impressive Djimon Hounsou - who has no English dialogue - as the leader of the incarcerated and Morgan Freeman also delivers well as he tries to facilitate the freedom and potential repatriation of these people back to modern day Sierra Leone. The moral and ethical issues here are writ large and presented in a well crafted, poignant and sometimes quite brutal fashion that make this a decent, if not great, film to watch.

I think it's good.
To me, 'The Santa Clause 2' runs the original film very close. I found the plot to this one more consistently enjoyable, whereas the first one starts off stronger than it finishes - I'd still class the 1994 production better, but this is a solid sequel in my opinion.
Tim Allen reprises his role as Scott and continues to be showpiece of the film. Elizabeth Mitchell is decent as Carol, while Spencer Breslin - who is good in 'The Cat in the Hat', and yes I like that film - fits his character well. My point being, this has a slightly improved support cast.
Going back to the premise itself, it's nothing to take seriously of course but I felt suitably entertained by it. Intrigued to see where the second sequel goes.

There are even very FEW Christians and Conservatives (with the exception of Ned Flanders) that actually enjoy Christian and Conservative movies... or at least Christian movies.
There are a lot of exceptions with Conservative films, Dirty Harry, Red Dawn, they can be fun.
But Christian Films... MAYBE The Passion of the Christ, The Bible miniseries, Mysteries of the Bible if that actually counts....
... Movies like this are the reason. Nicolas Cage was once a big star and oh the mighty fall, now he's in a remake of Left Behind that, honestly, I only watched to rip into, I walked into it with low expectations of Fx that wouldn't look cutting edge in the 70s, of acting that is both too earnest and too forced (and that is without Cage) to look naturalistic. Audio quality that...
... yeah, OK, shockingly the audio quality was a step above most Christian movies.
In other words, it stinks, you know it's going to stink because movies like this are more about the message than they are about the entertainment.
But... that was 2014 and, as Hollywood piles quota onto quota and demands that creators hit check marks that have nothing to do with the story, I suspect that it will change soon... my guess is that people that want to make entertaining films are going to gravitate towards this genre, towards low budget outside of Hollywood fare, towards whomever is offering up the money and is willing to allow them to make a film they want to make and not a political propaganda film.
It was made in 2014, and like all the other movies in this genre it sucks. But Hollywood is working on changing that and forcing talent out... and the people that funded Left Behind will jump at the chance of getting actual talent behind their projects.

**Do yourself a favor and watch the other one**
Easily the worst copycat of this story. The script holds more atheism than Bible and doesn't even attempt to discuss God in any meaningful way. Also, the characters - just about all of them - react unrealistically and wander about aimlessly in contrived "panic". Not a good film.

I have to confess that I bought this movie a bit on a whim and my purchase decision was mostly based on the fact that Nicolas Cage was in it. That was a mistake! I should have done a wee bit more research before wasting my money. I did not really have any hopes that it would be a great movie but I at least hoped that it would be a somewhat decent disaster / apocalypse movie. Sadly, it is nothing of the kind.
This time I have to side with the people trashing this movie, even the so called “critics” at Rotten Tomatoes. This is a bad movie. It could have been a half decent movie. The basic idea is perhaps not super original but it could have been made to work. However, it is simply loaded with religious bullshit. Once you filter out said bullshit, which is bloody difficult since you are more or less force fed it during most of the movie, there is really nothing left.
The behavior of people are bizarre to say the least. The dialogue is mostly nonsensical. The movies attempt at putting different and original characters, including an obnoxious dwarf, on the plane is feeble. The action and special effects are generally lousy and the attempts to put some thrill and drama into the landing of the plane is laughable. Come on, you see a plane coming, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that it has no pilot and is flying in a straight line. You are over the Atlantic, a minor course change would have done the job and there was plenty of time. But nooo, the idiot script writer had Cage fly in a straight line like a chicken race until it was too late. And do not get me started on the stupidity of having someone driving down a stretch of highway in a pickup truck knocking over plastic cones to “clear it for landing”.
The only reason this movie gets any stars at all is because I do like Nicolas Cage even in a lousy movie like this.

**Perhaps some mild spoilers**
1/3 of the way through and so far it's rather annoying. Ridiculous dialog, unrealistic feel and cliche stuff that copies recent successful shows/movies. I'll finish it later but I'm not expecting much. OK...finished it! It actually ends up better than it started. I think it could have been vastly improved with a few changes. It tries too hard in places and a few of the characters were unrealistic or maybe the acting was just bad. The dad was acted poorly and the neighbor girl was too old and unbelievable. She seemed like some 25-year-old Playboy Bunny crushing on the nerdy kid she used to babysit. There is no universe in the multiverse where this would happen. All that said, the conclusion was pretty good and obviously opens it up for a sequel at some point. I really thought the it was setting up for a giant twist where the guy who you thought was the killer was innocent and the real killer was the hot neighbor girl. That would have explained her unhealthy obsession with the boy next door. 6/10.

A very pleasant surprise. It was hardcore derivative, but that didn't stop me from enjoying it. Even if it had, there is **nothing** old hat about that ending.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

This film is very dreamy and has a 2001 feel. The story is romantic and lends itself to an inevitable doom. The music is intertwined beautifully and the acting is phenomenal.

**It is an excellent film, even if I disagree with the thesis on which it was made.**
In the period between the two world wars, the world tried to make sure that there was never again something as destructive and traumatic as the First World War. However, such decisions, very commendable but chimerical and contrary to human nature, failed, as we know: the Second World War will occur just a few years later, almost as a direct consequence of the mismanagement of peace, so hard achieved. However, the UK (and other countries) sought to avoid the new conflict by choosing to ignore everything that was happening in Germany: price inflation, the brutal economic crisis, popular dissatisfaction, the rise of Nazi radicalism and an increasingly brutal, extreme and violent rhetoric.
Lord Darlington, the central figure of this film, is the archetype of a well-bred and intelligent British political class, deeply traumatized by the First World War and more than determined to avoid another one like it. Stanley Baldwin, Neville Chamberlain and a number of other politicians thought alike and sought, by various means, to appease and reach an agreement with Hitler, after which they were heavily criticized for the way in which they did so. Honestly, I can't criticize them. Only those who have never experienced a war can afford not to try to prevent another one from happening in every way, however justifiable and even laudable the reasons behind it may be. Therefore, here begins the fundamental disagreement between the way I think and the way this film was thought and conceived.
Many, in fact, would think that the butler of Darlington Hall is the key figure in this film. Indeed, he is the protagonist and the main character, impeccably played by the always secure Sir Anthony Hopkins. However, this character's actions and thoughts are strictly determined by her canine loyalty to her aristocratic lord, and the house where he serves. So if His Lordship thinks a certain way, he must be right. And although the film criticizes this loyalty and lack of moral and intellectual independence, I prefer to refrain from doing so. Like Lord Darlington, I also have people who serve me, and I learned to appreciate and value that devoted loyalty, not least because we cannot, nowadays, put anyone to serve inside our homes. Loyalty, honesty, respect and good understanding between servant and master are, more than any contract or payment, the basis of a good relationship in such a situation.
In addition to Sir Anthony Hopkins, the film features an excellent work by Dame Emma Thompson, who makes a good counterpoint with the butler: if one is reason and traditionalism, the other is innovation, breaking conventions, emotion. Therefore, they complement each other and create a good friendship, despite being very different and often not agreeing. The film takes a nice approach to this relationship, making the subplot between the two a highly important point in the overall story. The film also features good interpretations by James Fox, Christopher Reeve and Hugh Grant.
On a more technical level, we must highlight the choice of filming locations, which built a fictional Darlington Hall from some of the most beautiful and significant English manor houses, which makes the film an authentic tour of these unique pieces of heritage and culture. Inside some of them, you can still feel the British spirit, with its chivalry, sobriety and stoicism. Cinematography is the standard used in 1993 and does not bring any surprises, although the camera work deserves a positive note. The sets, and especially the costumes and props, deserve to be carefully looked for the way they recreate the period. The soundtrack is another point that also deserves to be highlighted, being emotional and striking without imposing itself in a strident way.

This is one of Anthony Hopkins' most nuanced and classy performances, depicting the last of a dying breed of upper servants in the stately home of "Lord Darlington" (James Fox). It's told by way of a retrospective as he takes some time off from his work as butler to American millionaire "Lewis" (Christopher Reeve) and goes for a drive to meet the former housekeeper "Miss Kenton" (Emma Thompson). The theme has two threads. The first concerning the peer for whom he worked for a great period of his career. This is a man who believed in what turned out to be a flawed gentlemen's code of honour and decency when it came to dealing with the rise of the Nazis. The second featured a more personal take on his life, reconciling his duties with the failing health of his now under-butler father (Peter Vaughan) as well as his relationship with a determined and new "Kenton". The attention to detail on this production is meticulous; the characterisations are convincing and engaging - the unconditional loyalty of "Stevens"; the decent naivety of "Darlington" and finally, the strong performance from Thompson that acts nicely as a conduit from the days of old to the more modern times where the deference and service culture that gave "Stevens" his purpose (and comfort blanket) are now gone. This story offers a wonderful illustration of the how the consequences of WWI started the now inevitable process of change to a social structure that had endured for centuries, exposing the leadership class - which took such a dim view of their underling "sheep" as out of touch and, for all their education, no longer fit for purpose: any purpose! It's a gently paced affair and that helps us to engage with this fine adaptation of the Ishiguro novel that, though applied here to the last days of Imperial Britain, could apply to many a nation in what was still a largely family run Europe.

A recent survey asserted that the English had the sexiest accents in the world. Perhaps not exactly the sort of recognition "Prof. Henry Higgins" (Rex Harrison) was seeking when, exasperated by the standards of his native language being spoken around London, he plucks poor "Eliza" (Audrey Hepburn") from her flower-selling and promises his equally plummy friend "Col. Pickering" (Wilfred Hyde-White) that he can train her to pass in more refined society as a Duchess. Despite her initially raucous protestations - exemplifying his very point, the two lock in a battle of wills that ultimately challenges both of their opinions of each other, and dare we even suspect - engenders perhaps some respect... or more...? Oscar, BAFTA & Golden Globe winning Harrison is superb as the jovially pompous professor whose disdain for just about everything and everyone is writ large, Hepburn (with a lot of musical assistance from Marni Nixon) manages the transformation from "gutter snipe" to "toff" magnificently and there are some wonderfully characterful contributions from Stanley Holloway as her (rather venal) father; from Gladys Cooper as his rather astute mother and of course the arbiter of all things elocutionary - "Prof. Karpathy" (Theodore Bikel) who famously concludes that our poor "Eliza" is Hungarian! George Cukor has worked his magic well here with a superbly colourful, pithy and engaging adaptation of the original Shaw story and the score from Lerner and Loewe offers us some of the best rhyming lyrics ever put on paper: "Why Can't The English" and "I could have Danced All Night" being two particular favourites as well as Holloway's cracking "I'm Getting Married in the Morning". In a time of much more in-your-face politically correct dramatisations, I think folks could take a look at this cleverly constructed swipe at intellectual and sexual "superiority" and see the best man win - even if she isn't a man...

**A film with a lot of quality, but also with some mistakes that are difficult to forgive.**
This is one of those films that I heard a lot about before I actually decided to sit down and watch it. It is considered by many to be one of the greatest musicals of all time, and I can agree that it is really very good and deserves this award. However, it was not entirely to my liking, as I will have the chance to explain.
Heavily inspired by the classic story of Pygmalion, the script takes us to the early years of the 20th century to meet a boastful linguist called Prof. Henry Higgins. He is an expert in languages and diction, and is fully convinced that the majority of British people do not know how to speak their language correctly (my question is whether there are, in any country, that many people who value their mother tongue). And to prove the usefulness of this domain, he decides to take a very simple and popular woman, the flower seller Eliza, into his own home and train her like a dog. When it's all over, he effectively achieved a big change in that girl, both in terms of speech and behavior, as well as in terms of mentality and life expectations.
This leads me to talk about what bothers me most: the way that annoying and presumptuous character decides to use another person for his purposes without thinking about that. Higgins is a selfish and egoic man, as well as being clearly misogynistic and thinking he has the power to mold people to his liking. In addition, the script confuses different things: knowing how to speak well and knowing how to behave in society. I can know how to speak my language in the most perfect way and not know the rules I should follow at a social ball or gala dinner. They are different things. The issue is addressed in the Ascott scenes, but we are left without knowing how Eliza learned to behave from then on.
On a technical level, the film is incredible. It seeks to adapt a Broadway musical, but it also draws a lot of inspiration from an older film, from the 30s. Thus, it has excellent melodies and songs, the same as the original musical. Unfortunately, the actors barely sing a syllable: they were sung by professionals off-stage, in a bad decision by the producers that greatly upset Audrey Hepburn herself. Another flaw is the confusion in the period conception: the film takes place in 1911 or 1912, but there is a wide range of later props and a moment in which the English king is not the one who actually reigned at the time. The film largely compensates for these flaws with excellent cinematography, very well framed and bright, full of vibrant and intense colors (note: I saw the restored version of the film), and with incredible costumes, particularly those made for Hepburn, and which still have a place today in private collections and museums: I think one of her costumes was auctioned off for a fortune a few years ago.
The cast has several important actors. Audrey Hepburn brilliantly assumes the role of Eliza, which had previously been played by Julie Andrews on Broadway, and takes advantage of this opportunity to clearly demonstrate her talent. However, I feel that the film doesn't take full advantage of the actress' potential and doesn't give her the space to give her all. Thus restrained, Hepburn does what she can, but fans will be able to see her in much better shape in other films. The one who dominates the scene the most is Rex Harrison: the actor exudes talent and seems perfectly suited for the character that, in fact, he had played on Broadway for a few years. We cannot forget the contributions of Stanley Holloway and Jeremy Brett, who do a very good job on underutilized characters.

The difference between a lady and a flower girl is not how she behaves, but how she is treated.
Upper crust phonetics Professor Henry Higgins (Rex Harrison) agrees to a wager that he can make brash London speaking flower girl Eliza Doolittle (Audrey Hepburn) presentable in high society.
Lerner and Loewe's Broadway version of George Bernard Shaw's play "Pygmalion" comes to the big screen and is an utter joy. A winner of 8 well deserved Oscars, pic boasts top line performances, songs that either gladden or melt the heart, gorgeous costumes (Cecil Beaton) and in director George Cukor the venture had a man who knew how to blend together the theatrical with the core basics of human interactions.
Julie Andrews had played Eliza Doolittle on the stage and it was something of a sore point to many that Hepburn got the gig for this filmic version. It really doesn't matter, Andrews went off and made another ode to joy in "Mary Poppins", while here Hepburn (dubbed by the wonderful Marni Nixon for the musical numbers) absolutely lights up the screen by being funny, heart warming and simply gorgeous in equal measures.
Not for everyone of course, it asks for a lot of patience since it runs at 170 minutes, while some back story issues (which I care not a jot to write about) irk others. Yet to me this is never one where I find myself looking at the clock, I'm too busy tapping my feet and being beguiled by it all. If you buy into it the first time you ever watch it? then you will find it's a love that lasts forever. Bloomin Loverly! 9/10

**Essay on Sleepiness.**
When I decided to see this film, I did it for three reasons: the first is the participation of Bruno Ganz, a German actor that I appreciate and that I started to like after seeing him do excellent work in other films such as “The Fall”; the second is the enormous consideration in which this film has been held by a very high number of distinguished critics and specialists; the third is the fact that it's the first West German film I've seen in my life (as far as I know and that I'm aware of).
The script, however, couldn't be more tasteless than it turns out to be: the film begins with the turns and wanderings of two angels through the streets and places of West Berlin, observing people's daily lives. Damiel and Cassiel, each in their own way, are interested in human beings. They cannot be seen, except for children, and for a single individual who manages to talk to them, and one of them ends up deciding to become a human being and live a mortal life, on Earth, after falling in love with a woman. circus trapeze artist.
In fact, there is no lack of television or literary material about angels who fall in love with humans or who, for other reasons, give up their angelic life and become humans. It seems that there is, among us, a desire to humanize these creatures. In the wake of all this, the film makes a series of philosophical and metaphysical considerations that will only truly interest philosophers, or theologians, or writers in general. Wim Wenders is a director who appreciates this type of ultra-intellectual cinema, made for artistic cycles and festivals, never for the general public, who find it a good substitute for sleeping pills. Personally, I don't like this type of cinema, even though I recognize its artistic merit.
Bruno Ganz, on his journey, awakens to the beauty of humanity in an elegant way that borders on poetry. He sees beauty in the most trivial things, which we usually don't, not without an extreme artistic sensitivity that the common individual rarely cultivates. The actor couldn't be more competent in the work he does, and is skilfully assisted by Otto Sander, who has another angelic role. Solveig Dommartin and Peter Falk are also very good additions, with time to show value.
The problem with this film is really the excessively slow and cold way in which it unfolds and gradually exposes itself. The pace of the film is so slow that it becomes boring, and I confess that I didn't pay much attention to the permanent monologues. Things improve a lot when Falk enters the scene, giving movement to a bloodless and soporific plot. The closing credits, in German expressionist style, make a direct allusion to the cinematographic past of the city, and of the country, something that Wenders may have done as a tribute, or asserting himself as a continuer of the legacy of the past (which is not as modest as the first idea). Almost the entire film is shot in black-and-white, with cinematography that is very well achieved and worthy of merit. Colors are introduced later, becoming more associated with humanity, that is, with the way we see the world we live in. Original, well thought out. The film does not have a great soundtrack, betting more on monologues and very boring dialogues. Furthermore, the film is practically a city tour of West Berlin, a metropolis that has changed radically in recent years, as we know. The wall is there, even though it was purposely built for the movie and is not the real thing.