I just knew this was gonna have a high score on letterboxd. Yo, it's important, it's visionary, it's observable history, it's revolutionary for it's time, all that jazz. But guess what else? I don't for a minute believe those people actually went to the moon.
Should still be required viewing for film classes though.
_Final rating:★★½ - Not quite for me, but I definitely get the appeal._

Infinite, starring Mark Wahlberg and directed by Antoine Fuqua, offers an intriguing premise about reincarnation and ancient rivalries but struggles to deliver a memorable experience. While the acting is serviceable—Wahlberg and Chiwetel Ejiofor bring energy to their roles—the characters lack depth, making it hard to connect with the story.
Visually, the movie has its moments, with solid action and effects, but the direction feels bland, and the pacing drags. The plot quickly becomes convoluted, relying too much on exposition rather than building organic intrigue. It’s watchable for the action, but ultimately forgettable and unlikely to warrant a rewatch. A decent one-time watch, but not much more.

This is one of those films that has a solution right from the get-go, as plain as the nose on your face that by the end, or maybe even the end of the beginning (as Churchill might have said) you would cheerfully have applied to yourself... Poor old "Evan" (Mark Wahlberg) has an amazing memory, but is constantly hassled by vivid hallucinations that are driving him towards a mental breakdown. Somehow, though, some semblance of sanity rears it's head leading "Evan" to wonder if is he part of a plan to destroy all of mankind, or is he part of the solution that may just save it from Chiwetel Ejiofor's "Bathurst 2020" (sadly, no, not the Aussie motor car race)? The plot itself is quite interesting, and the overlapping memories creating the terrifyingly unstable state of our hero could have made for a much better effort had director Antoine Fuqua not tried to cram far too much into 1¾ hours. The sacrifices to characterisation and detail, coupled with the relentlessness of the action scenes (that actually serve to sterilise the plot, somewhat) just leave us with way too many holes and a totally undercooked story. Wahlberg is well passed his best, and though Sophie Cookson tries hard as "Nora" the whole thing just gets lost in it's own maze of confusion and poorly adapted dialogue. Sadly another example of a film that threw money at the talent and the look, but scrimped on an intelligent screenplay.

Pretty good watch, could watch again, and can recommend.
I feel like I had a lot of problems with this movie. The concept is good, but not very cinematic, so it feels like they tried to add action to "Ad Astra". With Mark Wahlberg as the main protagonist, a lot of the movie, as I could think was "Somwon stohl mah teddy bwear" so that ruined the vibe a little.
A large part of it is that the story takes place over centuries if not millenia, so clearly that's not part of the movie, so we miss out on caring about who these immortals are as characters. You're sort of just told to care about them.
For at least part of the movie I identified with the villains more because their plan is actually laid out with some level of clarity and a surprising amount of reason: kill everyone and there is nowhere to resurrect.
Sort of a fun interpretation of "When your enemy goes to ground, leave no ground to go to.".
Ultimately this is a high end cast, with plenty of money behind the production, so it looks good, and has an interesting concept, but just sort of falls flat on the execution. I just never really cared about the characters.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
I really appreciate Antoine Fuqua's career as a director. From the beloved classic Training Day to the highly entertaining The Equalizer films, Fuqua has demonstrated skillful handling of action sequences. As expected, Infinite delivers several fighting scenes and car chases, mostly riveting and quite enjoyable. The third act gets extremely over-the-top concerning the action set pieces, which are only tolerable due to a special yet underdeveloped character trait that ultimately justifies the more absurd moments. Mauro Fiore's camera work and Conrad Buff IV's editing are decent enough, but the last act features too much shaky cam and excessive cuts for my taste.
Story-wise, that's where things get tricky. Ian Shorr's screenplay boasts a genuinely interesting premise with exciting world-building to support it. However, the tiresome voice-over from Mark Wahlberg - who offers a good performance just as the rest of the cast - holds heavy exposition that's then repeated in dialogues across the movie, stretching the runtime unnecessarily. This narration rarely adds anything relevant to the story or impacts the viewer's opinion about the protagonist.
In addition to this, it's one of those films that carries tremendous storytelling potential but never reaches it. Personally, I truly find the concept intriguing, but its development doesn't leave the base of its premise. In fact, just by watching the main trailer, most of the world-building is given to the audience in those few minutes. Honestly, in better hands, this movie could have been the beginning of a new franchise with infinite - no pun intended- possibilities to make sequels, prequels, spin-offs, or even trigger the start of a TV show.
As it is, Infinite is nothing more than an inoffensively entertaining flick that could have been much, much better.
Rating: C

Dazzling Björk in this indictment against the death sentence, in tight close-ups. This film is a UFO, musical without being.

> Just not my cup of tea.
I have seen the first part and I don't remember I felt the same way as I did for this. My point is, this film is for women and maybe that including the gays. Being a straight male, I find it's not fun or entertaining, but I felt it pulled me further away as the movie progressed without balancing the content as a product for everyone.
I know, no one asked my opinion. I respect the movie, at least it aimed for a certain section of the audiences. The road trip was fine to me, except the music and the dance parts. Thankfully, there's no nudity, except once, but still an R rated movie for strong sexual appeal.
Whatever the theme was about, I expected a good story. But it was a lot like a documentary. No focus on any particular characters, but Channing Tatum was in a prime position. No development either in the story other than a group that embark a road trip to participate in a competition. Nothing anything like the first film, kind of detached from afar.
So I won't expect you to feel as the way I did on this, but you could consider my points and can judge whether want to watch it. Still, I'm not suggesting to boycott the film. I'm neutral, and all I'm saying is that it did not impress me, but it might you, especially if you are a woman.
4/10

Decent watch, probably won't watch again, and can't recommend unless you're pregnant (or part of a couple with pregnancy).
It's one of those movies where it is 4-5 stories that barely (if at all) overlap, but have some thematic connection to one another.
I honestly think it's a great way to use celebrities to comprehensively cover the contents of the book of the same name.
This is (clearly) targeted at pregnant women and expecting parents, and I think it does a good job of that.
I don't think it does as great a job creating a decent narrative for general audiences.

**A magnificent "noir" with great actors, which was unlucky at the awards, and was immortalized by the public, surviving fresh to this day.**
I've previously had the opportunity to mention that I really like noir films, and this is another one that I had the pleasure of seeing and will save for occasional rewatches. Based on a good detective novel, the film is extremely intelligent, dark and well articulated. Made in 1944, still during the Second World War, it was nominated the following year for seven Oscars (Best Film, Best Director, Best Actress, Best Screenplay, Best Sound, Best Black-and-White Cinematography and Best Original Soundtrack for Comedy or Drama). I naturally wasn't alive at the time, but I imagine it was one of the favorite films at that year's awards gala. Interestingly, and not without injustice, it lost them all.
Directed in a very intelligent and effective way by Billy Wilder (who was one of the great directors of Hollywood's golden era), the film has excellent cinematography, with magnificent clarity and play of light that takes advantage of the sun, shutters and other forms of soften the brightness when necessary. The soundtrack, by Miklós Rózsa, is very well-used and atmospheric. The script is excellent and was based on a very good dramatic story: an insurance agent is seduced by a woman and then tricked into helping her kill her husband and receive the money from a huge accident insurance policy. It turns out that insurance companies can be more meticulous than the police and, while the authorities are satisfied with an “accident”, some elements of the company are not uninterested in the matter. Could it have been better? Perhaps if the man's death was more nebulous and the perpetrator was not evident.
Fred MacMurray had, in this film, the opportunity to give the greatest performance of his entire film career. Despite being a good actor and having participated in more projects, it was this film that immortalized him and meant that his name did not disappear completely. It's not a perfect performance, the actor is a little too theatrical at times, but it worked great. The role of the femme fatale was masterfully played by Barbara Stanwick, another great actress who deserves applause for the work developed here. In addition to being very beautiful, she gave the character an aura of perfidy and callousness, and had an exceptional rapport with MacMurray, full of tension and restrained desire. Despite being away from the spotlight, the secondary cast does a competent job: the efforts of Edward G. Robinson and Jean Heather deserve to be highlighted.

So poor old Tom Powers is married to the cold and calculating "Phyllis" (Barbara Stanwyck). When she starts to have an affair with his charismatic insurance broker "Walter" (Fred MacMurray) the two alight on a cunning plan to dispose of him and to claim the life insurance money. Being in the know about these things, "Walter" figures out a way in which they can double the payout. With their hands still rubbing together, the man's body is found on a railway track and when the police believe it accidental, the cash rolls in. All looks good until one of his colleagues "Keyes" (Edward G. Robinson) smells a rat - and he starts to stick his very sensitive nose in. I always felt Barbara Stanwyck was a very under-rated actress - she is terrific here, as is the under-stated Robinson. Even the usually unremarkable MacMurray turns in an strong performance as Billy Wilder, with some great intense photography and wonderfully potent dialogue pulls the threads of this clever and menacing drama together. The always reliable Miklós Rósza creates a score that really works well with the accumulating tension as we head towards a denouement that keeps us on our toes right til the end. This is a great film.

Very well done film noir from the 1940s with great performances by Fred MacMurray, Barbara Stanwyck and Edward G. Robinson along with good photography and direction from Billy Wilder. I've seen this one before but it's been at least 20 years though coincidentally, a scene from this was in a movie I recently watched (another re-watch) in Femme Fatale. **4.5/5**

Perhaps the single best example of a film noir movie, _Double Indemnity_ (1944), stars Fred MacMurray, Barbara Stanwyck, and Edward G. Robinson. Based on a novel written by James Cain, the screenplay was co-written by Billy Wilder and the amazing Raymond Chandler.
Set in 1938 California, the story is based on the true-life 1927 murder of a married Queens, New York woman's husband who was killed by the woman's boyfriend after she took out a large insurance policy that contained a double-indemnity clause. In this movie, Phyllis Dietrichson (played by Stanwyck) takes out a life insurance policy on her husband with the help of insurance salesman-soon-to-be-turned-murderer Walter Neff (played by MacMurray). Robinson plays Barton Keyes, Neff's co-worker and a very suspicious claims adjuster who suspects Phyllis Dietrichson might have had something to do with her husband's sudden death.
This movie is an hour and forty-seven minutes of pure movie love. The film was nominated for seven Academy Awards [Best Picture, Best Actress in a Leading Role (Barbara Stanwyck), Best Director, Best Writing-Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Sound Recording, and Best Music (Scoring of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture)], though it won none.

A banner movie from film noir's classic era.
Double Indemnity is directed by Billy Wilder and Wilder co-adapts the screenplay with Raymond Chandler from the novella written by James M. Cain. It stars Fred MacMurray, Barbara Stanwyck and Edward G. Robinson. Music is by Miklos Rozsa and cinematography by John F. Seitz.
For a film lover such as myself it feels redundant writing a review for Double Indemnity, because quite simply there's nothing to say that hasn't been said already. The esteem it is held in is justified, it's a razor sharp noir across the board and can be put up as one of the classic noir era pictures that got lovers of the form interested in the first place.
Based around the infamous Snyder/Gray case of 1927, Wilder and Chandler fill the story with a sinister cynicism that is palpable in the extreme. With a script positively pumped with hard boiled dialogue, a simple case of murder becomes so much more, a labyrinth of devious cunning and foolishness, with a trio of top performances crowning this topper.
Technically via aural and visual work the story gains extra spice. Rosza provides a score that frays the nerves, imbuing the sense of doom and edginess required for plotting. Seitz excels, the photography a trademark for noir, heavy shadows, abrupt camera angles and menacing shards of light come to the fore.
And to top it all off, it gets away with so much, a real censorship baiter. The story takes a journey to the dark side of morality, and the makers, bless them for they know what they do, gleefully tease the production code to give film noir fans a reason to rejoice.
Quintessential stuff. 10/10

It's definitely hard to pin down a personal favourite Wilder film, though I tend towards his earlier masterworks such as 'The Lost Weekend', 'Sunset Boulevard'...and THIS. He was one of the finest at getting straight through the bullshit and to the heart of all things noir (as the immortal Jean-Luc Godard stated, 'All I need to make a film is a man, a girl and a gun').
Barbara Stanwyck is one of my favourite actresses of the period, and is a classic 'femme fatale'. I've never been a huge fan of Fred MacMurray, but his 'nice guy' persona is used to sheer advantage by Wilder, and he end up both doing his finest work for Wilder (here and in 'The Apartment') and being the ultimate noir male protagonist. Interestingly, one of my favourite actors, Edward G. Robinson, thought so much of the script that he opted out of his demand of never doing a supporting role. Many people admire Wilder the director, but as a writer (or co-writer) he's just as cinematically important and influential.
Like any other film of his, at least that I've had the pleasure to see, it's worth a purchase and re-watches. The dialogue, especially, is simply fantastic. I'd take just one of his early works over a hundred of the films Hollywood churns out nowadays. They're simply that better and intrinsically satisfying. Immortal cinema.

> Some people're destined to meet the secret friend.
From the director Hiromasa Yonebayashi of 'The Secret World of Arriety' fame. Based on the 1967 English novel of the same name and so the important characters borrowed the western names. This is what I call a fine adaptation, great transformation from the words to the motion picture. Actually, it suited for the narration from the standpoint of Japanese culture and lifestyle, especially for this anime version with the beautiful fictional coastal landscapes. Whenever I remember this film in the future, that Marsh house would be the first thing to pop out in my mind, an unforgettable landmark for sure.
The movie promos were damp. The posters were not that impressive, but okay and the trailer was very ordinary. Studio Ghibli was the reason to go for it, so I expected nothing spectacular from the movie. Even while I was watching, I thought it was just an enjoyable mystery flick, but you know sometime the value of the whole movie comes at the end twist. Once the end was near my stance changed, especially after the hidden truth revelation. Some movies need a re-watch to terminate any doubts regarding characters and scenes. As for this movie, if your focus is straight, then it's does not require.
Not a technical brilliance like the director's previous movie, but the story was strong and twisty. The characters were very interesting, suspense was the movie's influence for the audience to stick till the end. There is no loose end, certainly gives a few topics to discuss about, but the narration moves on a circular track and hits back like the boomerang. That does not mean it is a time travel or something. The narration bends and blends with the time. To realise what is real and what is not, you have to wait till the end. After seeing the film, I understood everyone's childhood memories could monopolize if we encounter same object, place, person and other things again in the later life. Yes, I had few minor experience in my life as well.
The opening dialogue itself a hint of what kind of movie it is going to be. There are two prominent girls, Anna and Marnie in the story, like the Anna and Elsa from 'Frozen'. The narration flips on a regular basis to tell the multiple layered story. As this film was a puzzle in portrayal, obviously viewers try to solve it, including me. I tried my best. I thought Anna's childhood toy was something to do with all the fuss, but I was terribly wrong. That was a perfect divert if you observe it closely. In another perspective, I kept 'The Others' and 'The Orphanage' in mind, but was not even close to where this story was heading. Whether you succeed or not, very fun to solve a mystery, you know. Finally, it gave me full satisfaction like that indirectly I saw 'The Uninvited' once again.
Feels like the Oscars was concluded yesterday, but I am already thinking about the next one. If I am not wrong this movie is definitely one of the contenders for the best animation race, along with 'The Good Dinosaur' probably. Absolutely, I would be disappointed if I don't see it in the final five. There is lots of time between now and then, so anything might happen, who knows. After all, this film has already won my little heart and millions of other's. I know no one can replace Mr. Miyazaki, but feels like Hiromasa Yonebayashi could come near if his future projects as much effective as his one. Best of luck to him and he's only a 41. But remember Isao Takahat is 80 and still in the race, yet to announce his retirement. And this film was very close to his 'Only Yesterday'.
> I love you more than any girl I've ever known.
Studio Ghibli is like Disney Studio from the east. As we know, narrating a fairy tale having the tween girls in the lead is what they're famous for. The previous couple of movies were out of their trademark, so, happy they are back with this masterwork. At a same time I am very very very very sad, because it's their final movie after the 30 years of triumph. Since Hayao Miyazaki's retirement everything falling apart from the studio's management. They've given reasons and it is only a temporary, though hope the rise of 3D animation is not the one to halt the production, praying for the pause to be lifted soon.
This film is not just passing through from this giant anime production house, but it is a masterpiece. As usual, it is a girly movie and that does not stop grownups, especially men from a watch. I loved it, everytime when I like a movie I express my desire for a sequel and so I did for this film. Though it was one time story with nothing left over for further development, possibly some new thing can be attached to it. Whatever happens this movie will remain as one of the best from the studio and can compete with any modern animations and live-shot masterworks. Highly recommended, not just for anime or animation fans, but for mystery and who love the layers in story narration.
9/10

This is a very beautiful animated film from Studio Ghibli, possibly the last one to com out of Studioe Ghibli for some time or last one ever.
It is about Anna, a young girl that we learn has asthma and is feeling very alone. She is sent to relatives in the country to recuperate from severe sickness.
Once there she meets another young girl, who is blond and also has beautiful blue eyes like Anna. Anna feels real connection to this girl. During the film we learn more and more about Anna and this young girl.
It is a film that is both beautiful very well worth seeing.

_**Amusing neo-noir in Chicago with Mel Gibson, Gregg Henry and Maria Bello**_
After a heist with an Asian gang, a no-nonsense man (Mel Gibson) is left for dead by his accomplices (Gregg Henry & Deborah Kara Unger) in the underbelly of the Big City, but he unexpectedly recovers and wants vengeance, not to mention his $70,000. Maria Bello, Lucy Liu, William Devane, Kris Kristofferson, James Coburn and other notables are on hand.
"Payback" (1999) is modern film noir with colors so muted it’s almost B&W (although I hear the Director’s Cut heightens them). It’s a remake of Coburn’s “Point Blank” (1967) and is ‘hip’ & entertaining in an amusing Tarantino kind of way, although it’s nowhere close to the greatness of “Pulp Fiction” (1994) or even “Jackie Brown” (1997). However, my wife liked it more than me and gave it 7/10, but then she’s a fan of Gibson.
The film runs 1 hour, 40 minutes, and was shot mainly in Chicago, along with Mount St. Mary's College in Los Angeles with studio stuff done in Burbank. There’s also an establishing shot of Manhattan.
GRADE: B-

An underrated crime noir that somehow snuck it's way into the overcrowded 90s. With phrases like, "expected horizontal refreshment", you know this is going to be good.

Indestructible Gibson in grim and gritty telling of The Hunter.
This is not an out and out remake of John Boorman's 1967 offering Point Blank, the structure is different from the 67 film, and where Point Blank is a dark psychological thriller that is rightly regarded as being towards the top of the neo-noir tree, this Brian Helgeland directed film really should be seen as a different interpretation of Donald E. Westlake's novel The Hunter.
Mel Gibson plays tough as nails thief Porter, who is double crossed, shot, and then left for dead by his wife Lynn (Deborah Kara Unger) and his partner in crime Val Resnick (Gregg Henry). We are then taken on a dark journey as Porter sets out to reclaim the $70.000 that he was shot and almost killed for. He wants no more, no less than what he is owed, and he literally will stop at nothing to achieve his goal. Including taking on the Chicago mob organisation known as The Outfit.
Payback is a mean and violent movie, it is unrelenting in its willingness to keep nastiness at the top of the story. The film is full of flawed and vile people, even Porter himself, the closest we have to a (anti) hero has badness coursing through his veins, he is a dislikable killer, the film is about exactly what the tag-line suggests, Get Ready To Root For The Bad Guy! As Porter trawls through this part of Chicago, he will come across bent coppers, drug pushers/addicts/runners, Asian gangsters, prostitutes, violence fetishists and the slimy chain of command of the Chicago mob. Nobody here is about to cheer you up.
The style of the film owes its being to classic film noir and the 1970s hard crime movies led by Dirty Harry and Death Wish. The makers had originally wanted to film it in black and white, but instead went for a de-saturation technique, a bleach by-pass process that really puts a grim grey and blue sheen on the visuals. The thumping score is tonally correct, while a good sound track also helps (always nice to see hear Voodoo Chile), and the use of voice over narration by Porter evokes the classic noir period and works a treat because it's not over done.
The film strongly relies on Mel Gibson to bring menace and a measure of sympathy to the vengeful Porter, and it is with much credit that he manages to achieve both these things skilfully. He is backed by a strong support cast, Maria Bello admirable in her big shift from TV to film - Lucy Liu hilarious and stunningly sexy as a dominatrix and Gregg Henry is just wild. The Outfit chain of command features William Devane, James Coburn and Kris Kristofferson, all slick and welcome additions, even if they are all under used; though this is more by narrative necessity than film making decisions. Bill Duke, David Paymer and Jack Conley fill out the impressive roll call of scum-bags.
Violent, laconic and darkly comic as well, Payback is one of the best remakes around, a neo-noir essential in fact. 8.5/10
Footnote: Director Helgeland released his own Directors Cut in 2006. Unhappy with the original version, he changed some of the structure and visual style and made it shorter by ten minutes. It's inferior to the 100 minute original cut in my opinion, losing much of the noir stylisations, but the last quarter is different and will (does) certainly appeal to others.

I'm not exactly what one might call "in to" American comedies, and gross out humour/romantic comedies are pretty much at the bottom of even that list. For a movie that most certainly contains both those two things (the latter in especially heavy doses), I actually didn't mind _Van Wilder_ that much. But it's all about context, if instead of comparing it to a list of similar things that I hate you compared it to, say, the entire history of cinema overall, then _National Lampoon's Van Wilder_ is pretty bad.
One additional note, the friend of mine who I put this on for told me that the movie was from the era of "When Tara Reid was still hot". Now personally I've never found any iteration of her attractive, but it did make me have a parallel thought, is Van Wilder from the era when Tara Reid was a better actor? I'm not saying she has been some sort of Oscar-worthy great at any stage, but if I compare her in this to her in, for example, _Sharknado 47_, despite the extra years of experience, she's definitely worse now, right?
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

> When the case needs a physical evidence, but it can't reach to get one.
Well, it is an investigation theme, something like the Oscar winner 'Spotlight'. After a teen girl Angela was reported of the sexual abuse, a detective named Bruce takes a special interest in solving the case. With the help of a psychologist, lots of ugly truth comes out. But the lack of the solid evidence makes the case slowly slip away from his hands. While his desperate effort to find whoever behind it, it only affect more Angela and her family. So how the story end is told with a twist in the third act.
It was inspired by the real events of the late 80s. About the rise of the Satanic culture when panic was among the peoples of the United States. One of the best investigative films, with well developed mysteries around the plot. I found hard to predict, especially the twist was simple, but unexpected. Ms Watson was okay, but Ethan Hawke was excellent. From an awesome filmmaker, another wonderful film, yet not anywhere near to his other great works.
Whenever a film based on the real, especially about crimes reveals the truth, we the people believe it and pour our supports to the victim. In that perspective, this film tests our capability to understand between the good and bad. Sometimes the things are not what it is supposed to be because of the overlook. Such theme was this that neatly narrated on the screen.
I know this is not a masterpiece, but I don't understand why it is very underrated. This is actually a better psychological-thriller you would find in the recent time. Forget what the critics say, just give it a try, obviously it is slow, but in the end you would find it worth, at least most of you.
7/10

The making of the movie is good. The directing OKish and the cast is great and performs well.
However, the story is an anti-climax one. Amenábar builds an atmosphere that promises a lot more than it delivers. In the end, it is just the only logical and down to earth story with unrolls well but it just drives the spectator to boredom.
Good from the philosophical and logical point of view. Bad from the show perspective.

Damnnnnnnnn! You got knocked the fuck out man! Everyone should know this movie. If you've never seen it then your missing out.

**The world can't change by itself, we must bring it.**
After watching this film I just remembered the quote from 'Sullivan's Travels' which says 'film's the greatest educational medium the world has ever known'. Indeed, cinema's for entertainment as well acts as a message deliverer. This was an inspirational movie, and everybody must see it. I know I'm a bit late to see it, better late than never, right? I'm really glad for having it at the right time because 15 years ago I did not have this blog to write about it.
OK, the name of the movie represents the theme of the story. No matter its a developed or developing country, society needs something like the idea this movie talks about. Carrying a good social message, the movie slightly lags behind the too much on the emotions, especially the end part. There won't be a problem if you like melodrama. Other than that, I feel the conclusion was smart and strong, a better solution which would appeal for certain group rather alternate finale.
The film was based on the novel of the same name, crafted by a fine director with the wonderful cast. Haley Joel Osment had a great career as a child-star, you should check some of his films if you love children's movies including this title on the top of that list. As a middle aged actor, Helen Hunt's one of the last best performances before turning into a senior artist. It's not a usual role for Kevin Spacey, but he nailed it with the good dialogues. Especially his talk about the topic 'child abuse' was a great thing from the movie. Overall, the actors get more credit for the first- class acts as the script demanded for their respective roles.
> What did you ever do to change the world.
A movie about a man who achieved in science gets the Oscar, not that real man. A movie about a man escapes from the war prison camp and slavery gets the award, and again none of those real persons. But a movie with the original, intelligent, inspiring, specially designed for a movie was not even a contender of the Oscars. Of course, it was transformed from a book, though there are/were no real people behind these great characters, all are imagined/created for the book and the movie. I never understood the American Academy Awards.
By now you would know that I hate critics badly if you are a regular reader of my blog. Once again they failed to recognise how great the morality of the story is, rather they have concentrated to criticise the writing and the technical aspect of the film. Although, it was not a box office flop or earned beyond, but got a lot of praise from the families. It's a wonderful family drama, but still too far from being a masterpiece. Intelligent enough one to get motivated towards the social issues. Being practical in the real world is a concern as it is risky, depending on the situation and the person, just like this movie's ending. Rare to find a movie like this, you must check it out.
8/10

Jean-Paul Belmondo spends much of this film in just his boxers after his "Poiccard/Kovacs" character pinches a car, kills the pursuing police officer and the ends up taking refuge with his new journalism student friend "Patricia" (Jean Seberg). She's not quite aware of the extent of the trouble her new beau is in when he sets about trying to convince her that he has some cash coming and that they should go and live in Italy. His identity isn't exactly unknown to the cops either, and with his face plastered over the front page of every newspaper in Paris, his chances of attaining his idyll are beginning to look remote - especially as he has precisely no self-awareness as he travels the city for all to see. Of course, it has to be only a matter of time before "Patricia" finds out the truth about him - but what will she decide to do? It's essentially a two-hander between the pair and they gel well as the story gathers pace. Seberg's character is engaging and it's easy to see why she falls for the enigmatic and charming criminal who exudes about as much menace as a wet cabbage. There's a fun interview scene when she is charged with quizzing the writer "Parvulesco" (Jean-Pierre mMlville) - a rather pompous individual who announces his life's ambition is to become immortal and die. I guess that might have been how "Poiccard" might have looked at things too - though maybe not the second element too soon. Now the editing. Hmmm. It's messy. Might that be deliberate or just an intern with some sellotape and a blunt razor blade? It's another talking point for this quirky and entertaining crime drama - with a difference.

A key film of the late Fifties/early Sixties French New Wave, À bout de souffle (Breathless) opens with suave lowlife Michel Poiccard (Jean-Paul Belmondo) stealing a car. When he's caught speeding on the way to Paris and pursued by the police, Michel kills the officer. Desperate to collect some money owed and make his escape to Italy, he hides out with Patricia (Jean Seberg), an American girl he had slept with once and who is oblivious to the danger he's in.
This is one of the most influential films of all time in its liberal use of jump cuts, in idolizing American noir films and transferring that aesthetic to a foreign country, and its allusions to other films and even self-referentially to itself. Goddard left plenty of signs that he was seeking to overturn the staid French mainstream tradition, such as when Michel rebuffs a hawker selling Cahiers du cinema (the French film magazine), or when Patricia interviews a film director named Parvulesco, who is none other than Godard's New Wave comrade-in-arms Jean-Pierre Melville.
À bout de souffle is undeniably dated. Even knowing all that context around its creation and reception, I found it hard to be really bowled over and cannot award the film a full five stars – and I am a great fan of Godard’s subsequent work. Still, there's a lot to like. I'm particularly fond of the film's dialogue, which revels in French slang that hitherto had not been consider "proper" for art, most of which goes over Patricia's head and some of which Michel explains. In that sense one might compare the film to Raymond Queneau's novel Zazie dans le métro from the same time. The sexual frankness of its young characters might surprise younger viewers who would place this social upheaval to later in the 1960s.

**Fifty years after Watergate, what have we learned?**
The “Watergate Affair” was fifty years ago. For those who don't remember or weren't born, it all started with the invasion of the Democratic Party offices in the Watergate Building, in Washington D.C., by a group of men, caught while trying to install bugs and copy documents. The group's connection to the CIA became obvious and, as the inquiries progressed, the story became more bizarre: after all, everything had been done under orders coming from within the White House, from people very interested in manipulating the elections that year, in which Richard Nixon was going to run for his second term against the Democratic candidate, George McGovern.
The film tells us about this, but stops here, focusing on the contribution of journalists from The Washington Post, who investigated the matter and published relevant information. The film doesn't say what happened next, but as we know, Nixon was re-elected and quickly found himself under suspicion about his involvement in the Watergate break-in. Nixon refused to give explanations, hiding behind his office prerogatives, not even when it became known that there was a voice recording system in his office. With Congress demanding to hear these recordings under serious threats of impeachment, Nixon preferred to resign and, since then, “Watergate” has been an eternal synonym of political corruption at the highest level.
Directed by Alan Pakula and released in the years following the events, the film would have needed no further explanation. The names of those involved and the details of the story would be fresh in everyone's memory. However, more than fifty years later, who remembers the details? As the film does not give us explanations, only people who know the subject well or have read about it will watch the film without needing to go to the Internet every ten minutes. Even I, a historian, needed to refresh my memory. Aside from this problem, the film is good and is faithful to the events and what the two “Post” journalists did.
There is another problem with this film, although it is a minor problem: at this time, in the 70s, it seems that a politician was required to have bulletproof morality and a virtually untainted character. And now? We are in 2024 and democracy, instead of maturing, seems to have rotted to the point that American citizens allow a former president, who is in the grip of justice and apparently involved in a direct attack against Congress (which represents all the people) to presents himself again as a candidate without any problems, ready to be carried on shoulders to a cabinet he should never set foot in again. I am not North American, but as a European I refuse to consider such a matter a mere internal issue, taking into account the role that the USA wants to maintain on the international stage, in NATO or in the UN. Unfortunately, the degradation of democracy happens here too, and has been taken advantage of by Putin, President Xi and other enemies of the free world, a world of peace and freedom that our fathers worked hard to build together, and we are letting disappear.
Returning to the film... it's worth seeing the performance of Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford in two roles that helped a lot in the evolution of their careers. They are some of the best actors of that period and did a colossal job in this film. The supporting cast is equally remarkable and deserves our full attention. I particularly liked the work of Martin Balsam, Jack Warden and Jason Robards, outstanding actors who transformed three roles without much relevance into good additions to the general plot. And although we only learned more details recently, Hal Holbrook was an excellent choice to bring to life the mysterious “Deep Throat”, one of the decisive sources for linking Watergate with the White House.
Technically, it is a discreet film that bets everything on the rigorous reconstruction of the settings, environments and events. There are some very good sound effects (the association of the sounds of typewriters with the sound of gunshots was intelligent and well done, for example) and the lighting effects were equally well-used. Note the dark and mysterious atmosphere of the encounters with “Deep Throat”, with the light almost reduced to what is essential. The film deservedly won four Oscars (Best Sound, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Art Direction and Best Supporting Actor) and was one of the big contenders for Best Film.

Based on the true, ground-breaking, investigations by the Washington Post into the seemingly innocuous break-in into the Watergate Building; this film produces two of the finest performances ever committed to film. Dustin Hoffman already had some grittier parts in his repertoire; but for Robert Redford this is more of a departure from his usual roles and the rapport between the two, initially suspicious journalists, builds as we all begin to realise that there is a hell of a lot more to this than just some unlucky burglars. Jason Robards and Martin Balsam serve as the real life editorial leads at the newspaper, but also as characters we can all use to take stock during these rapidly advancing, and incriminating developments. Alan J. Pakula subtly and deftly takes us through the chronology in an enthralling manner; exposing crossing sub-plots and personalities - as well as demonstrating the palpable risks being taken by many to uncover the truth. We all know the ending, but this film is quite possibly the reason why many still recall this momentous story.

Advertised as a Netflix Original, this Spanish language film is a delightful treat. Adriana Ugarte provides a stellar performance as a woman who is able to communicate with a boy 25 years into the past in order to change history with unintended consequences. Although I watched the film with subtitles, Adriana's acting transcends language. The cinematography and directing were top notch. The only issue some may have is that the movie runs a little long at 2 hrs and 9 minutes but I don't feel there was much they could have cut from the movie without ruining it. Two thumbs up.

**Overall : An incredibly inspiring story told with gravitas, quality, skill, and class.**
To see a film celebrate the character, resilience, and endurance of a man that withstood prejudice, violence, and bigotry without returning hatred with hatred is just inspiring—brilliant cast with incredible performances. The film focuses on the maturity and bravery of Robinson in overcoming enormous opposition. 42 tells the story well while still capturing the weight and pressure of each moment of the game. I could see Robinson’s skill as well as his motivation and resolve. This movie portrays the sport of baseball well but is ultimately about the power of character in the face of overwhelming opposition and how it can change attitudes, hearts, and minds.