Change Your Image
dhalmagean
Reviews
Small Apartments (2012)
Crazy movie
Make you wanna go to Switzerland... :)
It reminds me about Postal - another crazy movie.
These movies are sooo crazy ....
For this one, maybe Little Britain was an source of inspiration :)
Honestly, doesn't matter the rating for these kind of movies - they just can not been taken too seriously, because even they mock of themselves ... but this is needed, an opportunity to get rid of all the crap/tensions/patterns, like a therapy...
Henri 4 (2010)
a decent movie
What I liked the most, first impression:
- furniture decorations of interiors in castles. Big rooms with massive and few furniture pieces. Very realistic. Impressive.
Than:
- the human factor that was so present in anything at that time, big historical events, decisions, etc. There was no institution, only king institution.
- the key people (aristocrats, not ordinary people) were not ashamed of their passions, even they were out of common sens. Superiority and excesses (as normality) was well represented.
- the Henry's good taste for women. All were very beautiful ladies, like with model bodies. Margot and Gabrielle are very beautiful.
- relation with Gabrielle was very special. A calm relation that reveal a true match between them. They match at all levels, it is so well represented and in so few words (really impressive).
- they reproduce realistically the life in middle age. But Germany and France have a huge inheritance in terms of middle age history - a living inheritance even in nowadays - so this is not a real surprise. (the opposite would be a surprise)
What was not so good credible:
- a bit too much aggressive (battles) and sex scenes. A bit like Hollywood style.
- the intrigues at Louvre seemed to me over complicated and they contradicted childish (e.g.: supporting as king the preferred boy (gay), killing everybody for this, just to end up realizing that he can not have any inheritor and propose the throne to Henry Navarra, WTF ?)
- I don't think that noble women could get undressed so quickly at that time, due to many dress layers they were usually wearing.
- really no wigs ?
- all were men in black ? All Huguenots were wearing black ? common...
The overall impression: even at beginning it seems that violence is too much and not adding value, at the end I would say it left a state of relatively calm in me, due to the fact that the true love to Gabrielle was dominating the movie I would say. Some characters understanding in the end that the success they had following the reason (expected from a king) was emptied by losing the calm and fulfill of a true love.
Le Hérisson (2009)
I see it as an experiment
I read the book.
Twice.
I just couldn't understand how a beginner director could transform it in a movie.
It would have been so hard.
The book is so powerful and fragile, sensitive. Philosophical introspection till ... really no limit.
I could't imagine it as a movie.
And indeed: the movie was not impressing me.
Too bad that I watched the movie just immediately after I read the book second time.
The movie can not, could not anyhow, transmit the same emotions, powerful introspection. There is just not enough time in a movie.
I liked some ideas in the movie:
- Paloma is filming family through a glass (like for fish)
- Paloma character was nice developed
- some really key phrases from the book were untouched.
- Kakuro gives the books (Anna Karenina ) to Paloma - really very nice
I felt that:
- Mme Michelle character is too less developed. No introspection, all were focused on Paloma's. So some very touching stories are lost (feeling reborn when her teacher calls her name, trauma due to her sister Lissete, etc)
- her switch between the two nature of her was not convincing me. I expected, in the second nature, more humanity from her character, to be warmer.
- the music from Purcell's Opera Didona and Eneas ("the best opera area") was missing (but Confutatis not). It is also of really great effect and I thing it would have been appropriate yet for the ending.
- the "dead nature painting" scene - impressed me as a reader (and other introspection about Art ) - but I agree, it would have been very challenging just to "dare" to introduce it in the movie.
- I didn't felt like in the book: the bourgeois style, the huge 400square meters flats, etc - no time to develop other characters.
Conclusion:
- see movie before the book - could be great I think
- see movie after the book - not convincing for me, but I agree, I had maybe too big expectations. I expected an Amelie Poulaine maybe.
Troy (2004)
too twisted - not credible
I just want to emphasize the following: the movie is too twisted - (soap opera style). This is really destroying for credibility.
Paris and Elena loves each other - they both know they will start a war, a lot of people would dye, they both doesn't want this, but ... thy can't stop themselves. Each one try separately to end the conflict but .. somehow they dont finish the try.
So love is worthy to go for a war (Priam say this ! also).
But not any love.
Pure love between Briseis and Ahile is not worthy. Paris himself (who started the war for ... love) kills the big pure love between Ahile and Briseis. He shot arrows on Ahile while his own cousin desperately begs him to stop.
There is too much inconsistency between Hector and Paris behavior: Hector is ready to start a war for Paris's feelings while Paris himself doesn't care for his cousin's feelings. Strange and too obvious twisted scenario.
In the movie, Priam, the good king of Troy did everything he could to loose Troy.
All major bad decisions were taken by him. This is really strange.
He was the last one to decide: when it was a debate between attacking the Greeks on the beach (sustained by his priest) and not attacking because this attack will reunite the Greeks (the mirmidons with Ahile were not fighting yet) - sustained by Hector - the biggest military general in Troy - Priam decided to listen to the priest. Terrible decision.
Again, when it was told by his own son Paris to burn the horse, not to bring him into the city, he took again the decision based on the priest advice: it is a gift from gods and brought into the city. Fights ends after this decision - again taken by Priam!
Very strange to put the responsibility of such big mistakes on such a nice character like Priam. Seems for me like a big childish screen play error.
The story of Illiada is difficult to tell, I agree. The gods are missing from the movie, the big speeches also.
So what is rest ? What should I understand ?
Is ok to love - even impossible love which starts a war, is also ok to kill the impossible love (Briseis and Ahile).
Is ok to let your sons fight to death and let the gods decide. A cowardly escape is accepted also.
Psychopath kings, gentle kings, tricks and sleights .. and everyone speaking about random things like: honor, love, etc.
Courage, yes - this is I think the single constant moral value in the movie.
In fact I had the feeling that the scenario could have change every moment like in a soap opera.
Wow. Such flexibility. In fact I see it like a scenario problem that shows inconsistency and lack of credibility.
By the way: this is just a Hollywood movie, you don't know Illiada after watching the movie :)
Zavet (2007)
Demolition workers
I find it very funny and also profound the following idea showed by the 2 brothers that worked in constructions. One brother was passionate by the Americans way of demolitions using controlled explosions to lay down huge buildings. He used to study tapes with demolitions by explosions in USA. He was enchanted by they. He liked it very much: how big demolition experts are the Americans :)
And than, after this study, we can see his choice in destroying the house: use his strong head as a ram, hanging on a crane which was used to hit him against the wall. It is so hilarious.
I couldn't stop laughing.
Inglourious Basterds (2009)
A Trap
My main ideas;
1. This is NOT a movie. Definitely !!!
A movie means art (the cinema is the 7th art (if I remember well).
OK, it exist "consume movies", but from an "important" director I expect more, I expect art. Which is not the case now.
Because bullshit can not be art !
2. You can not go with the family to this "movie".
(my wife just covered her eyes and ask me if the bloody scene is finished). And I can not blame her. I also think that the bloody scenes were not bringing any added value to the movie. The same about "lots of talk".
3. In general I couldn't find interesting ideas in the movie.
Only childish, simple ideas.
Just 2 ideas I found interesting:
- Hitler appearance in the movie was comic.
In general Hitler make a foul of himself during his appearances.
The first appearance was hilarious.
The idea of representing Hitler this way was very well managed, balanced. Still, combining good humor with pointless discussions full of tension, bloody scenes, stupid&childish suspense will not create unforgettable movie - my opinion.
- the Jewish killed Hitler (at least in fantasy). And with style!
This is a comfortable idea (from the psychological point of view) offered to a lot of people maybe.
This is the best and more complex idea/thing that happened in the movie. The rest seemed to me very childish.
4. Too long - have the feeling that I lost my time there.
2.5 hour is really a lot of time lost.
5. As time is money maybe it's better that they pay us rather that we pay them.
I WANT MY MONEY BACK, MR. Tarantino !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can not be more clear than this.
This is a "real" opinion about the movie, not one like that, spread through the newspaper, just meant to make people curios enough to PAY for it. Publicity. Just spread anything through the mass media so that people are curious and that they just did it: they PAY for it. If they regrets afterward, too bad for them.
This was my impression about this movie. The goal was just to take (one more time) "some money" from the public. No intention for art or something unforgettable.
In conclusion , it is really disappointing.
This, really, can not be compared with "Pulp Fiction".
It's just a TRAP!
California Dreamin' (Nesfarsit) (2007)
Incredible
Hi,
For me again this is more than a movie. Like somebody already said: this is the kind of movie that make you use your brain and connect with your emotions.
Romanian movies are usually not EASY !!!! I like this. This time also: at the beginning I was not at all impressed, nothing new, just poverty, corruption, etc... but at the end WOWWW!!! what was this. Did you realized how many subtle things happen in the movie ??? Have you seen them ? Great psychology.
Some of them I was enchanted to discover by myself : Doiaru apear like the most corrupted person. With no values, principles. Was it really?
- Doiaru wanted desperately to get that factory !!! He was even able to bankrupt it and put in danger all the workers. Why ???
Remember about his childhood: into the WW2 his parents owned a factory. His family (like everybody) were waiting for the Americans to get saved. When Russians came, his parents were imprisoned because they had a factory. The scene with separation from his parents - last time he saw them - was important.
That's why (my opinion) he wanted desperately to get that factory.
- why Doiaru didn't allow the Americans to leave the village.
It was not corruption: he refuse 2000 $/parai to let them leave.
And he risk (and loose) his function: chief of the railway station - because he was stubborn: refuse to obey the order of all his superiors. Why ??????
The answer was in the most important PHRASE of the movie (my opinion). Everything became clear in my head after hearing this phrase and WOWW - what a movie.
The scene when Doiaru and captain (or general) were eating in Doiaru's kitchen. They were eating "sarmale" and Doiaru explain to the captain how they are made.
"You mince the meat and you get a paste." - than electricity ïs cut off, - after a break he continues shocking "That's probably what those people in Yugoslavia look like"
So Doiaru didn't let the Americans go (with all costs) because he hated them for what they are doing in Yugoslavia (beside the fact that he waited them in vain for a life). And it was really the case: romanian society thought like this.
Ostrov (2006)
An initiatic film
I don't think to "Ostrov" as a movie. (by the way: there is also a novel "Ostrov" based on which the film was done, and we all know how great and deep writers has Russia given to the world).
This is more than a movie. Check your state of spirit after seeing the movie. For a time, after the movie, you are another human being. The film has the power to change you - even just for a while. And this is not a spell. This is because - shortly - you can see (it is offered to you) the essence of the human being. Afterwards you goes back down in your cave, as you can not continue by your own to see it. (this is your limitation, not movie's). But the traces remains in your soul. It is like an initiation. I don't consider it especially linked to the orthodox church. There are principles in this film which transcends religions. A man have a mission on this earth. Only few peoples knows their mission. Father Anotoly have lived just to accomplish his mission. Shortly after, he died. An initiated human being knows when he will die. And death is not something awful for him. He prepares for his death, it is just another step. Another import idea in the film: how strong are human beings attached to not important things. This stop them to see the essence. And this is the drama of the society.
The film shows also the difference between being a real religious man and being part of the church institution.
The film can be interpreted from various points of views. It is amazing how reach in meanings it can be. For everybody interested in spiritual life: it is a MUST.