Change Your Image
glbawk
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Incendies (2010)
Not convincing
This film has some strong scenes but it is not close to what it could've been.
As someone from Lebanon I couldn't take this film seriously(sometimes the drama bordered comedy for a native of Lebanon).
The only fight between Christians and Muslims in the middle east was in Lebanon. But the characters speak different Arabic dialects, the scenery is from Jordan, some scenes hint to real historical facts but are totally off the mark. the parallel's with the war in Lebanon are so obvious yet so wrong.
to sum it up. Imagine a film shot in Bresil about a war between confederate states and united states where the dialect is Australian and there's a scene which hint at the Abraham Lincoln assassination... Would you take such a film seriously?
West Beyrouth (À l'abri les enfants) (1998)
Not Bad
As a Lebanese I find this film a step forward for Lebanese cinema. However there are many negatives:
-Some of the dialogues are embarrassing typical of Lebanese cinema.
-Some of the acting is horrible (Rami doueiri and mohamad chamas).
The positive points of this film are:
-the representation of late 70's Lebanon.
-Carmen Lebbos who is extraordinary.
-definitely a lyrical film.
-Ziad Doueiri who took Lebanese cinema a step forward.
I gave it 8/10 it deserved less according to my standards but we have to encourage young Lebanese directors.
A better Lebanese film is Le Cerf Volant by Randa Sabag.
Alexander (2004)
They Americanized Alexander The Macedonian!!!!
Minor spoilers
I am going to start with the Positives in this film,
1. Anthony Hopkins 2. Representations of ancient Babylon and Alexandria (Breathtaking) 3. Bisexuality in Greek society B.C. 4. Val Kilmer
This was good about the film. Nevertheless I gave the film a 1/10 rating. Why?
1. An Americanized sensationalized corny Alexander!
In reality one of the best generals in the history of humanity and an intellectual. In the film a week individual (especially his confrontations with Philip) and a sensationalized Hollywood hero.
2. Total simplistic representations of historical myths about Alexander
The scene when he tames the horse is corny (even though it is significant historically it was represented in a silly and simplistic manner) The before the battle speeches His relationship with his generals and friends Oliver stone decided for US and historians that Alexander was innocent of his father's murder and was totally ravaged by it.
3. Colin Farrel and Angelina Jolie's acting is horrible. (The silly dialogue couldn't have helped Jolie).
4. Battles choice and representation.
For those who are familiar with ancient history. We all know the significance of the first time the Macedonian Army stepped into Anatolia. Ignored. We all know the battles in Anatolia, Phoenicia (Tyre's 7 months siege), and the entrance to Egypt and the founding of Alexandria. Ignored. We all know the great strategies Alexander used in his battles and what made him one of the best strategist's in the world. Ignored.
We all know the significance of the Macedonian phalanx. Ignored.
We all know how important was the return from India to Babylon. Ignored.
5. Accents
Even though the passion of the Christ was another flawed film. Mel Gibson decided to use Aramaic, Latin, and Hebrew to give legitimacy to the film.
Oliver stone used English and decided to use Different accents and the result is horrible. Angelina Jolie Roles her R's in what seems to be anything but a Greek Speaking English. (Avoid the accents if it's fake!!!!) Some of the soldiers spoke English with an Irish, Scottish, Australian accents????
Historically Flawed, Horrible Acting, and Americanized hero makes this film simplistic, corny, and intolerable.
Some of the new Hollywood history films are not bad. (Braveheart, Gladiator, and Troy) but Alexander Fails on all levels. Too bad for Oliver Stone.
The Pianist (2002)
ordinary film that has been done before.
The first half of this film is sensationalized, pretentious, laugh at the audience, propaganda driven film.
I as an intelligent person (or so I think) get annoyed at over simplifying history. The portrayal (yet again) of Nazis as nothing more than emotionless monsters (even though reality is somewhat close to this image) and the Jews as moral saints and victims is too trivial.
However the film picks up in the second half and becomes more interesting showing us a less "shove it down your throat" approach.
6/10. Wouldn't watch again because 2 and a half hours of film should say much more than what this film does... inferior to many holocaust films.
Belle de jour (1967)
A very awarding film if you give it a chance
Belle de jour has been given reviews which places it as silly, simple, not artistic, .... and reviews that places it as a masterpiece.
I guess like our own fantasies the film itself projects so differently to different people.
For me it is A MUST SEE. 10/10.
A film about fantasies and reality. Many people complained that the surreal and real parts are never defined by bunuel and we have to guess which is which. Exactly!!! Why do you need to know? can it be powerful and simplistic at the same time? One of the better qualities of the film is the confusion between sevrine's fantasies and reality. Aren't we confused by our own fantasies? aren't we all suppressing taboos and fetishes we judge as immoral without fully understanding them?
I will misquote severine's description of the doctor who likes to be dominated. she says "how can a person sink so low." She too like us, even though consciously realizes she has a problem, unconsciously doesn't realize "how low she sank."
The husband's character is so well shaped and drawn by bunuel. YES! YES!
The images of the chariot on the never-ending road reminds me of Dali's paintings. A common surrealist theme about sexuality. The absence of a musical score adds to the artistry of the film rather than diminishing it. The acting, unlike what was stated in other reviews, is exeptional especially by catherine deneuve. I will dare to say maybe her best performance.
A deep study of human's inner-self and the thin line between the image we project and the person we are.
Again this film is A MUST SEE. Genius!
Jules et Jim (1962)
The best Film I have ever seen
I have seen this film 10's of times and I can never get tired of it. Many people criticized the film because the characters and actions of the film are so incomprehensible. That is exactly the film's point.
Do we know ourselves? Do we always rationalize our emotions? Or even understand them?
This film is a study of humans. It is asking questions that every one of us should ask in order to understand ourselves and eventually get closer to understanding life.
A must see!!!!
10/10