You may also like
Hail Columbia! torrent reviews
Charlie J (kr) wrote: The Mysteries of Lisbon are not so much mysteries as they are a series of conversations which always lead to some sort of revelation. These revelations are melodramatic punch lines with interlocking characters continuously finding out who their parents are, where they came from, the results of lost loves, and everything in between. If the script was written in a linear fashion with no time jumps or flashbacks, there would be no mysteries; it would just be a meandering retelling of Romeo and Juliet (and all of their cousins). The word meandering sounds harsh and an indictment of a script which does not know where it is going. However, I mean meandering as in there are multiple lead characters to follow and each of them has a very complicated past which takes its time to tell. The Mysteries of Lisbon is four and a half hours long; the director threw out accepted norms for audience patience in favor of showing the whole story. It is based on an 1854 novel by the Portuguese author Camilo Castelo Branco and it appears it was filmed in an unabridged fashion. The main character is a village priest, Padre Denis (Adriano Luz), who at first is indirectly involved in a couple's forbidden love affair and then purposefully injects himself into their lives and then into everyone else's life who comes into contact with their troubles. Even though the priest is the interconnecting cog in the middle of all of these characters, he is not the narrator. That role is given to an orphan the priest looks after and becomes a driving force of his own later on. The director, Raul Ruiz, obviously loves conversations, but only deep and emotionally scarring ones. Every conversation or recounting of a previous conversation has its own 30 minute segment it seems. The characters, usually just two, sit in a room and then the scene fades into flashback on what happened in the past which will now illuminate the present. I believe the time shifts were included to create the mystery. The author deliberately created the tension of not knowing and the 'a-ha' discovery moments because he could not have accomplished the same moments with a realistic, linear timeline. The action is mostly set in Portugal and appears to be in the early 1800s but after Napoleon. The Emperor is frequently referenced but only in the past tense. Many of the characters are nobles so the costume designer had a true feast in outfitting so many people in remarkable period dress. The Portuguese scenery and elaborate set designs are also enjoyable; somebody really took their time to make the set look intensely real. The lighting is also employed to convey a sense of realness. There seems to be no artificial lighting whatsoever. Light only comes through windows during the day and the rooms are terrifically dark at night. The candles never flicker so there must be some source of artificiality, but it is not noticeable. Unfortunately, Raul Ruiz recently passed away on 19 August. He was Chilean born but left Chile in 1973 when Augusto Pinochet took power. The Mysteries of Lisbon is his final film and is of such epic proportions it appears he was thinking about this film for a long time before he finally took the plunge. I recommend this film, but be careful. Watch it only if you appreciate long, intense scenes of dialogue or appreciate the intricate details of period films. There is extremely little action and drawn out sequences with no words spoken at all; however, there is character with the endearing name 'Knife Eater'. If these aspects do not scare you, then sit back and enjoy because you are in for a real treat. You will not see a film like this from an American director; no studio would ever sign off on a movie this long, not if they expect it to make any money.
Grant S (au) wrote: Brendan Fraser should avoid playing the bad guy. Maybe avoid drama altogether and still to comedies, animated movies and children's movies. His portrayal of a badass villain is so bad it's laughable - you'd think it was a parody of a villain. His performance is so bad it goes past good and back to bad again.However, Fraser does not single-handedly ruin the movie, though his performance was capable of doing that. The plot is wafer-thin too. Tries too hard to be gritty and instead ends up a random, gratuitous-violence filled mess. Just seems to drift along haphazrdly with no point at all.Mos Def's performance is one of the few positive aspects of the movie. Quite convincing.Scott Glenn is pretty solid in his role too.Other plus is that the movie is reasonably short...
Jonathon N (au) wrote: At first I wished we weren't watching it, ... I don't recall it all - but ... I want to see part of it again, maybe 4 stars.
Gary L (us) wrote: I think that many people look too hard at this movie trying to make it something it is not. Not deep, no meaning of life here, just very skilled actors and a great script and soundtrack. And what a collection of one liners. When pointed out by Bobby that the girl Jeff is hitting on is 12 years old Jeff replies "Finally" So funny but try that line now and the feds are on their way
Nathan H (us) wrote: You don't have to be a pothead to appreciate this movie, just a fan of Dave Chappelle. The humor is obviously stupid, but that is to be expected and the talented actors make it work most of the time. Don't go searching some complex storyline with this film, the plot is simply something to hang the jokes on. But, again, that shouldn't be unexpected either.
Ashley H (au) wrote: This is one of the best comedy films I have ever seen. It really lifts my spirits when I am down. Dick Van Dyke and Barbara Feldon were great as well as having an excellent supporting cast. Of course the whole premise of the film is preposterous. Sooner or later Fitzwilly and crew would have been caught. But then I don't think being realistic makes for a good comedy. I will say that the film was never intended to be taken seriously. I recommend this film if you like comedies.
Zoran S (ca) wrote: It's overwrought with its Freudianism but it's stunning visually.
Richard L (fr) wrote: This movie adaptation of an HG Welles story has amazing picture quality and special effects. Although it doesn't make any sense from a scientific point of view, this naturalist adventure (much like those Jules VERNE movie adaptations) about three individuals in the 1800's going to the Moon is interesting. Some elements may have inspired the Sandpeople and the carbonite in Star Wars.
Mark M (br) wrote: Not Pam Grier's best, but still pretty enjoyable.
Sarah C (ru) wrote: Amran MuseI want to you to hear their stories, the stories that echo through histories walls, and come to inspire are times. I want you to read the words written long ago, to remind you that pain has always walked alongside us. And I a Muslim Somali lesbian will remind you, to look back, so you can fight for the future. Phyllis Nagy's 2015 film Carol, rated R. A film based on the 1952 romance novel The Price of Salt by Patricia Highsmith. Illustrates the 1950's in an almost exact atmosphere capturing the viewer's attention guiding them into a world that denies some people to express their love for one another freely. Capturing the exploration of feeling and emotion through the leds of two lesbian lover's that where the outgroup in social normality. Therese Belivet and Carol Airde two women from two different backgrounds. Carol follows the life of two women who out of the blue fall into a love affair in the 1950s New York. Therese is a clerk at a department store in Manhattan and is not very ambitious when it comes to pursuing her dream as a professional photographer. But she's somehow restless and is looking for a more meaningful life. Carol an older woman who is imprisoned in a loveless marriage, trying desperately to break free, as she still fights to be the best mother for her daughter. Carol runs into Therese in search of a christmas present for her daughter, and innocent friendships built upon first encounter, turns into a lesbian relationship. Her husband Harge well aware that Carol is a lesbian questions her competence as a mother, and uses this to his advantage. At a time when social norms denied two women to express lesbian love, a heart felt story develops to uncover resilience in the face of adversity. I live in Denver Colorado and it's 2017, as a lesbian Muslim Somali woman. Coming from an Islamic background in my community being anything other than straight is seen wrong, and there's a lot of stigma towards LGBT+ individuals. But I also live in an environment that is fairly friendly to LGBT+ individuals. Even though my representation of Islam can be clearly seen from a mile away, so people usually never guess that I am a lesbian. Living in Trump America threatens all that I am. We have a very strong LGBT+ community here in denver, and aware of this I do not feel alone. Watching the movie Carol has made me realize how much we have grown in America. As women. As lesbian's. As wives. As people. As families. As communities. And as a country. And we must not forget that. In the movie Carol the law was against them, social norms were against them, their families were against them, their communities were against them, and the world denied them. As women, As wife, and as lesbians. This movie and it's almost perfect illustration of the 1950s and the types of people that lived in this era, made me realize that we have more people standing up than ever before. And whether shown through fact or fiction. Hope will help us all endure, and love will always win. -- Amran Muse