It's director Dagur Kari's first features and tells the story of a wonderboy trapped in a Icelandic village in a fjord which is complete surrounded by mountains. Since there're no ways for him to express and develop his talents, he slacks off and is seen more as a good-for-nothing-kid-with-no-future-whatsoever. He dreams of getting out with a girl from the big city, but all of his own attemps are in vain. Untill nature or faith gives him the chance, but he'll pay the greatest price for it.
A really nice little film with some wonderful characters.

Time to start working on my journal again.

Red-Headed Woman (1932, Conway)



In the next couple of days, I'll be receiving the Forbidden Hollywood Collection #2. I bought the first volume a year ago, but until yesterday I still needed to watch "Red Headed Woman".
Jean Harlow's main character is a simple, dumb, red headed bimbo, without a heart of gold. It's no wonder this pre-code film was included in the first set.
It wasn't the best film of the first set, but still very good.

8/10


Chinatown (1974, Roman Polanski)



A masterpiece I hadn't watched in a while. I guess I didn't see it since before I started posting on RT five and a half years ago.
This is "Film" as it should be. Perfect in every possible way. Screenplay, directing, editing, music, acting. It's simply amazing.

10/10

Time to start working on my journal again.

Red-Headed Woman (1932, Conway)



In the next couple of days, I'll be receiving the Forbidden Hollywood Collection #2. I bought the first volume a year ago, but until yesterday I still needed to watch "Red Headed Woman".
Jean Harlow's main character is a simple, dumb, red headed bimbo, without a heart of gold. It's no wonder this pre-code film was included in the first set.
It wasn't the best film of the first set, but still very good.

8/10


Chinatown (1974, Roman Polanski)



A masterpiece I hadn't watched in a while. I guess I didn't see it since before I started posting on RT five and a half years ago.
This is "Film" as it should be. Perfect in every possible way. Screenplay, directing, editing, music, acting. It's simply amazing.

10/10

Yesterday I went to see Bertolucci's The Dreamers. Although absolutely not one of his best films, I still think it's his best film since The Last Emperor.
It's set in the 60's, so let's begin by saying that it has probably the best soundtrack I've heard all year. It contains The Doors, Bob, Janis, Hendrix even Edith Piaf and Charles Trenet.
Our main character is an American in Paris. A student and film-buff named Matthew. The first friends he encounters are the fellow filmbuff twins Isabelle and Theo. Their discussions about films or actors and their recreations of famous scenes, which are intercut with the "real" scenes is a beautiful ode to cinema in general.
But they are all three "dreamers", they live in a world of their own, a world of cinema, a world of fiction, a world of their own rules. They discuss the real world, but don't participate in it. One of them also knows this, but he's the only one who in the end can't step out of it.
The three main characters are all in their early twenties, but they all give good solid adult performances.

8 out of 10

I just came back from "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" the third film in the series, together with my fellow RT-er Margot Tenenbaum.
All the major actors of the first two films are back, except ofcourse for Richard Harris (RIP), as are John Williams (composer), Steve Kloves (writer) and the set and art department. The major difference this time is that Chris Columbus stepped down as director to be replaced by Alfonso Cuaron. Let me begin by saying "Thank, God". When I heard a couple of years ago that the first Harry Potter film would be directed by Columbus, I immediatly thought it would also be the end of the series. Every film he had directed before it I'd hated with passion. But I have to admit I liked the first two films, but it had more the do with the subject matters and visual effects, then his direction, which is always way too simple.
Now we have a director, who has captured beauty many times before, even if one of his films could not be considered "great". When you watch "A Little Princess", "Great Expections" and "Y Mama Tambien", you know the director really has a great eye for beauty.
And it shows, this time the magic isn't 100% based on the visual effects, but also on the camera... the mood and colors are way darker (as in the books)....the characters growing up, have anger spells etc. I just love these kind of films way more.
As major new characters we get four of the greatest English actors in one film : Emma Thompson, Timothy Spall, David Thewlis and the alway amazing Gary Oldman. Although Emma Thompson and Timothy Spall both haven't got much the work with (too little screentime) it's always a delight to see them in anything.
I've loved David Thewlis since I first saw Mike Leigh's "Naked". Why he didn't get an oscar nomination for that role is still one of the biggest mysteries of the 90's. Although he's never again, had a great role like that, you can always see he's great actor, esp. in this film which I see as he best role since "Naked".
Gary Oldman is simply one of the best actors of the last 18 years. He doesn't need much screentime or lines to make us see that. He's solid as always.
The kids : Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson are growing better as actors as Rupert Grint. I really have my doubts if Rupert Grint has what it takes. At this moment I think he's child actor and not an actor. The latter needs to play the part if this series is going to have seven films. I have more hope for Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson, I do think, they have the skill to grow futher as actors and play the parts in all films. I hope that Rupert Grint proofs me wrong in the next film.
It's just a wonderful, beautifully filmed childern's adventure. Pure and utter entertainment for all ages.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
8 out of 10

It's a mindless, stupid but still enjoyable now and again mainstream movie.

The original tagline we got about more than a year ago was "In the year 2003, Uma Thurman will kill Bill". Then the news reached us that the most anticipated film of the year, at least for us movie-buffs, would be split into two films. Volume One would be released in october 2003 and Volume Two in february of 2004, although the first rumours let us to believe they would be released just a couple of weeks apart.
I've loved Tarantino's filmmaking from the start. I first saw "Reservoir Dogs" in a local art-theatre in the beginning of 1993, I saw the first showing of "Pulp Fiction" outside of it's Cannes' premiere in the same theatre when it had one showing at filmfestival with a lot avant-premieres in september 1994. I kept raving about it to my friends and five months later my friends went raving to me about it and I had to remind them I had seen it months before. If you were to ask me which films defined the 90's for me, I would always say "Dogs" and "Pulp" first.
So now for "Kill Bill vol. 1 and vol. 2". I had already seen Vol. 1 numberous times in the cinema and on DVD and last week I went to a Kill Bill marathon the night before Vol. 2 would originally open here in Holland and last night I saw Vol. 2 for the second time. Let me start by saying the film works best as ONE LONG FILM. I didn't consider the "marathon" as a "marathon" but as the showing of a film called "Kill Bill" with one intermission between chapters 5 and 6. As one film it holds a couple of the most memberable scenes and characters of the last few years. The Bride, Pai Mei, Bill, Gogo, O-Ren, Buck, Johnny Mo, Bud, Ellen Driver, Reverend Harmony, Hattori Hanzo and even the Pussy Wagon. It isn't high drama and sure you can debate it on it's originality level because it holds so many homages to films, film-genres and film-makers, but it's done with so much style and so much fun. You can almost feel that had a hell of a lot of fun making this film. When the credits came up and "Malaguena Salerosa" began playing and we saw all of the characters of both films, it felt like the end of a great rollercoaster ride. But when I saw "Vol. 2" again yesterday, I felt that something was missing, the first half of the film. I truely believe this should have been released as one long 4 hour film.
It's just one great long very fun piece of film. A great way to spend 4 hours of your life, it's pure entertainment and isn't that what film was originally intended to be? Because film wasn't created to become an art-form, it became one.

"Kill Bill Vol. 1" 9 out of 10
"Kill Bill Vol. 2" 9 out of 10
"Kill Bill" 10 out of 10

The original tagline we got about more than a year ago was "In the year 2003, Uma Thurman will kill Bill". Then the news reached us that the most anticipated film of the year, at least for us movie-buffs, would be split into two films. Volume One would be released in october 2003 and Volume Two in february of 2004, although the first rumours let us to believe they would be released just a couple of weeks apart.
I've loved Tarantino's filmmaking from the start. I first saw "Reservoir Dogs" in a local art-theatre in the beginning of 1993, I saw the first showing of "Pulp Fiction" outside of it's Cannes' premiere in the same theatre when it had one showing at filmfestival with a lot avant-premieres in september 1994. I kept raving about it to my friends and five months later my friends went raving to me about it and I had to remind them I had seen it months before. If you were to ask me which films defined the 90's for me, I would always say "Dogs" and "Pulp" first.
So now for "Kill Bill vol. 1 and vol. 2". I had already seen Vol. 1 numberous times in the cinema and on DVD and last week I went to a Kill Bill marathon the night before Vol. 2 would originally open here in Holland and last night I saw Vol. 2 for the second time. Let me start by saying the film works best as ONE LONG FILM. I didn't consider the "marathon" as a "marathon" but as the showing of a film called "Kill Bill" with one intermission between chapters 5 and 6. As one film it holds a couple of the most memberable scenes and characters of the last few years. The Bride, Pai Mei, Bill, Gogo, O-Ren, Buck, Johnny Mo, Bud, Ellen Driver, Reverend Harmony, Hattori Hanzo and even the Pussy Wagon. It isn't high drama and sure you can debate it on it's originality level because it holds so many homages to films, film-genres and film-makers, but it's done with so much style and so much fun. You can almost feel that had a hell of a lot of fun making this film. When the credits came up and "Malaguena Salerosa" began playing and we saw all of the characters of both films, it felt like the end of a great rollercoaster ride. But when I saw "Vol. 2" again yesterday, I felt that something was missing, the first half of the film. I truely believe this should have been released as one long 4 hour film.
It's just one great long very fun piece of film. A great way to spend 4 hours of your life, it's pure entertainment and isn't that what film was originally intended to be? Because film wasn't created to become an art-form, it became one.

"Kill Bill Vol. 1" 9 out of 10
"Kill Bill Vol. 2" 9 out of 10
"Kill Bill" 10 out of 10

Freaky Friday



Just a fun film after a hard's day work. Can't complain about it very much, just the light entertainment I needed that evening.
7/10

The Last Samurai



A very nicely made film. Beautifully shot. Too bad about the very weak ending. 8/10

Runaway Jury



Let's see, I'm not a major John Grisham fan. I've read two of his books, and didn't like them at all. As for the film adaptations, I midly liked "The Firm", hated "The Pelican Brief", found both "The Client" and "A Time To Kill" enjoyable, and loathed "The Chamber" and "The Gingerbread Man". So I didn't have high expections going into this one. But I liked it, maybe the best John Grisham film so far. By far the best J.G. film starring Gene Hackman, who also starred in both "The Firm" and "The Chamber". His scene with Dustin Hoffman was very good, and John Cusack probably is one of the most enjoyable actors around these days. 7/10

Mystic River



Sean Penn deserved the Academy Award this year, he gave two of the three best performances of this year as Paul Rivers and Jimmy Markum, too bad the Academy awarded him for the wrong film. If the "contest" really is about the performance, Bill Murray should have won for Lost In Translation. But I can understand why he won.
It's Clint's best film since Unforgiven. It's such a shame the man rarely makes films of this kind of calibre. Mystic River, Unforgiven, and The Outlaw Josey Wales are only his really "great" films IMHO. (and maybe "Bird", but I haven't seen it since about 1989)
But all the praise has to go to the wonderful cast. A great ensamble of actors, without "lesser" performances and ruling above them all is still Sean Penn's character. 9/10

In America



What can I say about this film? Except that yesterday I fell completely in love with it. The best child-performances of the year. 10/10

De Zaak Alzheimer



A very good Belgium thriller. I wouldn't be surprised if there'll be an American remake.
An aging hitman (Jan DeCleir (Character, Daens))who's beginning to suffer from Alzheimers, takes on one last job. But when he discovers he's working to cover-up for a child-prostitution network, he turns against his employers and tries to crack down the network, before his own illness takes control of him. 7.5/10

Freaky Friday



Just a fun film after a hard's day work. Can't complain about it very much, just the light entertainment I needed that evening.
7/10

The Last Samurai



A very nicely made film. Beautifully shot. Too bad about the very weak ending. 8/10

Runaway Jury



Let's see, I'm not a major John Grisham fan. I've read two of his books, and didn't like them at all. As for the film adaptations, I midly liked "The Firm", hated "The Pelican Brief", found both "The Client" and "A Time To Kill" enjoyable, and loathed "The Chamber" and "The Gingerbread Man". So I didn't have high expections going into this one. But I liked it, maybe the best John Grisham film so far. By far the best J.G. film starring Gene Hackman, who also starred in both "The Firm" and "The Chamber". His scene with Dustin Hoffman was very good, and John Cusack probably is one of the most enjoyable actors around these days. 7/10

Mystic River



Sean Penn deserved the Academy Award this year, he gave two of the three best performances of this year as Paul Rivers and Jimmy Markum, too bad the Academy awarded him for the wrong film. If the "contest" really is about the performance, Bill Murray should have won for Lost In Translation. But I can understand why he won.
It's Clint's best film since Unforgiven. It's such a shame the man rarely makes films of this kind of calibre. Mystic River, Unforgiven, and The Outlaw Josey Wales are only his really "great" films IMHO. (and maybe "Bird", but I haven't seen it since about 1989)
But all the praise has to go to the wonderful cast. A great ensamble of actors, without "lesser" performances and ruling above them all is still Sean Penn's character. 9/10

In America



What can I say about this film? Except that yesterday I fell completely in love with it. The best child-performances of the year. 10/10

De Zaak Alzheimer



A very good Belgium thriller. I wouldn't be surprised if there'll be an American remake.
An aging hitman (Jan DeCleir (Character, Daens))who's beginning to suffer from Alzheimers, takes on one last job. But when he discovers he's working to cover-up for a child-prostitution network, he turns against his employers and tries to crack down the network, before his own illness takes control of him. 7.5/10