One may disagree, but I personally disliked the movie (or liked less) , not because of the cast, but because it almost shows the very same things that the previous Spiderman films showed, and also because it shows those same things in a way less interesting then the previous Spiderman films. In a typical Super-Hero movie here are some easily recognized things you'll find : - There is a guy (or a girl) who is a slacker and unsuccessful, then suddenly either he finds some alien power, or by accident he becomes prey to a weird scientific experiment, or he is a super-science knowing guy , and creates his own super-technical suit, and becomes a superhero. Now, comes the villain. Villains also have some peculiarities, Either they're crazy for killing the Super-Hero, either they're good but wants to dominate humanity, either they're nor good neither crazy, they're just mad scientists who want to harm Huper-Heroes, but in the end befriends them. Villains also are born either by scientific experiment accident, or they have a haunted violent past, and vow to seek revenge due to their past, or they're a part of some salvation army and have their own beliefs which includes destroying the cities (and even worlds). The Amazing Spiderman contains all these cliches and becomes a typical Superhero movie. But the problem is it remains that sort of typical Superhero movie without anything else, and without offering something extra-sexy about that Superhero (and the film) to the audience. If we compare both the franchises, Sam Raimi created a more convincing dramatic environment then this one. Spiderman is not a rich Superhero like Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark, Peter Parker is a hard-working, struggling guy - which was shown very clearly in all the three previous films. Though Spiderman 3 was not much loved, its characters were already established to us, Tobey Maguire became attached to us as an everday hardwork ing part nerd, part emotinal, part shy, and part Spiderman. James Franco suited as Peter's beloved friend and the later Goblin, we loved Kristen Dunst as Mary Jane Watson didn't we. Also, Rosemary Harris was more comic familiar Aunt May, then Sally Field. And the most important thing is if they were planing to show all the same things, then were is 'J. Jonah Jameson' who becomes an important character in Peter's life, and an important part of humor. J.K Simons played it in the previous films, and he made us laughed, at least occasionally. Now, how will they again recreate the same character? Also this version looks more modern technical exceeding then the dramatic content of the film, which the previous films had been successful at. Spiderman invented his webs artificially in like comics,but movies are to be, and have to be different then novels, and comics, because movies are bigger then novels and comics. So it doesn't matter whether Spiderman uses natural Bio-Webs or artificial Webs, the point is not of the Webs, but of the character himself, and how that character prospers in the film. And natural Webs suited more in Spiderman, then artificial Webs, didn't they? Also, Uncle Ben's departure sequences was more accurate and tragic then in this film. That sequences from the first film itself, gave the famous Super-Hero line "Great Power becomes a great responsibility." - which this film doesn't shows directly and/OR clearly. I'll wait for the sequel, and would also hope or guess that may Spiderman join The Avengers. But if you ask, if of the franchise do I prefer to watch again, I would go for Sam Raimi's.
Underground with it's finest constructed fictional narrative consisting of a perfect blend of humor and drama - becoming a surrealistic tragical satire, explains the true quote of War i.e "No War is a War, until a brother kills brother." The film is in Serbian/ German language, but the subtitles become enough for a consumer to witness enormous energetic performances of it's all characters - which are one of many prime factors making this film look complete from all sides in all it's cinematic areas.They are wild, just like in any Hollywood comedy. They're courageous, anddance effortlessly and without any care. They're patriotic to their country, they are flirtatious, they become lovers, betrayers, killers, rebels and still full of emotions - changing throughout the film , which itself makes us believe indeed really the film is changing in time, from years to years, and Wars to Wars - which starts first from World War II, transfer to Cold War, and tragically ends showing Yugoslav Wars, depicting many of the tragic and heart-touching moments which will be imprinted in your mind forever. Film's music is also as jolly and energetic as the film. I didn't know who was the composer, but because of the curiosity I searched for the composer, and found out to be someone called Goran BregoviÄ?, whose bass-band themed music and soundtracks have become classic hits for the natives, I liked the songs myself, although I didn't know the language. I searched for the definition of the word 'Masterpiece' from my dictionary. Here are some definitions. 'A Masterpiece is a work of outstanding artistry, skill and workmanship' . 'A Masterpiece is a piece of work by a craftsman accepted as a qualification for the membership of a guild as an acknowledged master.' 'A Masterpiece is the finest work of a creative artist, for which he is remembered.' See the film yourself, and compare whether my definitions regarding the word 'Masterpiece' fit for describing this film.
The Artist became so pleasingly liked by the audiences, because the audience were on the edge of forgetting that there was a Silent Era in the Cinema History, and that they had loved many Silent Films like 'Battleship Potemkin' , 'Metropolis' , 'Dr. Calligari' and of course whole the series of Charlie Chaplin films, Laurel and Hardy also. Now, in this edge and age of forgetting that Silent Era, there came a film which caught the attention due to being a silent film, in today's time. But which prospered because of its quality of presentation. One way, The Artist is a very predictable focusing on familiar themes like over-pride and jealously. We also start getting hints as to what will happen in the climax. But, this re-emergence of silent film was a big event and a unique style in itself - which is also the reason which it was loved by the Oscars. Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo give it from their gestures and expression, not requiring them to perform - speaking. It has also been long, since we saw black and white comedies. So every scene from this film looks perfectly placed and never backs up from making audiences cheer. There are more silent-films coming because of the4 impact this film made, I guess....
A Passage to India is David Lean's ultimate glorious achievement after his mood let down due to Ryan's Daughter's (I guess) ratings. I don't know whether he perfected his arts, learned to recover his flaws, or just pictured perfect when got the final chance after many years since Ryan's Daughter, but A Passage to India is David Lean's films' promontory, if Lawrence of Arabia is their peak. A Passage to India, very beautifully dramatizes a small situation (represented even strongly in E.M Forster's Novel) and takes it to the edge to when the film be called 'Epic' , 'Master-piece' , 'Classic' as Lean's most of the films are called (due to it's hugh scale). Alec Guinness becomes unrecognizable at first - like he did in Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago, but you feel amazed imagining how Lean had make-up him and transformed him entirely into a Hindu priest. Peggy Ashcroft started in her humble looking and honest, Oscar winning role of Mrs. Moore. Judy Davis handles and fits perfectly as the shy British Woman, who has never got out from the comforts of her surroundings, and who when subjected to a new different surroundings, panics dangerously, causing havocs between the two classes and nationalities. But it is Victor Banerjee who catches the eye, starting as a courteous and always trustworthy (but unluckily accused) Dr. Aziz who speaks English very fluently in his own bold Indian Accent of speaking English, and unlike try to speaking like British. A Passage to India explains the clash between two opposing cultures, which has both friends and enemies. The second best Lean Film after Lawrence of Arabia.
I disagree with many famous critics like Roger Ebert and others, disliking this film. It even makes me wonder why they dislike it. That wonder and question is : - For what do you go to watch a film? What would you expect a film must offer to you? The prime goal of a film is entertainment right. And it should be a resonant of theatrical and realistic when it comes to performances, right. Every film has it's genre. So in order to be a good film, it should be good and unique in it's genre. So if it is a comedy, it should be able to make laugh which a new inventive approach to humor and comedy, or at least it should be able to create a sense of amusement in watcher, if not laugh. If the film is a Romance or a Tragedy, then it should dissolves audiences in a heart-melting emotions, if the film is an action-thriller, the sequences and style of the action sequences should appear to be more extra-ordinary then previous action films, and those sequences should be smart enough to justify thrill factor in audiences. Finally if a film is drama, and with many sub-genre inside it like Romance etc...then a drama film should amaze the audiences' minds when it starts, revolve them in a whirlpool of emotions throughout, and finally give them a satisfying culmination to the drama created. And adding, every film should not contain more cliche (even if it does, it should be done smartly). Now, these all must be the general guidance for a decent-original film, which a lecturer must be providing to the film-students. I didn't find many flaws while watching Ryan's Daughter. If it has a huge scale, then it was David Lean's signature - in which he had been successful in Lawrence of Arabia, Doctor Zhivago, River Kwai (and even in Passage to India). If the film's flaw was that it didn't contributed much in performances - I say it was not needed. There are and there were many directors in whose films actors gave a very perfect and audiences digestible performances, eventhough when their dialogues seem to blur. And I guess, story or screenplay of this film, must not be the reason why this film got criticized, that heavily. Because the film's pace of story progression was similar to every earlier Lean's films and he even did it in Passage to India. It didn't appeared amateur. In fact, I think it was made with a perfection. I think he had captured every scene with a conviction and together with his own style of giving us the delightful scenery. How many directors can you name who were or who are able to complete their films packed with such a vast and beautiful landscapes, together with story ongoing and in grip. Just Look at the scene from this film, in which the storm emerges in the villages, and whole villages gathers at the sea-shore to recover the armament for an Irish Leader. That scene was magnificent. I think many critics' forgot that it was Lean's style of making lengthy films and photographing lavishly. Ryan's daughter is a satifactory drama and a romance film, which takes it's time to unravel and explain its themes, but overall feels pleasing. I would've watched it in a Cinema-Hall if possible because of Lean's lavish photography. Don't miss this film, if you care for films which take their time for justifying their drama in audiences hearts and minds, but when done, does completely.