Reviews
Apartheid (1986)
Best Apartheid Doc Ever
This is by far the best documentary of apartheid ever. Clarity of the narrative, sharp editing and precise historical presentation, make it an absolute gem for those who want to learn the history of SA, from the Boers War to the fall of iron regime.
Made in 3 chapters, it covers the pre-apartheid SA era, then enters the apartheid history starting from 1948 when the Boers won the general elections and imposed the new order. Part 3 deals with modern events, eventually leading to the fall of the regime.
What impressed me more is the unbiased presentation of the series. In no moment you get the impression that the series distorts or misrepresents evidence.
What is disappointing however is the impossibility to find this documentary anywhere. Searching the internet and youtube will always result in no findings.
This is a quality 1986 production of Granada TV that scores an absolute 10/10.
Alex & the Gypsy (1976)
A cute entertaining little movie story
I've read a couple of disappointing reviews about this movie, and I simply don't agree. This is a fine little cute movie to keep you entertained and interested up to the last scene. A reviewer from Serbia calls the Hollywood people 'dopes' for casting Genevieuve Busold as the gypsy girl. I understand there are a lot of gypsies in Serbia, but he -the reviewer- fails to realize that the point of this film is not to show a real gypsy (this is not a documentary, and even so, if they wanted that would be real easy) but to depict characters and personalities. The film succeeds very well on that, and Busold, as also Jack Lemmon, are excellent in their roles.
A middle-age conservative man falls in love with a free living gypsy girl. When she runs away he becomes obsessed with finding her. What story can be simpler and so interested, in the same time?
I watched this movie back in 1978 when I was living in Canada, and I still remember it very well. Since then, I am looking forward to watch it (somehow/somewhere) again.
If you want to see real gypsies you can opt for a Koustouritsa film, but that's not my piece of cake. As a matter of fact, I prefer Hollywood movies to European crap cinema.
Oi erotomaneis (1971)
Collectible Title from the Greek Erotic FIlms of the 70s
I watched this film recently on TV and recalled the times when we rushed after high school to watch erotic flicks like that one. Mostly cut during the "Junta" times, but nevertheless played in many local theaters, where the show began on 14:00 hours, till 2:00 am after midnight. The plot? usually around some creeps that steal and kill around, in the mid time forcing some pretty girls in bed. Violence is predictable as real gangsters don't do these things, and sex is entertaining. "Oi Erotomaneis" meaning "The Sexmaniacs" in Greek, is no exception. The only reason to watch a film like this is to remember the school years, recall your city as it was then, and feel the nostalgia of the passed years that can never return. Some of the actors here are very known to all Greeks of my age. Lefteris Gyftopoulos is recognized as the "leading gangster and sex maniac" of the time, Anestis Vlachos used to play the "Hit Man", George Christodoulou very young here, later to become a hard-face gangster, and Udo Kier who made 2 films in Greece during the 70s, coming from a rich career in Italy (actually I think he's Austrian) -this is his 2nd movie, the first being "Proklisis" (Provocation). To have an idea what Greek gangsters of the time were, Gyftopoulos (the head of the gang) is heard to say on the phone (talking to one of his men): "Why are you wasting your time? Kill them both and return immediately!"
The actresses? Well, the beautiful and aristocratic (although old enough here) Betty Arvanity (the scene where she's raped in the beach by a gangster is cut), Eleni Anoussaki (a Mediterranean beauty who is singing a song here, now is a retired politician) and the young beauty Rena Kosmidou who was the sex symbol of many similar flicks of the 70s. Perry Poravou and Nicky Tsigalou are also pretty (and juicy) but do not show much here. Conclusion: watch the movie to learn how we spent our free time during high in Athens! (6 out of 10)
The Core (2003)
interesting plot and sci-fi effects, mediocre science
The first impression when the film starts is that a great sci-fi film is taking place. Until the real mission will start (first half an hour), everything stands up to the initial promise, bringing in mind the classic sci-fi masterpiece "voyage to the center of the Earth" starring James Mason (based on Jule Verne's classic novel). But when the armored capsule named 'Virgil' sets off for his trip to the center, first disappointment emerges for the true sci-fi fan. Going deep into the ocean to hit at high speeds in the ocean's bottom, it becomes obvious that the film bypasses all elementary physics, making things totally unrealistic. In fact, even if the capsule could resist the terrible impact, all crew members would have instantly died from the awesome crash! (more than a 100 g's!!!)
The use of special lasers to cut thru the Earth's crust is not realistic at all, as it would take time to cut even a few meters thru, making the descent too slow. Is this what we see? Boy, no! The ship speeds up even more, traveling to the center at incredible speeds! Goodbye elementary physics.
The nice digital effects can't save the story. Untruthful events occur every once in a while. Just to mention a few more: one guy steps out from the capsule, 5000 km deep into the magma phase!) at a temperature of ca. 5500 oC (same as the surface of the Sun). Still, his uniform resists the heat. The film makers fail to mention anything about the incredible pressure that would have squeezed the man to the volume of a fly!
On their trip back to the surface the ship continues to travel at incredible speeds, avoiding all collisions with rocks or other obstacles, even big as mountains. It steers automatically thru the obstacles, resembling a racing video game. (By comparison, the classic novel by Jule Verne, written more than a century ago, is far more realistic.)
If you can swallow the unrealistic physics, the film's story is interesting and keeps you in agony (the mystery of the Earth's deeps is always awesome!)
As a conclusion, see the film if you like good sci-fi scenarios, but bear in mind that the makers of the film had not bothered to check out the science of the story.
Was it too expensive to consult a good college physics professor? We'll never know. (By the way, USC is a few miles away from Hollywood!)
Solaris (2002)
Surprisingly good, compares well with Tarkovsky's classic!
Very rarely a 'remake' compares so well with the original, most times said to be a 'classic'. I think this Steven Soderbergh's Solaris (I don't know if producer James Cameron put a finger in it) is a surprisingly good piece of classic sci-fi. Atmospheric cinematography, excellent photographic compositions, nice music and, most of all, great performances by George Clooney and Natasha McElone, plus a unique 'Snow' character, make this film the best sci-fi movie of the decade. In fact, I didn't know that Clooney could perform so well. The only misfortune of this film is that bears the burden of being a 'remake', so people who have appreciated Tarkovsky's unique style (although with its drawbacks) will feel as if they 'knew' the end. This, spoils somehow the experience. But in the end the new Solaris will stay intact. For serious sci-fi fans only. Absolutely recommended!!
Stalker (1979)
Tarkovsky criticizing the Soviet Regime back in 1979!
Tarkovsky takes the opportunity with Stalker to heavily criticize the Soviet Regime, and he's so intense with some dialog that it seems unbelievable how the regime's censorship did not get the point of the film and allowed it to be made (I am not sure when it was shown on the Soviet screens).
For instance, Stalker (the Guide), responding to his wife's remark that he would finish in prison if he went back to the Zone (the forbidden area) he replies: "For me it's a prison everywhere". In other parts, the 3 characters come up with phrases like: "People have no hope anymore", or "the future is the same as the present", or "give the people some hope, it's the only thing they're left with", or similar. It seems that Tarkovsky is crying out his personal thoughts against the Regime, being a dissident himself (in fact, a little later he defected to Italy).
The Soviet reality in the beginning of the film is portrayed with a monochrome greenish depressing photography and ruins everywhere. When the three characters make it to the Zone (= the West?) things become colorful. Flowers and green plants are everywhere. They are facing a lot of dangers in their efforts to arrive in the Zone (machine-guns, bombs, etc) as if they were trying to escape the Communist Regime. But they take the risks, because their lives back home are meaningless.
Stalker starts as a sci-fi, then becomes metaphysical (Tarkovsky was obsessed with metaphysics) and finally ends up with different versions! In fact, the surprise comes at the end, as the film doesn't really end! As if Tarkovsky didn't know how to end it! Interesting and disappointing at the same time.
Those who will see the film hoping a sci-fi classic will be disappointed. If you only want to feel the unique poetic style and atmospheric camera moving of Tarkovsky, then it's a must. Overall, the film is a classic mainly because Tarkovsky is not anymore alive and cannot make films like this again.