Buradan engellemeyi unutmuşsun..

Writing from a hospital bed (as he did with Wild Strawberries, two of these being films strung out from anguish), Ingmar Bergman put down almost anything that was in his head to start with (the first five minutes- some of the most startling and thoroughly symbolic minutes he's ever directed), then transposed into a story of two women, or one. This was one of the landmark 'art-films' of the 1960's, with hints of the horrors of war (in one memorable scene, Elisabeth looks at a television screen at images of death), introspection regarding sex and identity, existentialism, and what it means to be an actor. Some of the more famous directors in history have a kind of 'notorious' film, by which many people who may not know the bulk of their works know them by one particular work (with Hitchcock it could be Psycho, Lucas' Star Wars, Bunuel with Un chien Andalou, Breathless). This could, arguably, be the one for Bergman, despite a couple of others likely also holding claim to that title. In other words, this could be a good place to start with the director if you're not familiar with his films, or it might not be. But keep this in mind- it's one of his most unique departures as a filmmaker. Two of his leading ladies (and, ahem, loves), Bibi Andersson and 25 year-old Liv Ullmann, star as a nurse and an actress, who for the bulk of the film are at a Doctor's cottage as the nurse tries to help and likely cure Elisabeth of her ailment (froze on stage, silent but incredibly observant). In the meantime, Alma the nurse, in a role that gives Andersson more talking-points than any other film she's been in, goes through some hurtful parts of her past, and just tries to understand her counter-part. At one point, a vein of existentialism is ruptured thoughtfully, when Alma gets Elisabeth to say "No, don't", when she threatens her. When I first saw this film, I knew this scene would come after reading Roger Ebert's review. But I had no idea it would hit me like it did. There is such a great, compelling tension between these two that Andersson and Ullmann convey that it is what makes the film work. Any lessor actresses might fumble up the whole lot of it. While it isn't my favorite Bergman film (though it is unfair to pick favorites sometimes when it comes to someone as huge in the cine-consciousness as him), there are many things that had me come back to it after being a little awe-struck on my first viewing last year. For one thing, there's Sven Nykvist, with one of the strongest, most varying eyes in all of European cinema. In the first five minutes, of course, there is some fascinating stuff, but even in the scenes of long dialog and monologue (i.e. the unforgettable speech about being on the beach from Alma), where the lighting is so delicate and sharp with the shadows that you really feel like the weight of this situation is closing in on the characters. Or, of course, when the two actresses' faces are super-imposed, which can be interpreted in more ways than one (either as a grand statement, or as pretension, or something else). I was also very moved by the pace of the film, how it fills each minute (it's not a long movie) in ways that some movies just float minutes by. Now, this is the kind of Bergman film that can't be turned on any time (not to make it sound un-watchable, it certainly isn't). But it does ask to be viewed when in a certain frame of mind- if you're looking for a movie to show off to your friends, like it's the Euro/avant-garde version of Fight Club minus the violence, look away. It poses a good many questions for a viewer, especially one who knows of Bergman's themes he's explored before and after this film's release. How do we feel, or know we're feeling? What keeps us closed in? Why do we hurt? And are we only one person at a time? It's all the more puzzling that Bergman's climax isn't a very easy one (not as doomed as with Seventh Seal but not as cheerful as Fanny and Alexander), as Alma has another monologue with Elisabeth, about her son she hasn't seen in a long while- this famously seen from two different angles, one after the other. Furthermore, it is arguably Bergman's most self-conscious film to date (the commentary on the DVD carries it well), however it may not be as off-putting as with some of Godard. To put it another way, there are two sides to the subject matter, the film, the director,

The Great Gatsby tells a lot of stories and gains more themes so on. This new adaptation takes a different direction and unique scale. The experience feels familiar to other Baz Luhrmann film, which means it's quite dazzling by his fabulous style and creating an over-whimsical version of the setting. The easiest thing to say is it's fun as a Baz Luhrmann film, but it kind of glosses over the story too much. While it's generally stunning, it didn't dig deeper within the context. The Great Gatsby is fascinating enough but it could have been much grander than what it was shown on screen. The film did follow the book, it takes a lot of time exploring its setting, characters, and conflict, but explores only little on what's beneath it. The Great Gatsby actually has something more than just romance, but the film's storyline ambition mostly lies in there. The film mostly glosses at the points that suppose to provide more depth to the story which makes the possible satires of the period feels missing. But the film still has plenty of life. Beginning with the performances, Leonardo DiCaprio is definitely the kind of actor who can perfectly play the role and he did standout to be the better Gatsby than anyone else who portrayed the role. Tobey Maguire did what he usually do in movie but he is fine enough as Nick Carraway, same goes to Carey Mulligan as Daisy. Joel Edgerton steals all of his scenes by his intense performance as Tom Buchanan. The direction is spectacular however. Baz Luhrmann still perfectly uses his own style to tell the story. There are many extravagantly magnificent sequences, especially the party scenes that works amazingly even in 3D. The style really shows how ambitious this film will be and it transcends the scale which makes it wholly an interesting cinematic ride. Around with visual pleasures, there's the soundtrack and music score also keeping things groovy. It's hard to deny how enjoyable the experience is, but it could have also taken a higher perspective to the actual story. To be much fair, it did a remarkable job bringing it to the screen in a spectacular way with a cast who are very enthusiastic. While the visuals flare endlessly, the storytelling makes the overall film gripping. It's somewhat disappointing how some of its morality was left as a background even though people will say it's not necessary to take it seriously, but everyone has their own aspect on reading the book. The Great Gatsby is not as satisfying as it deserves but it manages to be incredibly eye candy and thoroughly entertaining.

Gigi (Ginnifer Goodwin) is searching for her true love in the city of Baltimore. As she is set up by friends and co-workers, she often takes a shine to her dates but, frequently, the gentlemen involved never call her again. This could be, in part, because Gigi leaves phone and text messages for her dates to the point of scaring any caring men away. Meanwhile, a married twosome, Ben and Janine (Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Connelly) are restoring a lovely townhouse but having personal problems. This is compounded by the fact that hubby meets a yoga instructor-aspiring singer, Anna (Scarlett Johanssen) at a corner grocery and is smitten. Despite his protestations that he is married, the two meet again. Also in the "raven" city is a longtime-together couple, Beth (Jennifer Aniston) and Neil (Ben Affleck) who are at odds, too, for Beth longs for marriage and Neil, despite his love for his lady, doesn't care for formalities. Finally, bar manager Alex (Justin Long) cynically gives advice to Gigi about men, real estate salesman Conor (Kevin Connolly) pines for Anna and newspaper ad-lady Mary (Drew Barrymore) is trying to make a love connection for herself, too. Will these fine folks get their "hearts desires" when it comes to amour? This is a fine, fine romantic comedy with an edge often missing from the standard fare. Yes, the characters in this film are searching for happily ever after but learn that reality may fall a bit short, sometimes. The ensemble cast is truly wonderful, with all of the actors giving nice turns as the romance seekers. But, then, they all have great lines to deliver, as the script is loaded with truth, laughs, and pathos. One surprise is that the Baltimore setting is absolutely lovely, especially the fine old apartment buildings where the characters dwell and the beautiful coast. Seeing these venues might tempt someone to book their next mini-vacation in this fine old town. However, the costumes are a mixed-bag, with Johannsen appearing gorgeous beyond measure and Goodwin looking fine, too, but J. Connelly sporting clothes that stifle her great beauty. On the other hand, the film's snappy direction and fine production values are assets. The bottom line is that while the film will please romcom enthusiasts it will also entertain those who usually attend movies of this genre with reluctance. Most filmgoers will get "into" this one and take home that feelgood spirit.

"No Strings Attached" poses the question: Is it possible to have sex with someone without risking that you could fall in love with them? The answer is YES. It also poses the question: Is it possible to make a clichéd and hackneyed film that smells like ass? The answer is YES. A bland and dated mainstream romantic comedy, which attempts to give itself an edge through raunchy humor and language and situational comedy right from the 80's. Kutcher and Portman have no chemistry. That lack of understanding of how people interact with each other and this carries over to all of the relationships in the film. None of these actors feel like they enjoy each other. You get the sense that Natalie Portman hates everyone she is working with and it's this kind of energy that dominates the film and makes it so painful to watch. The audience sat there like statues for the film hoping they would maybe get a string… You know we walk into the movie theater with open minds and goodwill and get hit by this and it's just an affront. It is incoherent, maddening and UN-funny. They had what? 25 million dollars to work out some kind of movie... How about 10 reasonably real moments? That would have been acceptable. They delivered zero. Excuse me? Hello?! I'm sorry Natalie, maybe you had the Oscar deal already dialed in but nonetheless, they're shooting real film here that people watch – Kutcher? You there? Was anybody there? Was Reitman around? What the hell is going on here? C'Mon folks! Let's step up to the plate. You're all getting a nice stack of cash – Can't you put just a little bit of work into it? Let's go! C'Mon Reitman! Snap snap. Wake the hell up kids! Time to pull the star out of your ass! EMBARRASSING!

War is hell. It is a macabre sarcasm of Life. It perverts all normal socially-accepted truths. And, in such a hell, only demons can survive -- - only demons can know how to excel. War Daddy (the inhuman, nearly immortal, soulless, progenitor of all destruction) says it best: "We're not here for 'Right or Wrong'... we are here to kill them." Perhaps, one imagines that there will be peace and happiness, beyond the unrelenting violence... but, after such implacable destruction, not only of lives... but of Life... what consolation can there be? Every chicken-hawk, war-mongering coward, should be required to witness this film. It is harrowing. It is cleansing. It teaches that violence begets violence. All that is pure and good, is destroyed by war... and it is only the purity of goodness, that restores goodness after the war is over. One wonders if it does any good to know the fact... for the demons in charge refuse to learn. And their deaths, after a time, proves nothing. I am filled with unrelenting sadness over this film. Its perfection shall go on, unappreciated. Its unblinking honesty will go on, unheeded. For, there will be other wars (there are many, now). There will be other demons, who's lust for conquest will obliterate everything they know... even/especially the things they profess to love. Because war is hell, and paradise does not exist in this realm... or, even after. The perversity of war... the final image... testifies to this fact. Life with war, is tainted. A poisoned well does not come clean.

The one-shot look of this movie was interesting. Wasn't sure if I was going to like that that approach to filming but it worked for this film.

The movie looked fantastic and the scenes and shots were breath taking. Sound and music score really helped a viewer on an emotional level as well.

While I was engrossed and drawn into this film from start to finish, after it was over and I had time to reflect on it, I found it not the profound masterpiece others have stated it as.

The plot in general was unrealistic - there are better ways to deliver a message than sending two soldiers across enemy lines and relying on luck and hope.

Some of the scenes dragged as well, which caused the movie to lose momentum for me. Felt the build up often yes, but then there would be scene that made me lose interest (truck ride. French woman & baby).

Acting wasn't spectacular either, from anyone in the film. You can have all the explosions and battle scenes you want that look great, but if the actors can't carry the script along it won't work as a whole. This is why the comparisons that mention Saving Private Ryan don't work for me - those actors drew you in with their performances. That didn't happen here, and between the acting and the momentum losing scenes, is why I cant rate this film any higher.

Close, but missed the mark for a perfect film, but a good watch none the less.

As a former lecturer in Arabic and Islamic Studies, who has written a major report on radicalization in Muslim schools, and who has written many articles about radical Islam, I was worried that this series might be filled with all sorts of misunderstandings and inaccuracies and mistakes. In fact, it was well researched, down to subtle things such as distinguishing between jihad al-akbar and jihad al-asghar, using both terms in Arabic. And saying fard (duty) without translation. The portrayal of ISIS in Raqqa seemed to me most convincing, based as it was on authentic film and reportage. As the author of ten international thrillers (several bestsellers and three or four with Islamic themes), I found the tension well built, making many episodes nail-biting. The characters are well developed, if at times frustrating. I have taken one star off on account of the coincidences and other plot holes. Despite these, the series works in terms of character, pace, and plot lines. I strongly recommend it to anyone who likes well written and well performed drama that will keep one watching through the eight episodes with speed. As for the several people here leaving 3, 4, 5 or other low ratings, I would pay them no heed at all.

Belgian Director Felix Van Groningen ("The Broken Circle" 2012 - Winner of multiple Film Festival Awards) brings the best selling pair of memories, "Beautiful Boy" by father David Sheff and "Tweak" by son Nic Sheff to the big screen with heart-wrenching perfection. Steve Carell steps into the role of David, a father willing and available to help his son through a period he can't understand. Timothy Chalamet ("Call Me by Your Name") is Nic, a young boy who appears to have it all, only to be dealing with a dark hole feed by drug addicition. The beauty of this film is that the story is told from both father and son perspectives. Nic writes about what was happening in his head and heart, while David writes what it was like to be a father looking in. Van Groningen's primary setting is a family cabin in the woods of San Francisco. Breathtaking in its appearance, surrounded by the forrest and a yard surely once filled with memorable family times, the interior is mysteriously gloomy and dark, warning the viewer something is wrong here. Cinematography (Ruben Impens), and the films eerie musical score, further cement the tense presented on screen, dropping the viewer into various SF locations that grab you and hold you down. Be for warned: The silence within this film is so powerful, that if you're eating popcorn, sipping on a beverage or your phone rings, you do any of these at your own risk. Yet, however strong this film is, something is missing here. The performance are above terrific and touching, the story is current and relevant, and the mothers (Maura Tierney "ER" and Amy Ryan "Birman") perspective is equally on point. Yet, I found myself unable to fully latch on to the characters in the manner that I'm sure the writers wanted. "Beautiful Boy" is a powerful movie going experience, and one that is hard to get out of your head.

There are very few films as emotionally raw and truthful as 'The Broken Circle Breakdown'. Set in Belgium, and somewhat reminiscent of 'Betty Blue', it tells of the love affair between Didier and Elise - a bluegrass musician and a tattoo artist. The story begins with the couple attending to their young daughter's needs in a cancer ward as she battles for her life against the disease. Flashback sequences portray the couple's initial meeting, Elise's incorporation into Didier's band as a vocalist, the mad passion of their early romance and the arrival of daughter Maybelle in their lives. Back at the hospital seven years later, the child endures the toxic effects of chemotherapy, her health alternately improving and deteriorating, while the parents accompany her on this agonizing roller-coaster ride. Fracture lines appear in the couple's deep bond as atheist Didier rails against a god that could have inflicted such a cruel destiny upon the girl, while Elise struggles to hold onto hope and process her anguish. Somehow their heroic odyssey into the deepest regions of pain is neither pessimistic nor depressing, and their story communicates profound insights about the need for love, forgiveness and understanding in extreme circumstances. By contrast, it makes most Hollywood productions look like trite insults to human intelligence. Perhaps they are - and maybe audiences should look elsewhere for authentic artistic expression. This film suggests Belgian cinema might be somewhere to start the search.