Latest Movie :
Recent Published Movies Here

The Help (2011) Full Movie english subtitles

The Help (2011) Full Movie english subtitles


The Help (2011)
Release :
2011-08-09
Runtime :
146 min.
Genre :
Drama
Production :
DreamWorks SKG, 1492 Pictures, Participant Productions, Imagenation Abu Dhabi FZ, Reliance Entertainment, Touchstone Pictures
Cast :
Emma Stone, Viola Davis, Octavia Spencer, Bryce Dallas Howard, Jessica Chastain, Mike Vogel, Allison Janney, Sissy Spacek, Chris Lowell, Ahna O'Reilly, Anna Camp, Cicely Tyson, Aunjanue Ellis, David Oyelowo, Dana Ivey, LaChanze, Brian Kerwin, Wes Chatham, Ted Welch, Shane McRae, Roslyn Ruff, Tarra Riggs, Leslie Jordan, Mary Steenburgen, Tiffany Brouwer, Carol Sutton, Ashley Johnson, Ritchie Montgomery, Nelsan Ellis, Cleta Elaine Ellington, Amy Beckwith, Julie Ann Doan, Lamar Lott, Charles Orr
Crew :
Tate Taylor, Tate Taylor, Stephen Goldblatt, Kathryn Stockett, Michael Barnathan, Chris Columbus, Brunson Green, Shawn Torge, Jim Passon, Curt Beech, Rena DeAngelo, Mark Ricker, Sharen Davis, Thomas Newman, Kerry Barden, Paul Schnee, Hughes Winborne, Cate Hardman, Jennifer Blum, Nate Berkus, L. Dean Jones Jr., Jeff Skoll, Mohamed Khalaf Al-Mazrouei, Tate Taylor, Mark Radcliffe, John Norris, Sonya Lunsford, Jennifer Hawks, Bill Bernstein, Andrew Silver, Dale Robinette, David Giammarco, Scott Millan, Scott A. Jennings, Dennis Drummond, Willie D. Burton, Russell Allen, Dana Kay Hart, Erik Bernstein, Rocky Capella, Will Arnot, Will Arnot, Camille Friend, Brad Wilder, Natasha Ladek, Robert Bella, Mark Graziano, Brian McNulty, Robin Sweet, Donald Sparks, Robin Lynn Bonaccorsi, Jwaundace Candece, Rex Reddick, Kendrick Hudson, Curtis Lindersmith, Colin J. Campbell, Gloria Belz, Mary Everett, Robert Cole, Khris Bennett
Vote Average:
7.6 Count: 995
Overview :
Aibileen Clark is a middle-aged African-American maid who has spent her life raising white children and has recently lost her only son; Minny Jackson is an African-American maid who has often offended her employers despite her family's struggles with money and her desperate need for jobs; and Eugenia "Skeeter" Phelan is a young white woman who has recently moved back home after graduating college to find out her childhood maid has mysteriously disappeared. These three stories intertwine to explain how life in Jackson, Mississippi revolves around "the help"; yet they are always kept at a certain distance because of racial lines.
Keyword :
mississippi, based on novel, exploitation, racial segregation, racism, writer, maid, moral courage, ressentiment, southern belle, racial issues, 1960s, newspaper columnist

The Help (2011)
The Help (2011)
The Help (2011)
Review
The Help is one of the many films that's set in the 60s that deals with themes like prejudice and racism involving segregation amongst the Whites and the African Americans in Jackson, Mississippi, but having the very same themes also being relevant in society today even here in Singapore especially, with recent talk and focus on the issue of domestic help and our attitudes toward household maids that many employ for various reasons, who assist in looking after the children and the elderly, as well as to keep home while the rest of the adults are neck deep in economic pursuits. While racism is generally kept under control here, there are niggling incidents that pop up every now and then, so clearly we're not off the hook and there will always be individuals who choose intolerance.

Granted that racism back then was more pronounced especially during that era put on film, the story's based on an international bestseller written by Kathryn Stockett, and over here we're bound to identify with the issues highlighted especially in the horror stories you'd hear with regards to the treatment of domestic help, with abuse cases that make you sit up and wonder why we are capable of such inhumane acts. And the worst of all involves being hypocritical, putting on a false front for society, while clearly behaving like the devil when behind closed doors. The bottom line is, we're all humans and we share similar hopes and dreams whatever our skin colour, language and where we're from, in desiring a comfortable life filled with love, with a roof over our heads, food and community, friends and family we can turn to in times of need. 

Which is why this film has themes and a poignant, thought provoking narrative that screams relevance, especially for those closeted intolerant few who must watch this, and reflect. Emma Stone stars as Eugenia "Skeeter" Phelan, an aspiring journalist who has returned home only to find out that the group of peers she had grown up with, are leading a lifestyle of superficial leisure, saying a lot of things, but meaning nothing. And for all their cliquish behaviour in cruelly treating one of their own as a social outcast (Jessica Chastain from The Tree of Life), for an ulterior reason only Hilly (Bryce Dallas Howard) knows, what more their household maids who have to slog with the chores, be that surrogate mother to their kids, be at their beck and call, and being given attitude, stick, and threats of the sack?

Given the tension all round during the time, it's no wonder that Skeeter's plans to want to highlight The Help's predicament and provide them with a voice, no doubt also serving as a ticket for her journalistic ambitions to embark on a career in New York, all met with stone walled silence, until Aibileen Clark (Viola Davis) decided that enough is enough, and begin opening up to Skeeter as research material, becoming her insights and perspective on how the African American help get treated in White households. And besides Aibileen's point of view, her friend Minny Jackson (Octavia Spencer) also chipped in, and both represent the broad spectrum of heartfelt accounts both good and bad, though largely negative, with the tacit understanding with Skeeter that they are not to be referred to directly.

It's one of those powerful films that takes the ugly side of humanity and presents it to us face on, to confront how cruel some of us can be, and what the strong amongst us must do to act and help those who are weak or bullied. Director Tate Taylor, who also wrote the screenplay, focuses on the tales crafted around the households both Aibileen and Minny serve, from being treated like dirt to forming firm friendships with some of the people they know and serve, such as Celia Foote (Jessica Chastain), as a reminder on how we should never judge a book by its cover, being obviously relevant when one gets handed one's fate for being of a certain skin colour. You may think that this may be a heavy film with all its seriousness, but trust me there is enough light hearted, even heart warming moments scattered throughout, though counter-balanced with moments of fear that will make you worry for the characters since mob mentality can lead to anything.

Emma Stone normally plays kooky characters of late, so this was perfect opportunity for her to shine in more serious drama which she does adequately. But she got upstaged by both Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer, the former who brought a certain quiet dignity to her role which just calls for respect, and the latter being the comic relief as a really straight-talker, and whose story was probably the most touching in the film, with one of the funniest, running gag in the later half. Bryce Dallas Howard also owned her role as the antagonist Hilly in the film, and if you'd think she's only capable of goody two shoes roles, think again as she can convincingly play back-stabbers, with Sissy Spacek in a supporting role as Hilly's mom.

The Help reminds us of how one has to have Fear and Courage to addresses changes in community or the larger society we serve in, without which we would all be poorer for it. It may be almost 2 1/2 hours long, but it's every minute worth it just watching how an uphill battle was fought, and baby steps being taken each time to overcome obstacles placed in the characters' way. It's guaranteed that you'll laugh and you'll cry in the film thanks to its material, and it's firmly one of the contenders to be amongst my favourite films of this year. Highly recommended! 
In Jackson, Mississippi, in the 60's, the aspirant writer Skeeter Phelan (Emma Stone) has just graduated and returns home after finding a job writing in a futile newspaper column in the local newspaper. When she arrives home, she finds that her nanny and family's maid Constantine Jefferson (Cicely Tyson) is gone. 

Skeeter sees the chance of writing a book about the relationship of the black maids with the Southern society for an editor from New York. First she convinces Aibileen Clark (Viola Davis) to open her heart to her; then Minny Jackson (Octavia Spencer) is unfairly fired by the arrogant Hilly Holbrook (Bryce Dallas Howard), who is a leader in the racist high society, and Minny decides to tell her stories after finding a job with the outcast Celia Foote (Jessica Chastain). Soon eleven other maids accept to be interviewed by Skeeter that also tells the truth about Constantine. When the book "The Help" is released, Jackson's high society will never be the same.

"The Help" is an unforgettable movie about a forgettable time in the history of the United States of America. The engaging story is supported by magnificent performances and the viewer does not feel the 146 minutes running time. The performances of Viola Davis, Bryce Dallas Howard, Octavia Spencer and Jessica Chastain are top-notch and all of them deserved at least nomination to the Oscar and major film festivals. The direction is tight and art direction is very realistic. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Histórias Cruzadas" ("Entwined Stories") 
I hate this movie. I hate everything about it. As a college educated, married, faithful Black Man in America I am here to say I'm slave tired of these "step n' fetch it" roles. These are the kind of depictions that Hollywood and white America seems to LOVE to see my sons and daughters emulate. But a film like The Great Debaters gets virtually ignored. Oh I get it... I'm just tired of it.

The FACT that Black people are - mired in the abyss - of abject poverty, disproportionate incarceration and homicide rates, drug addiction, lack of education and inadequate housing is not fictional entertainment - but REALITY. I understand Black America is not a monolith, but the socioeconomic and sociocultural status of the Black America I speak of is in real trouble. Viola Davis is a fantastic actor but her talent is wasted in The Help. Black Americans need STRONGER and MORE POWERFUL and PROGRESSIVE IMAGES IN FILM!! Hello... The Mammy character is dead. The Uncle Tom character is dead... or should be. Let's move forward.

I'm not sure what Black America you THINK you know, but the Black America I know is one of profound sadness. This is 2012! Not 1960! Have you ever spent anytime at all in an inner city ghetto? Have you ever seen project tenements in Kansas City, MO, Memphis, TN or Atlanta, GA? You've been BAMBOOZLED (a movie that should have won an Oscar) into thinking that all Black Americans are well educated and financially secure. Most Black people aren't lawyers, musicians, rappers or professional athletes. Black men are in fact more likely to be in prison than in college. Why is that?

One of my greatest wishes is for gifted and talented Black actors, directors and producers to pool their intellectual and financial resources, devising ways to create better images and stories for the Black community instead of feeding into a racist Hollywood that does not (and has NEVER) had our best interests at heart. 

Be honest with yourself... Hollywood and their corporate sponsors could give a rats ass about the Black community, but they don't mind striping our daughters naked.

Doesn't anyone else see a problem when the only way Black Actors can become so-called "successful" - is when they either sell out in an interracial relationship, have sex with Billy Bob Thornton on screen or sell degrading images of their people as being pimps, drug dealers, whores, gangsters, buffoons and ...maids?

If you have any shred of self-respect you will stay away from not only this movie The Help, but every movie like it. Rent and/or buy Bamboozled and The Great Debaters instead. You'll feel better. 
This is a hard film to adequately review, because so much is right with it, yet at the same time so much is wrong. Or if not "wrong," at least there are some major tones that simply did not work for me.

The cast is spectacular. Emma Stone is not just adorable, but a skilled and marvelous actor. You don't need me to remark that she has a stellar career ahead of her. The rest of the cast includes some of those great character actors you see in the better films, but can't quite remember where you've seen them before. but that's a plus for a character actor, as their appearances, therefore, always seems fresh.

It feels very awkward for me to mention the tone that felt wrong. The abuse and inhumane treatment endured by black people 50 years ago is hard to watch today. The pain inflicted, and the behavior of the oppressors can only be called an "evil" situation. One hopes that evolution has done its work, and social justice prevails today. If not perfectly, then at least to a tolerable degree.

But that is part of the problem, to me. This film seems to merely recycle old tropes of injustice. It seems to be, as one of my professors used to call it, a "pot stirrer." Lots of agitation and angst and shame and sympathy just for the sake of chaos--- but here it doesn't seem to be authentic. It certainly doesn't seem to go anywhere. It's almost as if the writer has taken an easy issue guaranteed to provoke outrage and anger, rather than doing the authentic, and difficult, artistic work necessary to invoke compassion and healing. This film might be, to be blunt, merely counterfeit social justice. It might be a brazen attempt to "push buttons" for undeserved sympathy. I sincerely hope I am mistaken, and overly unkind.

Granted, that's a subtle point. But that's also why I found the theme of the film a bit objectionable- it seemed as if the filmmakers were taking advantage of most people's natural and gut-level decency to elicit an audience response on a tabloid level.

Further, who would DARE to criticize this film? It's almost as if it were "criticism proof." Therefore unsound dramatic treatments will go by without comment. Given that I think that was done deliberately, even if somewhat unconsciously, this movie takes an honorable and lofty struggle for which many people suffered and even died, and shamelessly exploits that to make a few bucks at the box office. Think about it- what insights or "new" themes were introduced here? I'd say none. It may be an example of what Plato called "pandering," going for the cheap points via a stimulus-response fest.

I hope I am wrong- I hope it is really just a matter of me not responding to this particular cinematic venture. If I am even partly right, however, it bodes ill for our modern shallow and thoughtless "junk media" environment. 
This is the most wonderful movie. I enjoyed everything about it. I adore the characters and the story line. Excellent movie!!!!! I think it is well told and it is a very moving story. It is a slow paced movie but I found myself intrigued by each moment. The only thing I found myself wanting at the end of the movie was more story line. This is a touching endearing movie, I cried and laughed. I haven't seen a good movie like this in awhile. Though most will consider this a "chick flick", I think men could enjoy it just as much. A must see! I would compare this movie to "Life as a House" and "Evening Star". A story that just captures you heart and you don't want it to end. 
Oddly, I enjoyed the help. it's a strong story well told, beautifully photographed with exceptional period feel, and is sincerely and expertly performed.

Despite is weighty veneer, it's also patronising and manipulative. I don't know for sure but I'm guessing this movie is made by white folk, with the usual feel-better gloss about a terrible subject. 

Leonard Maltin wrote that this film's lone failing was its stereotypes. Certainly Bryce Dallas Howard's Hilly is he most obvious example but really the movie is peppered with stereotypes: the shallow housewife; the modern go-girl (who just happens to be an diamond in the rough, just to emphasise that its what's inside that counts, and that white people have real problems too); the bimbo with a heart; the mother who wishes she had the strength; the oppressed but wise housemaid; the bread-winning husbands that look the other way, and so on and so on.

It might be cathartic for white Americans to make and see films like The Help but really they're not fooling anyone. The Help is shiny and clever, but to me and surely many other non-Americans, its shallow, narcissistic and and unfairly self-congratulatory.

Somewhere there must be a filmmaker and studio that has the balls to tell modern audiences the stories of the real struggle of African Americans against their white oppressors; something that contains a stronger resolution that a swell of pride and a cold sore. I'll take that over this sugar coated Oscar bait thanks. 
This stunning film incorporates history, friendship, hate and humour in a way never done before. Believable characters compliment the strong, gripping story, and all are played well, demonstrating skilled acting.

The relationships between characters are amazing, and you find yourself relating with the characters as you experience the ones in the film.

You can sit in a cinema watching this film and all at once, laugh, cry and smile, as you stare in awe at this cinematic genius.

I look forward to reading the book in the near future, as I am sure it will be just as good.

Best Picture, here we come! 
Look folks, I'm not the one to go watch a movie and then come and write a review. This is very rare, in fact this is the first time. First of all, I'm a black middle-aged male living in Australia. I'm not into that black-white-red-yellow affirmative action, divide or whatever you call it and I have not experienced that American slavery or racism history except seeing it presented one-sided or biased on TV.

Now having proclaimed my neutrality above, I will tell you this: this is one powerful movie that will sure touch and move you in one way or another whatever your political lining. The casting, directing and acting are top-of-the-shelf superb A+++. When my wife first told me about it, I said OK whatever. Man was I wrong! I cried and laughed at the same throughout the movie, and I'm a dude and where I come from men are not supposed to show their soft side. All I can say is go see the movie and it will be worth it. 
Despite a cast of hardworking actors, this dull sudsy goody two shoes comedy drama is shallow and plastic, with neither enough humor, drama nor interest to sustain its two hours of pretty images and one dimensional ninnies. At the core of the comedy is a scene out of Pink Flamingoes that takes center stage when a bitchy southern queen eats a chocolate pie from her maid that has more of her maid than chocolate pudding. UGH. Not my opinion of good taste, this film makes every white woman in the south a bitch and every black woman holier than thou. Where is Michele Bachman's opinion, now that we need her. Yeah, I can see Oscars lining up to the ceiling, but not for a dull script and a waste of two hours. Predictable and trivial. No disrespect to any maid, but this is just sentimental sanctimonious crap. 
I had eagerly awaited the movie as the book was an absolute masterpiece. I was rather disappointed. 

My guess is that people who have not read the book will like the movie. It is well acted and makes for a good story -- just a different one from the story written in the book.

One semi major character is changed from a very complicated person -- sympathetic but hardly enlightened or heroic -- to something entirely different -- a converted true believer. Other characters simply become flatter and more "stock" than in the book -- though that may be inevitable when adapting a novel written in three first person voices into a movie.

The main problem with the movie is that it really does not attempt to capture the violence, brutality and fear of the period. In the book these things hang over the characters and there is a real sense of danger. In the movie "danger" is spoken of but hardly palpable. Segregationists (aside from the one villain, Hilly) appear more rude than brutal. As a (white) southern man who lived in that era I know it was a lot tougher than that.

Overall, it is a good movie. If the source material did not exist I'd rate it higher. But being adapted from a much more nuanced and stronger work, it suffers in comparison. 

See it. But read the book. And especially take young people to see it who may not be willing to read the book first. Because even glossed over, it does show a side of American history that the younger generation may not fully appreciate. Maybe it will spark discussion and maybe some of them will read the book for a fuller understanding of how things used to be.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) trailer review

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) trailer review


The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
Release :
2013-12-11
Runtime :
161 min.
Genre :
Adventure, Fantasy
Production :
WingNut Films, New Line Cinema, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM)
Cast :
Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, Ken Stott, Graham McTavish, William Kircher, James Nesbitt, Stephen Hunter, Dean O'Gorman, Aidan Turner, Benedict Cumberbatch, Lee Pace, Luke Evans, Evangeline Lilly, Orlando Bloom, Mikael Persbrandt, Manu Bennett, Stephen Fry, John Bell, Sylvester McCoy, Terry Notary, Peter Hambleton, Cate Blanchett, Stephen Colbert, Jed Brophy, Sarah Peirse, Mary Nesbitt, Peggy Nesbitt, Mark Hadlow, John Callen, Adam Brown, Ben Mitchell
Crew :
Victoria Burrows, Amy Hubbard, John Hubbard, Peter Jackson, Howard Shore, J.R.R. Tolkien, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson, Guillermo del Toro, Carolyn Blackwood, Toby Emmerich, Callum Greene, Alan Horn, Ken Kamins, Carolynne Cunningham, Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Zane Weiner, Andrew Lesnie, Jabez Olssen, Dan Hennah, Liz Mullane, Miranda Rivers, Bob Buck, Ann Maskrey, Richard Taylor, Paul Tobin, Sean Button, Arun Ram-Mohan, Hugo Dominguez, Matt Weaver
Vote Average:
7.6 Count: 2830
Overview :
The Dwarves, Bilbo and Gandalf have successfully escaped the Misty Mountains, and Bilbo has gained the One Ring. They all continue their journey to get their gold back from the Dragon, Smaug.
Keyword :
elves, dwarves, orcs, middle-earth (tolkien), hobbits, dragon, sword and sorcerery, wizard, magical world, middle earth

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
Review
Some have been overly gracious in their praise of this film. I will not be. I've been reading Tolkien since 1976, when I first read The Hobbit. While I did enjoy the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which Jackson got about 80 percent right, I found this, a result of the greed of the studio and Jackson and his co-writers egos, unacceptable. It was boring, overlong and had just too much filler. Tauriel is unnecessary. Read the books - no Elven women fight. This is far too much of a stretch. Then to have a love triangle between two elves and a dwarf? Unacceptable. No elf or dwarf have EVER been lovers or in love. If Tolkien didn't write it, Jackson shouldn't have included it. Adding stuff from the appendixes was a great idea, but the whole scene was done poorly. And Beorn, a major character, used in a cameo? I was disappointed beyond words in this movie. Overblown and under thought, with a horrible ending (likely because of all the unnecessary filler), this wasn't anything like the great two part film the Hobbit should have been. And, among Jackson's many crimes against The Hobbit, he totally ruined the barrel escape. Oh and Azog is dead by the time of the Hobbit. DEAD. His son, Bolg leads the Orcs of the misty mountains. I could go on, but why bother? I'm not even looking forward to the last part. And I can only imagine what the EXTENDED version of this mess will look like on DVD. Imagine is all I can do, since I'm not going to buy it. 
Peter Jacksons 'The Hobbit' trilogy is really way behind 'The Lord of the Rings' trilogy in terms of quality. Firstly its being stretched out as long as 'The Lord of the Rings' trilogy, which is way too long for such a short book. It misses important points in the book and replaces them with over blown, drawn out action sequences. Way too much use of CGI. The sets look really fake and plastic, like a theme park. The soundtrack is uninspired as well.

Ideally 'The Hobbit' would've been made as one film before the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy as a prelude to 'The Lord of the Rings' trilogy.

Overall, this film really lacks the magic, adventure, epicness and emotional depth of 'The Lord of the Rings' trilogy and I feel that Peter Jacksons uninspired and just in it for the money. 
Really feels like it was padded out so it could be a trilogy. Characters I don't recall showing up, CGI gets a little heavy handed with all the camera spinning during fights and falls, it gets to be kind of " look what we can to with the computer". This story could have been wrapped up with this film and I would have been OK with that. Now, seems like it will be more like a two-anda-third-logy, as I don't think there is much more left to the story- unless Jackson rewrites Tolkien, again. But, it kept my kid entertained for a couple of hours. Don't remember much act-ing, more like a bunch of act-ion. Didn't need the political infighting with the elves. 
The second Hobbit movie is an improvement over the first simply because it stops for plot. There are two very long, insensibly edited, stupefyingly predictable action sequences, one toward the beginning and one at the end, but in between them there are a couple of hours of dialogue. That dialogue is mostly a string of clichés, and it has only a tangential relationship to anything J.R.R. Tolkien wrote, but at least the characters are talking instead of flinging themselves around in a glaringly artificial whirl of debris and Orc body parts. So that's the good news, if you can call it that. The bad news is that despite the opportunity to correct it, one of the main problems of the first movie is still unresolved: the Hobbit himself, Bilbo Baggins, a literary hero beloved the world over, is effectively absent from the movie that is ostensibly about him and his adventure. Tell me, what does Bilbo think about Lake Town politics, about which so many instantly-forgettable words are bandied? Who knows? We don't see or hear from him during our entire time there. Nor do we hear what he thinks about the intriguing history between the Elves of the woodland realm and Thorin's ancestors, because we are too busy watching the beardless Dwarf Kili (or, who knows, maybe it's Fili! They're all interchangeable and most don't talk!) flirt with a character that Peter Jackson invented! Bilbo, and this is a statistical fact (don't research it, just take my word for it), has less screen time than any title character since Godot. The movie is better when Bilbo is in it, which he is at the very beginning and again towards the end just before a Scooby Doo chase scene starts between Smaug and the Dwarvеs. But as appealing as the intrepid Hobbit is in his fleeting cameos, before you can say "second breakfast" Jackson's rickety roller coaster is off again and Bilbo's out of sight. Maybe in the three-hour final movie Jackson will somehow find time to squeeze Bilbo in, either during the action of the Battle of Five Armies or, if the film can accommodate such luxuries in such a short runtime, during moments of dialogue. For a refresher on how to achieve this sort of thing, Jackson should refer to his own beautiful and character-rich adaptations of the Lord of the Rings. 
And not in a positive way.

This movie is another good example for Peter Jackon's flawed style of film making.

When I was 17, the Fellowship was released and I was blown away. Not by the storytelling or the portrayal of the characters. No, it was the amazingly detailed illustration of Tolkien's world that got me hooked. I loved the books and already felt that some things in the way the characters were presented were off, but I didn't care because of the spectacle. I watched it three times in cinema alone and was totally hyped when the trailer for the Two Towers was released.

I went to the cinema with great expectations and I disliked the movie almost completely. Too many Hollywood clichés and more noise than substance or heart made this one already a big let down, as well as Jackson's disability to be subtle and remain meaningful. Add to that many scenes that are involuntarily funny, and you arrive at almost B movie quality plot devices.

The Return of the King continued in the same way, while leaving out some great scenes from the book and having quite a few questionable (and laughable) stylistic decisions (Lighthouse Sauron, the ghost army for example). Add to that the very anti-climatic solutions to the great battles and some really atrocious changes to the books characters (again) and I was left with an empty feeling to what I first thought could be an enjoyable movie going experience.

So, when it was said that some other director than Jackson would be responsible for the adaptation of The Hobbit, I must have been one of the few, who was a actually glad about this bit of news.

And then Jackson got in again and in addition to his already annoying direction goes all Lucas with The Hobbit.

And this time I just hate it. My main problems among many are:

1. Catering to lowest denominator: Cram in more action, more romance and childish humour and people will love it. 2. CGI Overuse: Much like Lucas' Star Wars prequels, this prequel trilogy is marked by an overuse of CGI. And it completely takes me out of the movie. While the first trilogy (especially FotR) made a sensible use of its SFX budget, Jackson now has apparently way to much money to spend on CGI sequences. Maybe I've become too sensitive in that respect, but I get sick when I see CG orcs doing conversation. Especially Azog looks so out of place, I can't imagine any reason why they decided against using masks and costumes. Especially when it worked so well in LotR. 3. Trying to be like LotR: The Hobbit is a completely different tale than The Lord of the Rings, but Jackson tries to make it as epic and meaningful and it just doesn't work for me. It also distracts heavily from the original story and its main character. More so than in AuJ, Bilbo as character and main protagonist is completely underused and subdued. Now, you would expect that time saved here is used to make the other characters more interesting and memorable. And indeed, with the amount of time Jackson reserved for the adaption, there should have been plenty of time, to give the dwarfs some character and actually improve on the book, where the dwarfs remain quite bland. Unfortunately, it's not better than in the novel. 4. Way too much over the top action: Combined with the CGI, this absolutely shattered my suspension of disbelief. There's no feel of tension or danger. Combine that with the problem that I don't care for the characters and all I get is big yawn from the prolonged fight scenes. 5. Copying from the Lord of the Rings: This trilogy doesn't bring in any new ideas. Kingsfoil, the way the Ring slips on Bilbo's finger, a Worm Tongue look a like... it's just so obvious.

Another thing that bugged me is that Jackson has to show us how evil the ring is with Bilbo as an example. Now, some people actually think that the scene in question is one of the best from the movie, but it just doesn't make sense in the long run. If the ring gets a hold on Bilbo this early, shouldn't Bilbo have changed drastically by the time his 111th birthday arrives? And it's not because Gandalf reminds him that killing is bad, that he doesn't take Gollum's life. It's because of his peaceful Hobbit nature (Murder is basically unheard of in the shire). All this makes Bilbo/Frodo so resilient against the influence of the ring. Now it just doesn't fit in the context anymore.

I could go on and on, there is so much that is off, but the typical moviegoer with his craving for action and show wont notice anyway.

The truth is, that these movies have become boring and stale. Sometimes less is more. A good story, told with heart and soul is much more compelling than this CGI extravaganza, hailed by the people who are satisfied with seeing Middle Earth on the big screen again. But sorry Peter, that alone wont make a good movie. At least not in my book. 
Easily a contender for one of the worst blockbusters of the decade, The Desolation of Smaug crushes everything good about the beloved story The Hobbit and bakes in every stale trope of modern action movies. The bitterest part is how obviously this script was drawn out to fill up three films, when it could have been a more intimate work, just as the novel had been. 

Too many other elements have been forced into the story, attempting to create conflict where none need exist. The worst of this is the love triangle between Legolas, Kili and a character, Tauriel, who was invented precisely for this purpose, making the movie read more like a soap-opera than an epic fantasy. The barrel ride, for example, was made into some complicated Rube Goldberg plot device to arrive at a romantic climax later in Laketown. For purists, the characterizations are all off, with Bard as a fisherman scorned by the townsfolk, an all-too-prominent Radagast sketched as an addled hobo, and the Laketown mayor far too paranoid about some imaginary revolution on the edge of erupting. The dragon, who was to have been the pièce de résistance, gets mired in an action sequence that takes all the gas out of the character, and the tête à tête between Bilbo and Smaug is devoid of the mischievous streak in our hobbit hero that made the book version so entertaining.

The movie had a weird light to it, and left me wondering if I was watching some PBS video drama from the 70s or 80s. Most of the movie lacked the natural light that made the Lord of the Rings so breathtaking in its sweep. In that series, the beauty of New Zealand really shone through, but this series has an artificial quality to it, reminiscent of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. The action sequences were cartoonish and over-the-top, suspending the laws of physics in a brazen manner, creating an almost campy tone. Directorially, the actors seemed to be struggling with dialogue that felt out of place in the story (though that could just be my bias for the original).

This movie seemed to have all the elements of a success: a well-established franchise, the founding director, an ensemble of great actors and stunning VFX technology, but the script was far too crowded and the action too muddy to entertain. I want to say the producers filled the movie to overflowing as an apology for poor script choice, but then I remind myself that the overflowing was the problem in the first place. 
Ugh. This movie is painful to watch from beginning to end. First there is the atrocious editing. The beginning of the movie is simply difficult to follow. Then there is the fact that the plot unravels fairly quickly. Orcs are relentlessly pursuing the party for what reason exactly? Oh right, it's to give Orlando Bloom and elf-girl a reason to be in the movie. Gandalf's cut-away scenes make no sense. The scenes in the forest are just plain ridiculous. The final scene with Smaug is similarly ludicrous, poorly written, and overly dependent on CGI. Smaug the terrible comes across as pretty inept at killing for a creature that purportedly wiped out an entire army of hard ass, armored dwarfs and a city of humans.

There are a few places where the movie rolls well. The fighting on the barrels is very well done and the scenes with Bard and the town kingpin mesh well.

But ultimately the movie is ruined by too many big names demanding close-ups and screen time. It would have been better to sharply cut back on both Gandalf's and Legolas' appearances or at least connect them back to the central plot more cleverly. 
When The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey premiered on silver screen as the first in a trilogy of films based on J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit, the response it received was mostly positive to mixed. The majority of criticism was targeted at the needless expansion of a single film story into three features but, in my opinion, it did commence this latest Middle-Earth adventure on the right note and, despite its sluggish pace, ended up providing a largely satisfying experience.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is the second chapter of The Hobbit film series & picks the story right from where it was left off in An Unexpected Journey. Continuing the adventures of Bilbo Baggins who's accompanying thirteen dwarfs on their quest to reclaim the kingdom of Erebor, the film covers the journey ahead for these fellows which is full of dangers and even if they manage to get away with it & reach the Lonely Mountain safely, they have a stupendous dragon to deal with.

One thing I have always admired about this Middle-Earth franchise is the filmmaker's strong intent to keep the story very much within the realms of Tolkien's spirit. But this latest chapter marks a significant departure from such faithfulness & ends up being an immensely frustrating experience. There are a few things The Desolation of Smaug gets right but there are also way too many things that are wrong with it. Let's start with the things it gets right first.

Since the previous chapter was criticized for its sluggish pace, the filmmakers have vastly improved the pacing in this middle chapter with addition of many more action sequences to keep the entertainment going throughout its runtime. Production design continues to amaze. Cinematography encapsulates the picture with a darker layer which suits its tone. Visual effects has its share of highs n lows & Howard Shore's score is good but it also stumbles a little for the very first time.

Now coming to what's wrong with it... First, it slaughters the book in a manner that's plainly insulting to Tolkien. Second, the absurdly introduced love triangle, overindulgence of Elves & eye-rollingly cheesy dialogues are poor filler substitutes. Third, this film had a great opportunity to further develop its characters but thanks to its rushed pace & more emphasis on over-the-top action over a riveting narration, we still have difficulty in recalling the correct names of all the Dwarfs.

And that's not all. Martin Freeman is brilliant as Bilbo Baggins but his character is demoted into a secondary role for the centre stage is taken by Richard Armitage's Thorin. The remaining Dwarfs get only as much screen time as they did in the last chapter. Elves have never been as annoying as they are in this film for Legolas wasn't even needed in this adventure & Tauriel, who doesn't even exist in the novel but was created to bring a feminine energy to the series, is given a stupid love story to work with instead.

At last, I would like to talk about Smaug. Exquisitely designed, remarkably portrayed & meticulously detailed, this splendid beast of CGI is a jaw-dropping wonder to look at & the painstaking work that went into bringing this magnificent dragon to life truly deserves a bow. But thanks to its inefficient handling by the filmmakers, the cunning, proud & intelligent dragon of the novel is turned into a foolish creature here which is a shame because Smaug could've been as memorable to this trilogy as Gollum was to The Lord of the Rings.

On an overall scale, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is an emotionally unappealing but visually spectacular sequel which features a much more exciting, fiercely paced & action-packed entertainment that'll satisfy most filmgoers but for the devoted fans of Middle-Earth, it's a heartbreaking disappointment that adds even more insult to injury by abruptly ending at one of the most frustrating cliffhangers in cinema history, thus leaving the experience very much incomplete in the end. 
As The Two Towers is my favorite film of the previous trilogy and I was told The Desolation of Smaug was darker than the first Hobbit film, I was looking forward to this one. But my god, was it disappointing. Why? Well, here's why:

- Gandalf and Bilbo have to be the most important ánd most interesting characters of this trilogy. But where are they in this film? Gandalf leaves the group pretty early in the film and we hardly see him again. And also Bilbo isn't really used to his maximum capability, it almost looks like Peter Jackson forgot the film has Bilbo.

- So, who gets all the screen time, then? Well, there is this dwarf that gets his leg hurt and an elf who randomly falls in love with him and wants to heal him. And then there is Legolas, who also loves this elf or something? This love triangle is apparently so interesting that during the big scene with Bilbo and Smaug, they keep cutting back to the dwarf and his leg that hurts. Yeah, I really didn't wanna miss that.

- And this film is filled with a lot of boring and pretty much useless characters and appearances. Boring characters such as that leader of the elves. And useless appearances like Cate Blanchett showing up for 2 seconds. Or that Radagast dude, who only appears so he can lift his hat and show there is a birds nest underneath. Exciting AND useful.

- Anyway, you can really tell that Hobbit 2 is mostly filler- material. I guess you can just walk in the film during the third act and you wouldn't have missed any essential part of the story. I'm even assuming you can just skip the entire film and go right to There And Back Again and you wouldn't be all that confused with what you've missed. 

- Also, I find it frustrating that Jackson didn't even take the time to give this movie a proper ending. Fellowship, Two Towers and even Hobbit 1 had cliffhangers too, but at least they felt like they had an ending. Here the film just stops in the middle of a scene, like it's a cliffhanger for an episode of a TV-show. Only difference is; this is a three hour movie! A little more effort wouldn't be too much to ask, right? I mean, the man who had 20 endings for Return of the King didn't have one left for this film and so he just simply cuts to black?

- The one thing I would look forward to with this film, was the dark tone. I thought the first Hobbit was a little too childish, with all these trolls and goblins with funny voices. But Peter Jackson apparently liked this, so he even gave the giant spiders a voice. Yeah, that just what Shelob, one of the scariest and most awesome creatures from the original trilogy, needed; a funny voice. Only cool thing I can say about that is, is that one of the voices was done by Peter Verne- Jones (Lord Crumb in Bad Taste). But still, why would you give those spiders a voice?

- I guess the voice of Smaug seemed a little more appropriate. Benedict Cumberbatch does a pretty decent job on the voice of the dragon, really dark and mysterious. Only problem is.. the dragon just won't shut up. I guess this scene had to be stretched to reach the 3 hour mark, but my God, couldn't the dragon just shut up for one minute? He really got a lot less mysterious and threatening when he just kept talking and talking. Too bad.

- So, is that all the problems I had with The Hobbit 2? Not really, there were still two things that really annoyed me. First of all, there were these horrible scenes in this little town, with Stephen Fry as the mayor/leader/master- guy. It looked like an unfunny episode of Blackadder, did they really except us to take this stuff serious? Stephen Fry was totally inappropriate and out of place, his Wormtongue- ripoff- sidekick was really annoying (the guy obviously isn't a Brad Dourif) and that Bard and his family were far from interesting characters. And still, we stay in that town for a very, very long time. 

- Last thing I really hated was the 3D- HFR. I saw the film in HFR and I can't remember ever seeing something so incredible ugly. I really can't believe someone actually chooses his film to look like that. And they say that's the future for cinema? God, I hope not!

Last but not least, is there anything positive to say about The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug? Yes, there is. Like with the previous film (and also the first trilogy), the effects look great and the action sequences are well put together. And Martin Freeman is a great leading man, much better than Elijah Wood for the Lord of the Rings films. But still, Freeman doesn't get to do a lot, because of all the other uninteresting characters showing their faces. 

Best scene of the movie? That is, without a doubt, Gandalf showing up at Dol Guldur and seeing the return of Sauron (with that Mordor- theme playing). That gave me some chills, as a true Lord of the Rings fan. But it was only for a short while, because right after Gandalf vs Sauron, we had to return to dwarfs with leg pains, elves in love and Stephen Fry. 
The problem with the LotR trilogy was the sheer size of the opus. There was so much material that a lot would have to be left out in order to streamline the movie and make it work. Usually it tends to work and it did in that context. Here, however, the book is considerably shorter and one would think it would be easier to adapt to a movie. 

The original plan was to make two movies, correspondingly to the structure of the book. Now with the second movie the bad story telling decisions made early at the scripting phase are beginning to snowball out of control. There's just so much bloat and unnecessary alterations without which a much more compact and to-the-point end result could have been achieved. Not much is left to expect from the third movie anymore. Maybe somebody could do a fan edit after the third movie is released.

The brilliance of Tolkien's work is in the fact that he wrote what he wanted the way he wanted to. The error here is trying to force the story to a mold it originally refused to fit into. It makes not sense. The original story captivated millions of people. Why could a true to the original adaptation not do it?

جدایی نادر از سیمین (2011) Full Movie subtitled in Spanish

جدایی نادر از سیمین (2011) Full Movie subtitled in Spanish


جدایی نادر از سیمین (2011)
Release :
2011-03-15
Runtime :
123 min.
Genre :
Drama
Production :
Asghar Farhadi
Cast :
Leila Hatami, Kimia Hosseini, Merila Zarei, Peyman Moaadi, Sareh Bayat, Shahab Hosseini, Ali-Asghar Shahbazi, Shirin Yazdanbakhsh, Mohammad Sajadian, Armine Zeytounchian , Babak Karimi
Crew :
Asghar Farhadi, Asghar Farhadi, Negar Eskandarfar, Asghar Farhadi, Sattar Oraki, Hayedeh Safiyari, Keyvan Moghaddam, Reza Arabi, Mehrdad Mirkiani, Mohammad Reza Delpak, Mahmoud Kalari, Reza Narimizadeh, Mahmoud Samakbashi
Vote Average:
7.6 Count: 273
Overview :
The movie is centered on a couple, Nader and Simin, and their 11-year-old daughter, Termeh. Nader and Simin are about to leave the country for good; however, Nader has a change of heart and decides to stay and look after his father who suffers from Alzheimer's disease. Simin is determined to get a divorce and leave the country with her daughter, but the court does not find in her favor. Simin goes to live with her mother and Termeh returns to live with her father with the hope that her mother will be back some day.
Keyword :
emigration, class, money, maid, divorce, iran, caregiver, alzheimer's disease, marital separation, iranian

جدایی نادر از سیمین (2011)
جدایی نادر از سیمین (2011)
جدایی نادر از سیمین (2011)
Review
Right from the first scene with the camera offering the spectators point of view, I was plunged into this drama. The actors performed superbly convincing us of the authenticity of the story but also keeping us engaged. Leila Hatami in her role had a certain aura in her stare which was captivating. Important themes of Iranian's are showed such as devotion to religion and family values with the strong affection the main character and even his daughter show for the grandfather to the point that the father is prepared to abandon 14years of relationship with his wife. Another remarking fact is that I could not force my self to take sides, for Nader or Razieh who lost her child, even though we get some truths such as Razieh's confession or Termeh's intuitive thinking. In this way I felt engaged asking myself who to trust or believe. Finally the mystery of the final scene is an astute technique by the director to give the decision to the spectator to whom they think should get the daughter. If watching in a group spectators can arise this question and even debate. 
A Separation is a film by Asghar Farhadi that keeps things to being about the personal - what it means to be a married couple, apart, and still being a family unit, or units. How does one give care to a loved one, especially if they're older and unaware where they are (as happens to the old grandfather in this film)? What about how things don't happen on-a-dime, so to speak, but feelings of betrayal and distrust grow eventually, piece by piece? In Farhadi's hands, and through his actors, people are trying to figure things out, trying to make sense of the people around them, about the trust, about people's behaviors, about things that can be taken for granted like love. There's not much, if at all, sentimentality in this approach, which makes it so affecting and effective.

This is deeply felt and raw, no punches pulled filmmaking. The intensity comes off the screen in a direct way, piling on as it's a story where there are no clear "good guys" or "villains" take place. Even characters you'd think are more conniving than others have their reasons and dimensions, like the maid's family.

This wouldn't be a script for a screen writing class. It's like life - complicated by what people try to do, when they do the wrong things but try to make them right, and visa-versa. It was also wise for Farhadi to not feature any music in the film until the end credits - it's almost as if we're finally released from the grip of the drama... and yet it's at a moment where we're on edge for what will happen next.

Featuring Hatami and Moadi's soulful, harrowing performances, for Farhadi, by the end, he has another story being suggested to tell, probably one too painful to bear. It's about... well, it's about love, and compassion, and faith, not all having to do with religion (though it may pop up, just in the subtext). It's an "M" word: 'masterpiece'. 
I wasn't sure what to expect from this film. I had heard it was about a divorce at the end of a relationship and I had therefore assumed it would be an exploration of the emotional aspects of that. I had also heard every critic saying it was a triumph and seen it awarded the Oscar too, so there was a part of me that expected greatness just to happen, even though I did try to come to the film with my own open mind. The plot does start with a separation as the title suggests but it uses this as the base to tell a story leading up to and after an event and it is mostly around this that the film orientates itself.

The telling of this story and the investigation into the event is very tightly focused and it isn't really driven by revelations or plot twists, although in a way it does have these. The main driver for the film is how information and situations change character's perceptions of other and also the viewer's perception of them and their actions and motivations. This is what kept me engaged because it wasn't just a matter of "someone did something" but that this new information cast a light onto a character that made everyone think slightly differently. It sounds simple but it works very well because it means it is constantly subtly changing and shifting as you watch. The actual event itself does have certainly cultural aspects which may mean it will not make total sense to people such as myself who are not familiar with the culture, so there will be cases where the viewer finds themselves with thoughts such as "why doesn't he/she just etc"; there is a certain need to go with these and in the cases I had, there are cultural things that the film doesn't explain (and nor should it really).

With such a focus on characters and their motivations and actions, it is important that the performances are good and by and large they are. Everyone convinces in their characters and, despite cultural differences, makes things recognizable as being associated with people generally – not Iranians specifically. Maadi is probably the best here as he makes his actions and feelings very clear and even as perception of him changes, his character technically doesn't – he is the same person. Although Hatami has the posters, I think that Bayat did the better job as her character is more complex and more engaging – although Hatami is still very good and tells us a lot about her character with very small touches. Hosseini is also very good and his character is difficult but engages because he makes sense, he seems real – you may not like him as a person, but you can understand why he is the way he is without it being overly explained. The two children (Farhadi and the little girl) were also very good – very natural and convincing. Direction of the performances is strong but the film still has plenty of very well framed shots and it looks crisp and clean throughout.

Overall this film probably has been a bit too over-hyped for its own good because it isn't the second coming or a film that will blow you away and as such some expecting this may be disappointed. However it is a strong engaging story that works because of how well written and performed the characters are and how the drama keeps the perception of them and their actions changing and moving. It is very well made and it impressed me by how such a small domestic drama could hold me like it was a much bigger thriller of sorts. 
A Separation is an Iranian drama film about Nader and Simin who have been married for 14 years and together they have the eleven-year-old daughter Termeh. Simin wants to emigrate, as Nader did not want when he has his father who suffers from Alzheimer's in Iran. Simin applying for a divorce, but the application is rejected, and then she moved back to her parents. When Nader working on day and Simin moved so there is no one to take care of his father. Nader hires Razieh then, a young pregnant woman that should take care of his father on the day. One day Nader comes home to find his father unconscious on the floor with one arm tied to the bed, Razieh is not in sight of the house, she will be back later, but then Nader throw her out, he does not want to do with her. Razieh must go into the emergency room because she gets severe pain in the stomach, it turns out that she had a miscarriage and Nader is accused of the murder of the fetus but he denies knowing that he knew Razieh was pregnant.

This movie is really well made ​​with fantastic actor. It feels a little different with a movie in Farsi and they take a while before you get used to it. This whole movie is filmed in absolutely fantastic angles, every scene is a work of art in itself, this will increase the score significantly! Almost every actor is impressive and there's actually not a bad actor. The film was a hit with critics and gained a lot of positive reviews, it has for example 95 MetaCore on 41 reviews, making it the film with the best ratings in 2011.

Best actor according to me: Ali-Asghar Shahbazi for the role of Nader's father. 
This is a gripping movie in which emotions run high and personal animosities generate one conflict after another in an ever-intensifying series of troubles. The result could have been dizzying and confusing, but "A Separation" is so well-written, and the characters so vividly portrayed, that the course of events is clear and the outcome inevitable.

The source of much of the trouble in the story is male pride--pride of a kind that flourishes in a culture like Iran's, in which authority is inherently male and women have little choice but to accept it and give in to it. You can see it in the utter confidence of the husband Nader in his dealings with his wife Simin and with Razieh, the woman who comes to work for him. And you can see it in the demanding and irrational behavior of Razieh's husband Hojjat. Because Razieh fears Hojjat's angry reprisal--first for taking a job without his permission, then for losing their child in the course of doing that job--she sets in motion a series of legal battles that threaten to tear both families apart. In the end, as the film makes unmistakably clear, it is their two daughters who suffer.

Yet even with this examination of the consequences of male pride, "A Separation" is not a political film or an argument for female liberation. It is a tragedy of people acting in the only way they know how, and in the process creating misery after misery. 
At the time of this writing there are twenty-seven five-star reviews of this movie (twenty-eight including this one) and no zero-stars. There is little this reviewer can add to the reviews already on this website without repeating what has been said. This work is an inspired masterpiece. It hosts a well-written and constructed script; full dimensional characters which are not cardboard caricatures given to us by Hollywood; real-life situations that are totally believable and to which anyone can identify; the acting is; perfectly executed and convincing acting; and strong direction.

This is an amazing film by any standard. The fact that it was made at all is a miracle. The Iranian government initially would not allow the film to be made, for political reasons. Deft diplomacy by the director allowed the green light for this film to be made.

On a deeper level this film underscores that differences in politics or government or society in the present age are largely irrelevant. This is a couple everyone can identify with; the situations faced by this family could have happened in Europe, North America, or the Far East. This film tends to contradict a saying attributed to Leo Tolstoy, That happy people are happy for the same reason, but unhappy people have their own individual reasons for that unhappiness. Here, the cause of the family tension in Simin and Nadar's marriage could have existed in California, yet the locale of the movie is in Teheran. The anguish experienced by their daughter Termeh could be shared with any adolescent. Simin's and Nadar's use of Termeh as a bargaining chip to leverage control in their divorce is sadly not uncommon in dissolution matters. Add to this mix issues of integrity, pride, personal responsibility and honesty, and the final result is a compelling family drama.

This movie is not meant for casual viewing. While a fine film in its own right, Bergman's Scenes from a Marriage is far too cerebral and rarified, even though the subject matter is completely different. In that movie you can fall asleep listening to Liv Ullman and Erland Josephson talk. Here, the story of Nadar and Simin will grab you and pull you in. Scene after compelling scene will force you to pay attention and watch the drama playing out before your eyes. This movie won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Film for 2011. It should have been nominated and won the Oscar for Best Picture. 
*Spoilers Contained Within*

The first hour or so of this film had me a bit skeptical of the high praise lavished on this film- the plot seemed to trudge along with no real twists or surprises. Yet director Asghar Farhadi is no slouch and knows exactly why every scene plays out for the exact duration that it does, and the pay-offs come in the second hour.

Still, this isn't just a typical suspense film where the trick lies in the "reveal" of the third act, as those reveals are only one piece of the puzzle. Indeed, my impression is that the moral ambiguity brimming under the surface as a result of the narrative twists and turns is the real substance of the film. No character is without his or her foibles- even the relatively innocent children make decisions that arguably make complicated matters even more labyrinthine. Because of this, the viewer can never truly be sure which character to side with and I suspect this is one reason why it was initially hard for me to become engrossed in the movie. That the filmmakers managed to create an engaging story in which each character makes complicated/morally tenuous decisions for completely understandable reasons is a major feat- I can think of only a handful of movies lacking a protagonist to "root for," while still utterly engaging their audience, and even fewer still which do so successfully.

There's a lot to digest after the film, though no big action scenes or Oscar-baity breakdowns. The issues raised may be indicative of the issues facing Iranian society, but can be generalized to reflect societal issues in any community globally. The acting is also top-notch and not overly showy and I feel it benefits from not featuring any recognizable actors (to an American audience, at any rate) in more fully immersing the viewer.

This isn't a knockout film that wows and dazzles, but it is an intricately built work that deftly pulls viewers' allegiances from one character to another in an incredibly understated way. 
Asghar Farhadi's A Separation is my first experience with Iranian cinema and it for sure won't be my last. It reminds me instantly of a quote said by American director Alexander Payne, "...I think there may be a problem with a world in which making small, human[...]films is 'an achievement.' It should be the norm." Just from this film, I would be justified in saying that Farhadi is Iran's Payne.

Here is a wonderfully made film that comes from a country that has been nothing but slandered for the last decade. We constantly hear horrible things are brewing in Iraq, such as suppression, inequality, unrest, and the increasing possibility of nuclear war, yet we see the tenderness and contemporary side of the country, where problems had by typical townfolk will mirror those of someone living in the United States. For a country so isolated and so different, it sure knows what notes to strike to hit home.

The opening scene focuses on Nader (Peyman Moaadi) and Simin (Leila Hatami), a couple who have been married for fourteen years and are now in court filing for divorce. The camera is positioned as if we are the judge, hearing both cases, with interruptions and simultaneous banter from each party. This gives us a great sense of angst, and the facial expressions on both characters are raw and authentic. They are divorcing because of grand contention when consulting their family's future, with Simin wanting to pack up and leave Iran in pursuit of a better life, wand Nader not wanting to leave his elderly father, who is tragically stricken with Alzheimer's.

Another debate hovering over both of their heads is the future of their eleven year old daughter, Termeh (played magnificently by Sarina Farhadi). She chooses to live with her father, because by doing so, her mother will not leave Iran, and their family will still be somewhat close. No child, regardless of background or country, should ever need to make a decision like Termeh's.

It dawns on Nader that because of work, he will need someone to watch his ailing father during the day. A woman named Razieh (Sareh Bayat) is hired as a caretaker for the man, who has limited his speaking to fragmented words and has now taken the life of a lion, laying in bed and sleeping for much of the day. One day, Nader and Termeh return home to an empty house to find the man lying on the floor unconscious, with one of his hands tied to the bedpost. Nader too discovers money missing from his home and when Razieh returns home, Nader erects an enormous argument which leads to harsh courtroom consequences after allegations raised by Razieh that she was physically assaulted.

Razieh is pregnant and is married to the demanding, vindictive troublemaker Hodjat (Shahab Hosseini), who only grows more and more demanding and agitated as time progresses. The two couples becomes unraveled by this tragedy, and the film begins to shed light on these character's decisions during this madness, following them on a relentless journey through the complications of marriage and impulsive decisions not meant to cause harm. I could label this Iran's version of Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing, a film where characters are faced with multiple decisions that need critical thinking in order to work out favorably, but I fear that would be an oversimplification.

A Separation does not hesitate to dig deep into the separation of ethics, morality, religion, politics, and economics in present-day Iran. Writer/director Farhadi carefully examines the restraints both law and faith have within Iranians, whose lives are particularly foreign and difficult to comprehend for Americans, who are without a doubt living with restraints we do not usually recognize. It's admirable the film doesn't get stuck in stylistic clichés, empty-headed aesthetics, and a list of cripplingly undeveloped characters. We see these characters with space and clarity, watching them as they travel along this unforgiving road of confusion none of them should be facing.

One actress that is likely to go unnoticed with four remarkable talents taking center stage is Sarina Farhadi's terrific portrayal of a youth caught in the middle of tireless madness. She is not made out to be the precocious tike who knows way too much, but is drawn more confused than her parents, who are caught in the middle of unfortunate circumstance. Much like the facial expressions of her parents, Farhadi's character Termeh holds those of innocence lost and fear of increasingly destructive trouble brewing. The hard part is knowing there is almost nothing she can do to stop it. She is forced to take a backseat while the ugly bleakness of the world drives around a labyrinth of confusion.

Farhadi's Iran in A Separation is the kind of nuanced one that must be seen. It shows its characters as humans, and not trigger-happy terrorists. It shows their problems as common, and not in an unconventional way that is impossible for audiences of other countries to not relate to or be unable to grasp. The film is a difficult one to thoroughly contemplate alone, and perhaps it's one of those that is better debated with close friends or acquaintances. Its morally complex and involving scenarios are overwhelming to try and fathom quietly.

Starring: Leila Hatami, Peyman Moaadi, Shahab Hosseini, Sareh Bayat, and Sarina Farhadi. Directed by: Asghar Farhadi. 
A domestic drama set in contemporary Tehran. Yawn, no thank you. I love my World Cinema but usually too much politics and religion take over and gets too heavy, masking the story.

However, this intelligently scripted (original, Oscar nominated script by director Asghar Farhadi, in the mainstream - that's 1 out 5 of ALL movies that year) soon grips and a personal story that is SO universal, then becomes shaped by Iran's religion and politics. This is done so superbly, you won't notice the join. Considering also that it's in Persian and even the end titles don't have any western writing, it's obviously not made with the U.S and Europe in mind.

The story, surrounding the separation (as in the title) of Nadir and Simmin is complicated by Nadir's elderly father needing constant care due to his Alzheimers, making him vulnerable and a liability when he wanders. The couple have a young teenage daughter, who is intelligent, straight-forward and a good kid. The couple are both working, he in a bank.

Most of the two hours deals with issues thrown up by these very ordinary, boring domestic situations but as in real life and to all who've been in such, there are big problems dealing with getting reliable care for the old man - and this is where the country's religion and economics come in.

Issues on debt, debtors, birth, miscarriage, healthcare, theft, the legal system - even Tehran's traffic are all covered in a most natural and realistic way, leading to a complex scenario that culminates to a heart-rending and impossible situation. At times, it's straggly, as is the filming, which is for the better. Real life conversations aren't rehearsed and the camera looks around like the eye does - not shaky all the time like many modern films, nor smooth, but flitting to the subject being looked at and then holding that, making it all very realistic. The ending is also nicely straggly, too - you'll see what I mean - allowing the viewer to form their own opinion rather than it being neatly pigeon- holed.

A Separation is not a film to see over and again; but watch it once and you'll learn more about real life Muslims in their own environment, with their own rules and how they deal with a big Life situation. That piece of drama is worth seeing for itself - that bit's universal as I said - as for the film, the only taint from the west are the added subtitles. 
THIS FILM IS TRULY A MASTERPIECE!!!This is one of the best movies I've ever seen in a very long time!!

The acting was incredible!!!!!!!!!Totally deserved the award, 

Even though the storyline isn't that interesting , the SENSATIONAL acting made me dying to know what's gonna happen next !!

Recommend this movie to everyone who hasn't seen it yet ! just see it and you won't regret it !!!

I wish more people in the world knew about this film.who cares about Hollywood ,true cinema is out there

Highly Recommend.

Lo chiamavano Jeeg Robot (2016) Film complet sous-titrace en francis

Lo chiamavano Jeeg Robot (2016) Film complet sous-titrace en francis


Lo chiamavano Jeeg Robot (2016)
Release :
2016-02-25
Runtime :
112 min.
Genre :
Action, Drama, Comedy, Thriller, Science Fiction
Production :
Rai Cinema, Goon Films
Cast :
Claudio Santamaria, Luca Marinelli, Ilenia Pastorelli, Stefano Ambrogi, Antonia Truppo, Maurizio Tesei, Francesco Formichetti, Daniele Trombetti, Salvatore Esposito, Gianluca Di Gennaro
Crew :
Gabriele Mainetti, Nicola Guaglianone, Michele D'Attanasio, Roberto Marchionni, Jacopo Saraceni, Gabriele Mainetti, Luca Della Grotta, Andrea Maguolo, Mary Montalto, Simone Spada
Vote Average:
7.6 Count: 110
Overview :
A small-time Roman criminal accidentally acquires a superhuman strength and becomes nearly invulnerable.
Keyword :
superhero

Lo chiamavano Jeeg Robot (2016)
Lo chiamavano Jeeg Robot (2016)
Lo chiamavano Jeeg Robot (2016)
Review
Courageous debut for Mainetti, who has chosen a genre unfamiliar to Italian cinema. Due to budget limitations, focusing on characters and environment was the only route to take, and that was managed pretty well, adapting the classic superhero movies plot to Italy (specifically Rome) background: there aren't people who want to save or conquer the world, just people that struggle to go on living among criminals and Camorra bosses. Filthy Tevere river, filthy rooms and filthy souls. All the main characters live at the margin of society, a society that refuses them and doesn't give a chance to change their condition. Enzo is a low grade thief who has lost all hopes on society and on its own life, living day to day with no ambitions, eating yogurt and watching porn movies, and uses the superpowers casually granted to him just to repeat his habits over and over. Alessia is a girl with a mental disorder who escapes reality by continuously watching the Jeeg Robot anime and relating everything to it. Zingaro (the Gypsy) is trying to find his place on the world (Rome) by achieving fame, failing with usual ephemeral means through TV shows, and now trying to be the most known and feared criminal (again, in Rome). "Normal" people seem to live in another universe, behind a one way mirror: Enzo watches and despises them, while they pretend not to see him and , in general, the horrors of the world. This situation is interrupted only by terrorist attacks, that recall those that in Italy are called Years of Lead, and later by Enzo's switch towards "good". It's really amazing the constant tie to reality that the movie has, despite the superpowers: common streets, common people, common criminals and common situations (the first good action of Enzo is saving a little girl involved in a car accident). Good acting for the 3 main roles: Santamaria and Pastorelli (i was surprised by her, since she came from Italian Big Brother reality show, i had my doubts) did a great work, Marinelli shines in his villain role. Solid direction from Mainetti with a couple scenes i personally liked: Zingaro assault on Camorra clan and the scenes on Enzo's house where Jeeg was screened on the wall. Soundtrack consists mostly of years '80 Italian pop music, and i find it fitting. Script is where the movie has some weaknesses, the plot is too straightforward (but as i said before, that's most likely a choice), and the final confrontation didn't convince me. Interesting references to other movies, even Kill Bill, and of course the Jeeg anime. As a side note, since Mainetti knows well Japan animes as they inspired some of his previous works, i wonder if that's the same for Japanese new wave directors. I noticed some similarities with Sion Sono's themes: dysfunctional families, psychological and physical abuses, violence as a mean of self-awareness, technology amplifying or leading to delusions and solitude. If that's the case, that's for sure a great addition. Once, something considered impossible happened: Italy mastered and created his own Western genre, passing through Japan. I don't know if this will happen with superheroes, but this movie surely marks a good starting point. 
In the attempt of hiding from the police, Enzo Ceccotti, a small street criminal, jumps in the very polluted river Tevere; a few days after he'll discover to have acquired extraordinary powers. 

I'm sure that it will not be easy to fully comprehend the beauty of this movie if you don't understand the complexity of the contemporary Italy. This movie depicts perfectly a country full of contradictions: a breath-taking city envied all over the world that hides a degraded outskirt deep inside; a generation of children stuck in their grown ups bodies with their vanilla puddings and their Japanese anime on local TV channels; a criminal class that fluctuates from the ridiculousness to the ruthlessness to whom money has the same importance than popularity and Youtube visualization numbers; and a criminal with no emotional bonds, values or reasons to do good (that would not inspire empathy in any other superhero movies), is saved from an unexpected "damsel in distress" and becomes the hero of a community that often looks hopeless to those who live here every day but that sometimes, unexpectedly, finds its superpowers in the common people, the real heroes of this crazy, misunderstood country. 
Gabriele Mainetti has made a quite unusual movie for Italian standard. With an outstanding cinematography and a very good acting, he takes us among "Roma sud" outskirts where a neorealistic superhero and a psychopath villain fight to survive their doomed daily lives. As all good graphic novel teach us, this kind of story need a strong philosophy between the lines, that can't be just replaced with some romantic- even if well done- moments. Too bad: "Lo Chiamavano Jeeg Robot" just lack strong dialogues and quote to be perfect in its own class. In fact, even if actors are perfect in their own roles, all dialogues target their force overall on roman slang, leaving me a little bit disappointed. Because the movie shows some very violent and bizarre scenes, someone in Italy compared Mainetti style to Tarantino's one. I hope next time Mainetti will borrow from Tarantino not just the violence but also the art of writing script and dialogues strong enough for a superhero movie. 
Enzo (Claudio Santamaria) is a small-town crook in Rome, stealing purses and taking on small jobs with other crooks just to get by; after one such incident, he finds himself being chased by the cops and the only way to escape them is to jump into the Tiber River. Unfortunately for him, the place where he jumps conceals a number of barrels containing toxic waste, and one of them has been leaking. He suddenly finds himself with superpowers, and uses them to steal for himself until one day he meets Alessia (Ilenia Pastorelli), a young woman lost in a fantasy world featuring the Japanese anime Steel Jeeg. She convinces him to use his powers for good, but she doesn't know that a super-villain, Fabio (Luca Marinelli), wants to subvert Enzo for his own ends…. This film is a hoot, a shout-out to Italy's 1970s love affair with the (real) "Steel Jeeg" anime from Japan, and a gritty tale from the dark belly of the big city all at the same time, and all done with exquisite Italian flare. (Fabio, for example, has a fabulous dress sense and has a small-time claim to fame as a one-time contestant on a TV talent show, which everyone mistakes for the Italian version of "Big Brother.") There's lots of action, of course, but also a quieter story of how Enzo gains superpowers which lead to him gaining his soul. This movie won a bunch of Italian film awards, and it's easy to see why - it's by turns charming, brutal, thrilling and tender. Anyone familiar with the genre will know from the beginning how it will end, but the journey itself is a terrific ride, and lots of fun! 
A very good film, not afraid of showing on the screen the ugly people we are. This looked like a real National product to me, devoid of major foreign influences: it recalled much more of Pasolini's suburbs or of Pazienza's bad boys than of Deadpool or Kick-Ass. Which is something I liked very much.

A catching opening scene, a solid plot, some very good actors and a great villain (Fabbio: Luca Marinelli won a David for this performance) will make you overlook some lack of craftsmanship in special effects or in action scenes.

And originality is priceless. So sometimes is good to diverge from International main stream, I guess. Enjoy. 
awesome... 'cause its really different in any dimension, mind you this movie before than "deadpool", and if you like it, that is the answer.

moreover, beyond than the level of dark humor and the human touch...

the crazy chick in the movie seems well acted, front line impressions are surround us, confuse us.

my comment ended up here, but you know i need ten stupid lines to show you so, the bad guy so obsessive like exaggerated form of anyone of us, a bit social-media mania evolved here with a good tastes.

the main character, namely anti-hero "jeeg" actually hurt so bad, but its not the focal point, psychologically this generate more fun factor then character transferred to audience more emphatic stance, especially in the second part of that movie. 
Plain awful. Do anything else, throw marshmallows at stray dogs, pinch wallets, try to pee in a beer can, sell your body in parts. Anything is better than watching a badly acted and awfully written Kick-Ass/Hancock clone. Terrible B movie. At least Kick-Ass was funny and ironic, Hancock had great special effects, this dough is even trying to be dramatic. The only character building up throughout the movie is the loony girl, and she gets killed for no reason whatsoever. Her acting is dreadful (apparently she comes from a TV reality show), but her character is the only element of interest in the movie. Santamaria is just as wooden as Pinocchio. After she dies anybody else might as well turn into flaming zombies and bite everyone, you wouldn't give a rat's behind, anyway. The wooden puppet playing the bad guy should have been court martialed for his insanely bad acting. Steer clear, it is awful. 
Enzo Ceccoti (Claudio Santamaria) is a small time thief living in the poor suburbs of Rome under the same roof as more dangerous criminals lead by the 'Zingaro' (Luca Marinelli) from which he occasionally accepts dirty, little jobs. On one of these, whilst escaping from the police, he accidentally trips into a tank of radioactive material and ends up gaining super powers. As a threat rises in the city Enzo has to decide where his morals lie.

"They Call me Jeeg Robot" ("Lo Chiamavano Jeeg Robot" original title) comes in as one of the first major Italian production in the super hero genre. Whilst it can't be faulted for lack of diversity and originality, it doesn't manage to transcend genre clichés in a interesting way and because of an overall faulty execution it can be defined as a fine film on its own, yet nothing, unfortunately, remarkable in the genre.

The new ideas that spark from the film are many, not all of them work and some are actually the reason the film isn't amazing, but the writers have to be commended for some tropes they manage to subvert and some beautiful touches they manage to add. Ilenia Pastorelli plays Enzo's slightly off balance neighbor and whilst the performances jumps up and down from highs to lows, the character always has something deeply touching about her. I want to avoid spoilers of any sort here, but to sum it up her dynamic was clearly thought out and executed with a pleasant delicacy that was required and hard to hit.

Claudio Santamaria is actually an excellent protagonist and one of few words, which Santamaria pulls off greatly. Of all the characters in the film, his was the only one that never lost audience attachment and always gave a clear vision of his motivations and his development. His arch might not be as original as people think, actually quite the contrary, but he is brought to life with an affection and an attention to detail that makes him a character worth following.

From a directorial point of view there are many things that could be said both in positive and negative side. What is interesting is to see a first time feature director bring to life such a particular vision. I don't use particular randomly because there are many tonal flaws and ideas that don't work, but there is a very solid voice in the directing and Mainetti pulls his vision off, making his world live and breathe an unusual diversity and an atmosphere that is dark and twisted in its very own way.

Where the film looses steam is in some of the performances, coming admittedly from undeveloped or cartoonish characters, from plot turns that result deeply clichéd and deprive the film of a depth it was hinting, but most of all the tonal shifts are all over the place and make for a disjointed experience where you loose track of where the moral balance lies. From darkly comic interventions, to full on dramatic character explosions, to comedic light moments that don't really belong where they are, these continuous shifts make the film really choppy and undermine its world building which is another element it really lacks. We don't understand where in the world the story takes place fictionally, we don't understand the rules of this land, the social climate is never clear for the audience and since it seems that the film is actually making quite an effort to make you understand it, since it plays an important role in the storytelling, the fact that I didn't grasp it was all the more underwhelming.

On an action and technical level the film does have merits for managing to cope with such a small budget and making out of it something that is fully deserving of theatrical release. It shows that this is Mainetti's first feature and many edges have to be rounded off in the action department: the hits are never shown on camera. On the other hand, the director uses the hand-held shot in a particularly pleasing way, making the shots breathe and giving each of them multiple beats which is always nice to see.

Whilst this movie will not be remembered in the hall of great super hero films from this era it is good to see different personalities jump into the genre and give their own wild take on it even if not succeeding in a masterful execution. 
Gabriele Mainetti? A cinematic genius who has created a film worthy of note with a cast of characters made ​​to measure. 

Plot, scores,sets and actors joined local interpretation make the winning feature film.

Rating? Above my expectations, so I booked the ticket immediately for second screening. 

I love Pulp and Film Heroes, two kinds nonexistent in Italian film productions.

Big Gabriele Mainetti.

Cheers !!