Opiniones de BlissQuest

This is a review for those who, like me, like to come back here after watching a film, just to see if anyone else shared their concluding thoughts. Thought there are no spoilers, this short review will only resonate with those who have already seen the film.

The director/writer felt the need to insert a few completely uneccessary and very implausible events into the plot, which almost spoiled what should have been a quite good viewing experience. Not sure if the "uneccesaries" were derived from cultural humor or whimsical creativity. Once again, without giving anything away, the silly implausibles were: the magazine death; the hidden camera confession; the restaurant seating incident.

As a fan who has thoroughly enjoyed Angela Schanelec's works, I was somewhat disappointed after watching this film. There's no point in elaborating why, since many of the other reviewers have already done so here. Though visually and artistically well executed, as is the case with all her films, I walked away from this one with a feeling of unjustified vagueness. Yes, I agree with the Michael Haneke approach of placing the final onus of judgement or opinion in the minds of the audience, but I also believe the audience must at least have a cohesive story on which to base such a position.

Watched again in 2021, and this film, despite a few outdated quirks, is still so very good. In fact, I had to change my rating from an 8 to a 9, taking into consideration the context of time (late 80s). Good chemistry between the main characters and a gratifying conclusion

Peter Barkworth's face is familiar enough to be considered famous, at least in terms of 70s and 80s British television. And that was just it for me - just another familiar face - until I recently saw him in 2 episodes of The Secret Army, and again as PM Stanley Baldwin in Churchill: The Wilderness Years. This man was a brilliant actor whose talent really shines in this mini series. Of course, it also helps to have a very well written script (kudos to Brian Clark). Telford's Change teaches us not to take our partner for granted even when the situation appears comfortable.

One of the best, if not The Best. Flawless execution, partly due to the fact that there is no physical violence. Every scene, every line tie cohesively into the plot, as they should. Even Lonely's apparent clumsy appearance is logical, plausible, and important. The episode highlights Callan's personal hobby (done before in other episodes, but not as engaging, even to someone clueless about miniatures' warfare) and it very cleverly uses the ideas of game and strategy, where his opponent is a smart, charismatic English gentleman. Moreover, though the target (opponent) is a private citizen, he makes it clear to Callan, Cross, and Hunter that he is no pushover.

A side note: the episode Death of a Hunter is rated the highest by other users, which I would concur, only if Woodard's individual performance was the rating criterion.

I clearly missed the joke behind this series. How does a man so gullible climb his way through the ranks of British intelligence? Maybe that was Le Carré's point; that any idiot could have been "a spy" during the cold war, and that it was exactly his stupidity that kept him unwittingly "under the radar"...Either way, I came away feeling extremely annoyed at the end.

I've seen almost all of Angela Schanelec's films (those available with subtitles), and I still cannot accurately explain why I enjoy them so much. Her films are reminiscent of Eric Rohmer's works, in the sense that scenes, characters, along with settings are meticulously placed, to achieve a realness that, on the surface, for the casual viewer, may seem trivial. Schanelec's touch, however, is to limit the dialogue, letting body language and the silence in-between the dialogue do the talking.

This is a Baroque period film, and in terms of its sheer detail, it's the best production of a period-film I ever seen. Over a decade ago, I purchased Yo-Yo Ma's Bach Unaccompanied Cello Suites, listened to it a few times, then moved on (essentially, buried it somewhere). A few months ago, I decided to unearth the double CD and give it another try. It was the "2nd experience" that led me to this film as well anything else Bach had penned in his life time. As one reviewer has already stated, this film is for those who love Bach's music. It is both historically fascinating and a glimpse at some of the experiences that molded Bach's creative mind. With no means of recording, hence no way of selling music, a gifted musician not born into wealth, had to seek means of living through benefactors. This film chronicles the tumultuous relationship between a perfectionist and his often stifling benefactors, as well as the beautiful relationship he had with the women in his life. Toward the end of the series, the piece "Agnus Dei" (Mass in B minor) perfectly placed, caused tears to well-up my eyes, not just for the sentiments the scene elicits, but for the beauty of the floating melody. I didn't rate this series a 10 for two reasons: editing errors, with a discerning eye, a parked car can be seen on set in one scene; the other reason: performances by some of the secondary characters were lacking.

I guess 500 years from now Japanese people will be the only ones left of the human race. Dull, tunnel-visioned (idea), implausible. Further more, a "short" is either suppose to make a point at least half way through the experience, or go out with a bang. This nonsense did neither.

Excellent war drama, on par with Foyle's War. Produced when British television drama was at its best, in my opinion. A lot of up and coming young actors who are very familiar (much older) faces today. 13 episodes done just right.

Basically a good film based on family relations or I should say human relationships in general. And we get to glimpse some of the beautiful landscapes of Taipei, a country now on my must-visit list. The film's only flaw is it's westernized form of poetic justice, which we all know is simply a myth.

There is soooo much human negativity in this film that it became tiresome and unbearable after about 30 minutes. Fast forwarding here and there didn't help either because I just kept stumbling upon more negativity at each stop. In this so-called twenty-first century of the human experience on this planet, it is simply no longer necessary to make films like this, unless you are some sort of maso fiend. Why? Because thanks to the internet we all get the point!

If you into figurative forms of artist expressions and enjoy deciphering symbols and metaphors (yawn), then you'll find this film very entertaining. Otherwise, it's a good tragic comedy that could have been better.

Set in 1994, the film focuses on a 14 year old girl struggling with family and school, while trying to find her identity, which is something we all go through at that age, I guess. There were a few subject matters that were very well tackled in the film, considering the ages of the young actors, and more importantly the time period the film is supposed to be based on. Kids are usually very good in dramas, so there were no surprises in terms of their performances. There's a major event in the film that occurred in the mid 90s, which most foreigners probably aren't aware of, and which answers the question as to why the film was set in that period.

The only qualm I had with this film was its pace. Some scenes, in an effort to come across as poetic, just dragged on a tad bit.

I'm going to keep this very simple. If you searched or stumbled upon this film after a mind-blowing experience of watching Mind Game (by the same director), you are in for a disappointment if you're anticipating the same feeling after watching this film. It's not completely bad, but it's not great either.

If you're looking for a good story that'll leave you awe-stricken or at least satisfied, then you've chosen the wrong film. How a man in his mid twenties can be naive on the par with a 14 or 15 year old just isn't plausible in the real world, especially in the late 90s, unless he is retarded. And the lead character is not retarded. Another idiocy of the film is that the lead who is, and looks obviously to be, in his mid 30s is playing a naive, almost moronic 24 year old. The film is hogwash, and I was annoyed after wasting almost 2 hours watching it.

It's possible to tell a story about the so-called negative aspects of a culture without belittling the group or individuals involved. This is something directors, particularly of African descent, seem to be lacking, imo. In other words, if there's no brutality depicted , then it's "not capturing the rawness of reality" ...Ms DuVernay defies this false notion and I've noticed she has been stealthily doing so for quite a while now. I would be proud to call her my daughter, sister, or partner if I had such a relationship with her. unfortunately, I'll just have to settle for a proud, admiring fan. The lesson here: It's all about humanizing the characters, not trashing their existence, Well done!.

There are a few stills on IMDB from the film, one in particular where the lead character (played by Jeon Do-yeon) is sitting in a Church. I looked at that picture a year after I watched the film and tears came to my eyes. This woman doesn't just play the role, she becomes it. There is no other way to explain the grief she expresses. You know when you are watching an incredible performance when for moments, if not the duration, you are hypnotized into believing you are watching someone truly experiencing what they are sharing in a performance. I can only imagine the potential traumas of "channeling" such a performance. In an interview by another actor (Michael K Williams), he talked about tools that are available to actors to allow them to comfortably return to reality without the stress (ptsd) from going in "too deep". Jeon Do-yeon's performance reminded me of that interview because I wonder how she did not "crack-up" after this film. You do not simply switch on and off without being affected unless you are extremely talented. I repeat, EXTREMELY talented. It is not enough to say Jeon Do-yeon is the best (that I am aware of) from South Korea; she is among the absolute best on this planet!

If you are a global financial news/history enthusiast, then you'll enjoy this film. Though the film tends to oversimplify the actual events, it is still informative and entertaining. Very good production, good performances from key members of the cast, and well placed newsreels from the actual crisis give the film a realistic feel without coming across as a documentary.

This film provides a glimpse at a side of Japan we don't usually see on film. Yes, there is (petty) crime in Japan; yes, there are poor people in Japan; and yes, there is a welfare system in Japan. The impression of all is pristine and proper in Japan is dispelled, and we see a more realistic, human side of the culture. I'm not sure if the hype is what spoiled it for me, but I will say there are some very good performances here, but the story is nothing exceptional except for the fact that it's taking place in Japan.

3 observations came to mind after watching this film:

When you have a film whose sole purpose appears to be to make some sort of metaphorical analogy of society, you will invariably find gaping holes in its plot, which the director will simply expect you to overlook.

There is no longer a "safe" outlet where one can find honest reviews of any sort, for any film, including forum sites, where people are supposed to share honest, unbiased opinions. And definitely not this site!

The goal of the army of "recruited" reviewers is to get you, the consumer, to watch the film. Period.

I got through an episode and a half before caving in. I just couldn't tolerate the (overplayed) lead any longer.

I wanted to rate this film a 7 at first, mainly due to an inexplicable anger I felt toward Iran. I am not American, neither am I European, but I have lived in both parts of the globe to have been brain washed enough into perceiving Iran as one of the "evil ones". And it wasn't until I saw this film that I came to realize my biases. I kept judging the socio-political structure of the country, as if it is my position to do so. This a funny film. period. The cultural nuances make it a bit quirky at times, but if you are well traveled or a fan of foreign films in general, then you should be equipped to deal with the quirkiness. Either way, it's a positive cultural revelation of Iran on some levels. I would have given it a higher rating if the pace wasn't a bit slow for my liking.

...is the only explanation for the initial rave reviews for this dull wannabe-artsy gen-z film, with very little substance whatsoever. I kept on waiting for a climax that never arrived. The director obviously has the clout to bring together top Korean talent, but that's about it. The script, based on a short story (that appeared in The New Yorker) by Haruki Murakami (equally boring), is beyond what I would call weak, and the only consolation when it was all said and done, for me, was that I didn't pay to see it!!!

This film's weak point is the seemingly predictable slow place. A presumptuous viewer, like myself, would draw conclusions and either walk-out or doze off. The script, for the most part, simply lacks engagement. Luckily I sat it through. What'll seem to be a stupid plot will prove otherwise if you can summon the patience until about the last 10 minutes. Despite a very good performance, Choi Ming-sik still needs to find a script with a Korean director (or otherwise) who can tap into his reserves, of the likes of past reminiscent performances, which we saw in Old Boy, I saw the Devil, Failan, etc. I still remain a HUGE fan though!