Very interesting film. Absolutely untraditional, but so fun to watch.

It mixes together the images Bob Dylan was, could be, thought he was and the public thought he was. The story flows from one Dylan to another and back, one becomes a dream for the next. Different actors playing different faces of the same multifaceted personality. Different cinematic styles are also applied. It's almost stream of consciousness kind of cinema, although, each story alone is quite concise and clear.

Two images - Arthur and Jude (Ben Whishaw and Cate Blanchett) carry out the most explanatory, first hand, intellectual roles. They are shot in black and white and close to documentary. Jack (Christian Bale) is also mostly black and white, he's a folk singer incarnation of Dylan and as for his part - it is a documentary. These images are the closest to the public perception of the person. Blanchett's part is the central piece of the film, everything revolves around it. She is the best look-alike. It's a quintessential Dylan, the visual, carved into Western culture's matter. It's actually amazing how the characters that are the most distant from real Dylan bear less visual resemblance to him. It's like common features are dissolved in the secondary and farther reflections of the original. Dylan-idea breaks into multiple shadows-images, less and less resembling the real man, but still bearing his stamp.

Heath Ledger's part - about an actor, playing Dylan in the feature film - portrays the family side of the star. Does that suggest that Dylan was also acting when he took a role of a family man? Could be. Anyway, it's worth seeing just for Charlotte Gainsbourg, who plays the troubled wife and is always a pleasure to watch.

Marcus Carl Franklin and Richard Gere chip in as in some sense opposite but, looking deeper, in the end, very much connected personages of a runaway black teenager (and aspiring folk singer) Woody and Billy the Kid.

To summarize: a wonderful piece of cinema, albeit wonderfully weird. Cate Blanchett really impresses with her interpretation. 4/4.

Another good debut, although a bit soporific. Egyptian police band gets lost in Israeli remote.

The film has some very good moments and some it could live without. And who was the first to think that plaintive folk songs over the long shots of deserted landscape are poetic? I always wonder.

The actors make up for the director's uncertainties, though. I heard Sasson Gabai, who plays the main part, is of the most famous actors in Israel. The movie heavily relies on body language and, specifically, mimics. It does not delve into differences and tries to find common places, being thoroughly apolitical.

The director confessed that the film is a complete fantasy. Indeed, this situation could hardly happen in today's Middle East. Anyway, it just seems that one could develop that story into much livelier movie. However, that would diminish its chances to be nominated for Oscar from Israel, because the elite loves melancholy. It's very appealing melancholy at times, though. 3.5/4. I liked another Israeli movie - The Secrets (Ha Sodot) - more.

Son of Rambow is based on a funny idea - kids shooting First Blood spin-off - but it never really lifts up.

I had  problems with the director's previous, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, but, at least, it was based on a hilarious book and Martin Freeman was perfectly cast.

Maybe, the kids can't pull it off. There is not one truly sympathetic character in the film.

Maybe, I could not connect to the dramatic side of the story, which overemphasizes some moments, but just glides over the other. Some jokes are too dark to really appreciate the storytelling in the way we do with other British comedies, like Billy Elliot or The Full Monty. The film strives to stand in line with these movies, but it looks like it's just not talented enough to match up.

It also tries to say many things at a time, but hardly succeeds in any. Even the final cut of the kids' movie is not very exciting.

Maybe, I missed something, but I think the idea was not implemented to its full potential. It's a pity the director and the producer were much funnier during the Q&A session that the movie itself during the screening. 2.5/3.

It's time to pick up and finish my TIFF 2007 notes. I haven't reviewed yet some of the best movies from what I saw. But, first, about the last one - Dai Nipponjin. Hitoshi Matsumoto is the director. I exchanged my ticket to Kitano for that one (I've read that's what Cannes festival also did).

It's hard for me to rate this movie as a whole. Some parts of it I enjoyed and some just seemed ridiculous.

It's a mocumentary about an ordinary guy Daisato, who, despite working as a superhero named "The Big Japanese", lives quite a pitiful life. The character is played by Matsumoto himself.

The way Daisato presents himself in the documentary is funny and interesting. The camera follows him during his everyday routine, tracks his relationships with the relatives and society, tells about the history of the profession (I especially enjoyed B&W "newsreels" about Daisato's predecessor). His fights with monsters are shown eventually (his alter-ego also looking not very presentable and old-fashioned), and they also happen to be a subject of a late night TV-show. Daisato looks philosophically at his current situation, although we feel a big disappointment, unhappiness and depression inside.

Matsumoto is fun to watch. His his self-restrained poise, his way of speaking, his Kermit-the-frog mimics are very appealing.  The loneliness and vulnerability of the character is very well highlighted by a beautiful tune. Superhero fights are for the lovers of the low-budget, cartoonish/clay monsters. Although, it's still quite amusing.

What disappointed me greatly was the ending. It tries to make a point, but, IMHO, it just ruins the film altogether, and makes all the previous build-up pointless. The movie implodes at a pop.

But for the die-hard aficionados, as I read, it doesn't look that way. They enjoyed the ending - for them it bore a significance.

So, I admit, I'm not a pro in the genre, but at the beginning it looked like the film appealed to a wider audience, being not just a fan fair. I give it 2.5/4, for the sympathetic main character.

Very well shot period piece from the director Gillian Armstrong, neatly edited, with solid actor work, intriguing story and heartfelt classical soundtrack.

An interesting take on Houdini's personality, the controversy in his attitude to all things psychic, the thoughts and ideas that pre-occupied him in the last period of his life, after the death of his mother. Because the film is mostly fictional story, involving very recognizable historical figure, it somehow reminded me of last year's Copying Beethoven. The obvious title, if desired so, can be interpreted in different ways.

Guy Pearce is in great form, both acting and physical (it took him 5 months to get into it), as Houdini, Catherine Zeta-Jones is solid as con psychic Mary. I especially enjoyed the work of young Saoirse Ronan as Benji, Mary's daughter and, actually, the storyteller (she also stars in  highly praised Atonement), and Timothy Spall as Mr. Sugarman, Houdini's manager.

Obsessed with the desire to disprove the existence of psychic abilities (but also, non-admittedly, to overcome some personal emotions) Houdini announces, that, whoever performs certain psychic act under scrupulous scientific observation, will receive $10000. He embarks on the world tour. In Edinburgh, psychic Mary, desperately in need of money, takes the challenge. But soon other emotions play into action, some new details about the contest are revealed and it doesn't go as planned for both of them. In the end both receive something different than what they were asking for, I'd say they receive more. Some clotted soul streams are cleared and emotional wounds find their cure.

The film doesn't end, however, when it could, and adds couple more scenes that close the story with a bang, but leave the  psychic question open, so it's up to the viewer to decide if any paranormal activity was ever involved in the story. But, regardless, sometimes we feel that there is a deep subconscious link between ones, caring for each other, and this kind of chemistry is for sure present in the movie.

The movie can be also watched from a different angle, if we accept that the daughter is the protagonist. Indeed, she is the one who tells the story.

Overall, the film is very nice piece of cinema, and I would give it 4/4.

I was going to give this movie a mark "so-so", but it happened to be one of those stories, where, when you start looking for something in it, you start finding things.

Nicole Kidman is over-controlling high-profile mother and an overall control freak, who comes with her son for the wedding of her estranged sister (Jennifer Jason Leigh) and, because of her nosy and didactic nature, messes everything up. Although, in the end, when you look at it, you see that her interference actually worked as bloodletting the dull state of affairs in her sister's house, and everything is in healthier shape than before. When you start analyzing the movie afterwards, you may find a lot of interesting moments, especially in dialogs, that went unnoticed right away.

Still, I think, the movie doesn't roll on quite well. It manages to crawl to the finish without loosing too much attention of the audience and even to strike the final chord, but it could be much more exciting and dynamic. Dynamics is kind of lame. If not for the actors, it would be harder to watch. (The film also stars Jack Black and John Turturro.)

Really, it seems that there is a large group of top-form actors in their 30s-40s in Hollywood or whatever else right now, but not so many directors of that level. And as the result we get flop after flop from the actors of, for example, Kidman's rank.

Actually, a good commercial product could come out of this story, but the director (Noah Baumbach) is a bit too "indie" to allow that, so he muffles the excitement and turns the film increasingly drowsy; with the regular stops, though, for some wake-up calls in an "indie" way.

He waters down the colors, which are quite bleak to start with. Some scenes linger on obtrusively, the other, more lively, are cut short. Some scenes are hardly believable out of the context of the movie. With other he's seemingly not sure what to do: he wants to have them (it's his script after all), but they don't add anything to the movie - so, anyway, he lets them stay, just in case. "What if somebody will remember the movie by this scene?" - he reckons. The same goes about dialogs.

Again, the acting is good and the movie successfully makes it to the finish and even picks up speed in the final part. So, it can have 2.5-3 out of 5, depending on what else you may or may not discover, that the director left hints about.

One should try hard to write a big review of Sleuth. The movie doesn't have much story in it. It presents a psychological and eventually psychotic battle between two characters over the fact that wife of the one of them left the one for another. One man looses the battle, another endures consequences.

I'm not sure the film is for the big screen. It would make a great TV-movie though. It's actually a play and directed as such.

And, of course, it depends heavily on the actors' ability to deliver. Luckily, it has two thespians of a great talent in charge.

Jude Law seemingly can play everything. (He does play everything and everywhere, but that's unrelated.) He is arguably one of the best and most versatile 30+ actors nowadays. Moreover, it looks like he decided to play over Michael Caine's earlier repertoire. (Caine played Law's character in the former version of the film.)  I guess it's laudable. Michael Caine himself has reached invincible heights of acting, his craft is mesmerizing.

So, despite the fact that the movie would probably look better on a small screen or in any theatre other than Roy Thomson Hall, it's safe to give it 3 out of 4. Kenneth Branagh redeemed himself for The Magic Flute, that was here last year.

And all the buzz about that? Juliette goes to Israel.

It's not that I enjoyed Disengagement very much.

Some scenes were touching, but the film just doesn't have enough story in it to my liking. Amos Gitai is sure he creates art with all the long shots, marking the beginning of each "chapter" of the film, but, overall, it's quite shallow (although, I liked the beginning sequence in the house in Paris). All the movie is somehow under-produced, under-directed, even under-acted sometimes. It was shot in 5 weeks - maybe, that's the reason?

It seems, the films lacks real human drama. Even suffering settlers evoke more annoyance than compassion. Maybe, it was Gitai's intention to show the idiocy of the situation. The breakdown of the policeman, when his car gets damaged accidentally, the departure from his usual reserved self may reflect some of the director's emotions, as well.

So, let me concentrate on what's good in the movie.

Ana's (Juliette Binoche) transformation from the lady, who's "lazy" and doesn't care to the one, who does care, is pretty interesting.  But the major big leap in hear personality happens behind the screen, and she changes instantaneously, once she steps on Israeli ground. One can guess that something has changed in her during the travel, because she arrives a different person already. Nevertheless, it would be nice to see it happening within the screen space. Later she gradually develops "concerned mom Binoche" image, in the opposite to "playful young Binoche" in the first part. That leads to cathartic final scene, where she sees that what was given to her is again taken away for nobody knows how long, and it looks like she embraces her step-brother finally as a brother. It marks the end of the transformation, but, at the same time, unfortunately, the end of the movie.

Good acting comes from Liron Levo, who plays the brother-policeman, projecting mostly reserved, assuring toughness. And from Dana Ivgy in a small role of Ana's daughter. Actually, between two parts of the movie - Parisian and Israeli - the Israeli one is much more vivid and brings much more cinematic pleasure, especially, the scenes, involving the policeman.

It's always pleasant to see grandmasters even in an episode, as Jeanne Moreau here in a small but crucial scene. Gitai himself shows up in the film.  On the average, I would say, the acting surpasses the directing.

Binoche's body is in great shape and she happily shows that in one delightful episode that lightens up the Parisian part of the movie.

To summarize, I'd say the movie was way overrated in the previews. I expected more. I'm sure, that after seeing it, not only one person said: "That's all?" I'd give it 2/4.

Brilliant, witty, powerful, dramatic film.

You can read about the origins of the story here - http://www.tiff07.ca/filmsandschedules/filmdetails.aspx?ID=705302107351386.

Persepolis put me in the thoughtful mode, so that's what came out.

The film had an important message for me. Good, normal people everywhere are basically the same. Their values and priorities are all the same, too. So are the jerks.

That's very reassuring. Everybody can associate themselves with Marjane and her family. The film is especially helpful now, when many are scared of Iran, because of fundamentalism, religious intolerance and anti-Western sentiments, dominating there, and choose to feel rejection towards the nation altogether.

From one side we are constantly unobtrusively assured that this is how we should feel. It's also the goal of Iranian authorities - to show the nation united in their hate for the West. Another point of view - that we should keep our judgement to ourselves, because every people is "different" - isn't the solution either. Love, compassion, kindness are universal human qualities, and, if we want to live together, we should be judged on a common basis.

Religions and customs are important, but on the internal, tribal, level. Humanity is the universal law for the human society. Regimes, based on oppressing the freedom, produce ignorance and suppress humanity. Unfortunately, the nation is perceived by the politics of its leaders. The film reminds that you can't reject a people, but as for the bellicose ignorance, you have the right to reject it.

Persepolis also presents in a very accessible way the modern history of Iran. That helps to understand what Iranian people had to endure and how it all came to the current situation.

It clears the mind and reminds the simple thing: ultra-patriotism, as any repressing ideology, is not natural, the common sense is, and there are always people with the common sense. Any generalization is a mistake, no matter how big and loud the visible majority is.

It may seem strange that the film about the girl growing up led me to such conclusions, but, anyway, the movie also conveys some deep universal personal messages.

One theme explored is the integrity of a developing character. It's hard to keep the integrity, whether being all alone in a foreign country or in your own, but where any manifestation of character or personality is suppressed.

Integrity is also involves how we identify ourselves. And again, everyone can relate himself to this theme, especially immigrants. Quite often I find myself facing the questions of identity and, at the same time, the guilt for what's going on with people in my country while I'm not there. (The girl in the movie is almost of the same age as I am, but, thank God, I didn't have the experience Marjane had). In this state, reverting to your family, your ancestry may help greatly. The family history should live on. We should remember it and pass it further. It does not mean teaching customs or traditions. It's remembering your identity on a personal level. When we forget, we've lost a lot.

We should not forget where are we from, but also remember who we are inside and that's it not the nation that defines us, it's the other way around: we, who we are now, define our nation. That family history and we, as the present of it, are the definition. And, in this case, personal freedom and the ability for the personal development are no less important than the development of a nation. Moreover, it is the development of a nation.

One more quote from the film's grandmother, who is the embodiment of wisdom and common sense there: if people hurt you, it's because they are stupid. Try not to seek a revenge.

Couple of words about the animation itself. It's very artistic and creative, with subtle use of colors (mostly, grayscale) and shades. The directing is sharp, concise - amazingly, that helps to reach the levels of lyricism and passion, often not achievable in feature movies. The story is told with surprising wit and intelligence. Music is inseparable part of the story.

With such a stream of consciousness it induced in me, I hope the film will be nominated for the Oscar for animated movies. I gave it 4/4.

1. 10 Items or Less, Snow Cake - 10 out of 10
2. Mon Meilleur Ami, Nouvelle Chance, Fay Grim (it may be not that great, but for its genre it is), Rescue Dawn - 9/10
3. Pan's Labyrinth, Hana, Copying Beethoven - 8/10
4. Venus, Golden Door, Alatriste, Time - 7/10
5. The Magic Flute - 6/10
6. Bugmaster - 5/10
7. The Banquet - 4/10