WONDERFULL!!!!

"Life Is Beautiful" is wonderfully written. When it tries to be funny, it is hilarious. In one very pointed scene, Guido, hoping to find someone who opposes the fascists, quietly asks another man what his politics are--before the question even registers in the man's head, he addresses his children by name: Benito and Adolpho. Still, not everything works against Guido; the scene where he finally wins over Dora is absolutely perfect. All this comedy works very much in the film's favor. I have no qualms about saying "Life Is Beautiful" is better than "Schindler's List;" and it boils down to the comedy. Guido's clownish nature makes it even harder to watch what happens to him in the concentration camp--but by the same token. it gives him a defiant air that's very satisfying, and helps relieve the oppressiveness of the totalitarian state that looms over everyone in the film.

Just watching the film, you can tell that it was a labor of love for the actors. Two stand out in my mind: the first is Giorgio Cantarini, who plays Joshua. Though he's a little old for the very early scenes, he carries off the later scenes beautifully--it's really hard to believe so young a child can act so effectively. Roberto Benigni, however, is the true creative genius who pulls the film together. In addition to his masterful work co-writing and directing "Life is Beautiful," he also stars in it; he won my heart within his first minute on screen.

If "Life Is Beautiful" has a weakness, it's the translation. There were several places where the subtitles seemed a great deal shorter than the spoken lines--and one where I thought I caught a name that didn't make it into the subtitle. Despite this problem, the subtitles are preferable to a dubbing. Beyond the traditional arguments regarding the value of hearing the original actors--which I'd say apply more to "Life Is Beautiful" than any other foreign film I've seen--there would be a thorny translation problem with the fact that some minor characters speak English or German--languages not understood by the characters they're addressing; it would become confusing if the other characters spoke English instead of Italian--as would happen if the film were dubbed.

I think the main basis is the strong thematic content relating to the holocaust. The worst violence is all off screen--in a way, it's more jarring than most films' depictions on screen; the big exception is a scene involving a stack of corpses. I didn't catch any nudity or coarse language--though I don't speak Italian, so the latter may have been lost in translation (but I doubt it). The real problem for children is they'll probably will lose patience with the subtitles. That's a shame, since all else being equal, I'd say the film would be a good family film: the film's moving depiction of some of the worst events in history, and the depiction of Guido and Dora's great--even heroic--love for each other and their son, both weigh heavily in its favor.

Still, calling it a family film doesn't do "Life Is Beautiful" justice. One often thinks of family films as bland. "Life is Beautiful" will make you laugh plenty, cry some, and think. It's uplifting, charming, and creative. I honestly can't think of a word against it.

NOT AS GOOD AS OTHERS:(

Before watching Shrek, I told a friend of mine that out of all of the recent sequels coming out in Hollywood this year, that Shrek the Third had the potential to be an extraordinary bust. I knew that, going in, but stood to my guns to keep an open mind and try to watch the movie and like it for what it is. And what that was, was a bust. It definitely was a let down, all within the first 15 minutes of this film and it was never able to pick up the pieces and put together anything resembling the first two Shrek movies:(

This version of Shrek had huge shoes to fill. Shrek 2 was one of the most comical animated movies that I have ever seen and the first Shrek was equally as impressive with its combination of pop references and gags that even a 5 year-old kid could pick up on. The gags or ‘gas’ ran out on this one.
The movie starts off pretty funny as Prince Charming (voice Rupert Everett), disgraced after a failed attempt to steal our hero's wife and becoming heir to the throne of the kingdom of Far, Far Away, is forced to relive his humiliation night after night in a dinner theater production. Adding insult to injury, his dressing room is in the alley. Upon learning that Shrek (voice of Mike Myers) is filling in as king, Charming decides to try to go after the throne again with the help of other fairy tale villains.

Shrek and Fiona (voice of Cameron Diaz) have a difficult time ruling. After a failed knighting, christening, and royal introduction, they retire for the night, only to be notified of the frog King Harold's (voice of John Cleese) imminent death. On his death bed, Harold names Shrek the new king in a prolonged death scene for a frog followed by a chorus of the things singing a Wings song. But before the King ‘croaked’, Shrek was able to get info out of the king and he mentions that a young boy named Arthur is next in line after Shrek for the throne.

Having no intention of becoming king, Shrek, with sidekicks Donkey (voice of Eddie Murphy) and Puss in Boots (voice of Antonio Banderas), sets off to find Arthur and bring him back, but as they're setting off, Fiona reveals she's pregnant.
This is where the so-called plot thickens. Shrek not only fights off his responsibility as king but he now has to fight his fears of becoming a father himself, and there's even a very funny dream sequence that has him trying to handle a swarm of baby ogres as they’re puking, crapping, and causing mischief all over the place.
Arthur or Artie’s off at Worcestershire, a high school where he's hated by everyone, including the leader of the jousting team Lancelot (Arthur’s supposed right hand man in other adaptations of the King Arthur legend) and the girl he's always loved Guinevere (King Arthur’s queen in other adaptations), or Gwen, as he calls her.
Justin Timberlake provides the voice for Artie. His character is strictly used as a plot device to try and movie along. There’s no connection to him as a character and he’s definitely a character that you don’t want to see in Shrek 4, which unfortunately I just found out was in the preproduction stages of development. Timberlake's performance doesn't help matters much.

Soon, the gang is shipwrecked on an island where they meet Merlin, Artie's old magic teacher who had a nervous breakdown and has gone bonkers.
Although this show has a ton of characters, its major problem is the lack of story and gags that didn’t work. Shrek the Third provides only mild entertainment, with the laughs trickling down as it plods toward an ending that's far less than "happily ever after" at least for weary viewers despite the reliably game efforts of the A-list vocal cast. Granted, there are still plenty of amusing, even laugh-out-loud funny moments sprinkled throughout Shrek the Third, but compared to the first two films, Shrek the Third is sadly third-rate.

The narrative momentum and comic energy begin right about the point Shrek and his sidekicks begin their quest for Artie, who's an exceedingly bland addition to the cast of characters. The idea of the once and future King Arthur as a bullied high school nerd, kicked around by "Big Man on Campus" Lancelot is no more than mildly amusing; and the film's laugh-free spin on the wizard Merlin as a befuddled, aging hippie feels positively stale.

Characters wear out their welcome or the sub-plot regarding Shrek's worries about his impending fatherhood. I never once bought into Shrek not really wanting fatherhood. Never felt for his character once on this. Felt like the filmmakers were trying to force a new emotion on Shrek to try and add his character added depth, which he didn’t need. Shrek was already the most developed character in the series by far. Hello, the name of the movie is Shrek for goodness sakes.

The filmmakers should’ve taken that energy used to develop Shrek’s character and focused elsewhere like say on the Disney princesses. They were not so much good for me. Why were they there? I understand that they were trying to focus on some sort of feminist movement slash Charlie Angels thing going on, but it was a little over the top. And was Fiona’s mom there? It seems like she was there the whole movie but only said two words. Way to earn a paycheck. All in all, Shrek the Third was a bit dissappointment for me. Neertheless, there are good things too. As expected, visually Shrek the Third delivers fantastic computer generated imagery. Stunning landscapes, fluid motions and a keen attention to detail are all accounted for. Yet, I couldn’t help but want more.

The graphics, while extremely well done, are basically the same as the previous movies. I’m from the school of going above and beyond and I felt the animators should have added a new ‘WOW’ factor. You can’t sit on your past triumphs in this town if you want to stay ahead of the game.
Also, as expected, we’re given a very healthy dose of adult humor, wrapped around innuendos and read-between-the-lines dialogue (we’ve got to trick the children of course). As with all movies, some jokes hit and some miss. Mostly, the antics in Shrek the Third are singles intermixed with a few doubles; the only home run I can think of was during the Pinnochio interrogation — even I was getting confused with all the double speak. Yet as stated previously, while there are funny moments, I’ve basically seen the same material in the first two movies.

The language is very clear to understand. The accent of Shrek is Scottish. In his these speeches, to understand that is not so much difficult.

" Give me that! Your fiying days are over.That's 20 pieces of silver for the witch. Next!"

"Okay, fine. Attention, all fairy tale things. Do not get comfortable. Your welcome is officially worn out. In fact, I'm gonna see this guy Farquaad right now and get you all off my land and back where you came from!"

"I'm not the monster here. You are. You and the rest of that fairy tale trash, poisoning my perfect world. Now, tell me! Where are the others?"

While he is saying "going, coming, doing", she drops "g" sound, and he prounces it as /k^mın/. And, the prouncation of "r" sound is also different. As you now, the Americans prounounce "r" which is alveolar trill. Also, while they are speaking it is easy to hear "r" sound especially the ones at the end of the words. Shrek' s prounciation it is not same with the Americans'. While he is saying "monster....", he prounces the word "cover" as /manstı'/. From this aspect, it is same with British. Additionally, there are some nuances between the porounciation of vowels. While he is saying "world", he pronounces it something like this "wıld" not as /w3:ld/, "because" as /bıkoz/....etc. I

GREEN MILE REFERS TO NAME OF THE DEATH ROW, DO YOU KNOW?

Well-meaning and well-acted, but also with wonderful secenes, The Green Mile is a movie that feels and thinks it is bigger than it is....Actually I have read its book. And when I compare both of these, I want to mention that it is an epic, and would have been much better had the filmmakers realized the quiet dignity and limited scope of what they had to offer. The problem lies at that point. I should note that I often enjoy quiet, well-acted movies.

I think Before Sunrise is a wonderful movie, I whole-heartedly enjoyed Nobody's Fool, I think a Simple Plan was one of the ten best movies of the 1990s... I mean, each would have been better with some prison scenes, but they were good nonetheless. Why? Because each accepted that the essence of what they had to offer rested with the nature of the characters. The Green Mile isn't satisfied with that. It thinks it wants to make big statements about the nature of faith, the possibility of redemption, and the responsibilities of authority. As a result, it misuses strong performances by Michael Clarke Duncan, David Morse, and Tom Hanks.

The movie begins and ends with completely unnecessary framing sequences set in the present. The bulk of the movie is told as a flashback set in the 1930s. Setting the movie in the 1930s and cutting out the beginning and end would have been much more effective.For the ones who do not know the movie, it will be beneficial to tell it:) The Green Mile tells the story of a year in the lives of guards and prison inmates on a death row in a Louisiana prison. At first, I could not get understand, but later, I recognized that The Green Mile refers to the name of the death row because of its green floors. Tom Hanks plays Paul Edgecomb. Paul is a very respectful person. He has a some kind of dignity. Therefore, seeing such kind of a person in the position of a prison guard was suprising for me. Nevertheless, this is a fact that Tom Hanks does his role very well:)

David Morse plays Brutus. Brutal and Paul run a kinder, gentler, death row. Their goal is to make the condemned men pass the last days in a respectable, dignified manner. Actually many times I asked the question "Why do they care so much about a group of men whose sole common characteristic is having committed so dreadful acts as to deserve to the death sentence?" I never got a direct answer. Perhaps they think there is nothing more dangerous than a bunch of criminals with nothing left to lose. But sure, it is much more than that. Paul is also simply a decent and humane person. For men like Paul and Brutal mistreating the prisoners is inconceivable.

Everything changes with the arrival of three men, one is a bad guard, the second is a giant prisoner, the third is a sociopathic killer. The guard, Percy Wetmore is a coward and a sadist.I confess that I did not like him..He is such a bad person that his words and behaviors made me crazy...Also, I believe that he does not deserve his position because he owes his position to political connections. What is much worse was his fondest wish is to see a man die up close. He is reaaly a sadist!!! Paul does not also love Percy and o of the scnes he said for Percy:

"Percy is mean, careless, and stupid.Yup. And boring. He doesn't grow. He doesn't learn. He just is."

More interesting is the first new prisoner.His name is John Coffey. And Michael Clarke Duncan plays that role. John Coffey is my favorite:) He is so sweet. His apperance combine with his character very well:) He is a seemingly simple-minded, giant, black man. He was found guilty of the rape and murder of two little white girls. Needless to say, he would never have survived long enough to be sentenced to death in real life:( The movie tellss Coffey's innocence right from the start. He is respectful and obviously gentle. His guilt is scarcely conceivable. Would the movie have been better for allowing some doubt in the matter at least early on? I don't know.

Yes, Coffey is capable of miracles, specifically healing the sick. But does that make Coffey happy and be away from sadness? NO:(

Oh yeah, there is also a mouse :) Here, the mouse mostly provides comic relief. Indeed, the mouse's reappearance at the end of the movie is, um, laughable and detracts from the solemn feel the movie is trying to develop:) I advise you to watch the movie:) You will like it..The accents of the people in the movie are not difficult to understand:) I understood most of the things:)

WHEN YOU FEEL YOU DO NOT HAVE ANOTHER CHOICE BUT JUST LEAVE...

This is one of the movies that I have not been able to forget since I watched it for the first time. This was the second time I watched it. It is so much romentic that I like it very much:) I do not know whether you have noticed it or not that most of the films I wrote about here are romantic ones.That is because I love watching romantic films and I usually choose that kind:)

This movie tells the story of two people whose ways get crossed one day..Actually, this is a fact that with this movie I began to admire Hug Grant..He is so much nice on the scenes:) The character he plays in the movie is Will Thacker. Will is the owner of an bookstore in Notting Hill.He is handsome and clever.He has divorced but there are some problems about his divorce and he has difficulty in dealing with it. He has a roommate whose name is Spike. I am sure that most of you have watched this movie, therefore you are most probably familiar with this name. And even if you have not watched it, please and please watch it. Spike is very strange person and you should see him:) He is ver much eccentric. I do not know it is the real reaon but his speeches are very very different may be because he is Welsh. I got the impression that he is as if he imitates the other artists:) Anyway, this is what makes watching him enjoyable..

There is also another important character whose name is Anna Scott. She is world-famous Hollywood actress. She is very beatifula and everybody admires her..One day, Will encounters Anna Scott.Ana Scott comes to London for a trip. While Will is in his shop dealing with books, Anna Scott comes his shop to purchase a book.After that day, actually shortly thereafter:) , these two collide in the street accidentially. As as result, Will drops .....juice( I did not pay attention thing in is hands) on both himself and Anna. He feels very sorry and offers Anna his house where she can change her clothes. Anna accepts the offer and they go to his house. Nevertheless, there happens a strange event. After Anna changes her clothes, she kisses Will.

Days pass after that event. And Will cannot forget her. When he comes home, he asks if there is any message for him.Because he has not written down anything ( most probebly he has forgetten to write:) ), he cannot remember anything. Nevertheless, he rememebers an American called Anna called him a few days previous. In her message, she wants Will to come and visit her. After having heard that, he immediately goes to the hotel she is staying. And at that moment, everything gets mixed:) Because when he goes there, Anna's room has become the centre for a press day and as a result, Will is mistaken for a member of the press. Then, he gets panic and he claims he works for a magazine.So that he gets in a difficult condition. Because people think that he a journalist, he interviews every memeber of Anna's new film in order not to make people be suspcious of the condition.As a personal comment, you should see him on that secene:) Even though he has not seen the film himself, he interviews with actresses and actors about the film, which is really funny:)

While dealing with this condition, Will cannot talk with Anna. Therefore, he invites her to his sister's birthday party. There, Anna feels at home with Will's friends. She finds them very friendly and warm.After that day, Will and Anna do go out together. They do lots of thing together involving going to cinema and to the restaurant. After these, one day Anna invites Will back to her hotel roo. Nevertheless, in the room,they come across Anna's boyfriend. After seeing him, Anna immediately asserts that they have broken up but Will decides to leave anyway.This a big sadness for me. But as the film goes on, new things begin to occur.

Days later, one day comes to Will's house.This visit is not for anything but to find a place to stay. Some of her photoghraphes have been foun by he press and therefore she needs to be hidden.With this event, Will and Anna come together again. That night, they sleep together. While they are at home, sweet Spike is on a bar:) What he does is really suprising:) Instead of not speaking about Anna, he talks about her being in their home. As a result, in the morning when Anna and Will get up, they see lots of reporters at their doorstep. And at that moment, Anna leaves in a hurry. (This secene was a sad one for me. When I thought that they came together again, and they would be happy forever, seeing that was not a happy thing for me.Also believe me the condition of Will was worse than me.) After her leaving, Will decides once and for all to forget her.

Later, Anna returns to England to make a Henry James film, which Will had suggested she do. She invites him to the set of the film and he listens to the sound recording. While he is listeneing to that, Anna is very busy with her work. Nonetheless, there hppans another shoking thing for me and for Will. While Will is listening to recording, he hears Anna's co-star. She explains him that Will is just some guy. After having heard that, Will leaves. The next day, Anna comes to the bookshop once again. She expects that they will come together again and will continue their relationship. Neverthelessi Will does not accept that.Afterwards, Will consults his friends on his decision. Then, he realizes that he has just made the biggest mistake of his life. He and his friends search for Anna in London. They reach Anna's press conference before she leaves for the United States. And the happy end:) Will successfully persuades her to stay in England with him. What is more, and the best, they get married. The last secene is magnificent: Will and pregnant Anna is sitting on a park bench in Notting Hill:)

Although I am sure most of you have watched it, anyway I recommend you to watch it again, Believe me, each time someone watches it, he can find a different and nice point:)

LOVE HAS NOT HURT YOU SO MUCH!!

NOTEBOOK! I have not read Nicholas Sparks' The Notebook, but I have heard good things about the novel. Even though I have not read it, I listened to its story from my friends so much that I am as if I read.Sadly, the elements that made the book special did not survive the transition to the screen. The Notebook, as adapted, comes across as an ordinary romantic melodrama with an ineffective climax. It's the kind of story for which no term seems more appropriate than "soap opera" for me.

The film unfolds in two time frames featuring the same characters. In the modern day scenes, Noah is played by James Garner and Allie by Gena Rowlands. In the sequences that transpire around World War II, the leads are Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams. It turns out that Allie is suffering from dementia, so, to stir her memories, Noah reads from a notebook that recounts their improbable romance. They met as teenagers in pre-WWII America. For Noah, it was love at first sight, but it took him a while to convince Allie. Almost immediately, the disparity of their social classes became an issue. Actually, she came from money and he was a laborer. The disapproval of Allie's mother (Joan Allen) led to their break-up. But fate brought them together after the war, and before Allie married her soldier darling.

(Nevertheless, the scene on which Allie and James are dancing is marvellous. On that scene the song "I'll Be Seeing You" is played as they dance in the street:) )

When Noah returns home from the war, he finds out that his Dad has sold their house. Before long, Noah's father passes away. When traveling to the city to get a building permit, Noah sees Allie embracing Lon, and decides to rebuild his dream house for Allie. Actually, he and Allie had visited it in their earlier years and he had promised Allie he would one day rebuild it. Noah works like a madman, believing if he could rebuild the house, Allie would come back to him. Noah engages in a brief affair with a war widow named Martha Shaw.

While trying on her wedding dress, Allie reads about Noah completing the house in a newspaper and faints. She decides to visit Noah in Seabrook, and the two spend a bit of time together, talking about what has been happening in their lives. Noah invites Allie to see him again the next day, and they both go for a ride in a rowboat. Not long later, Allie confronts Noah and asks him why she had not heard from him for all those years. Noah tells her he had sent her 365 letters and the two discover that Allie's mother had hidden them from her young daughter. All emotion becomes clear as Allie reveals she never got over losing Noah, crying

"It wasn't over for me!". Noah releases all his emotion and feels grief and says, "It wasn't over....It still isn't over!" Finally, Noah and Allie reconcile with each other.

After a two-day affair, Allie discovers that Noah fulfilled her wish of a house which she expressed when they visited the house. Allie's mother comes to see her daughter and learns about what has happened. Anne warns Allie that Lon knows something about her activities and is on his way up to talk to her. While going for a drive with her daughter, Anne explains to Allie how she, before marrying John, had fallen in love with a man who was not in her social class. She takes Allie back to the house, tells her daughter she hopes she makes the right choice, and hands her the 365 letters Noah had written seven years ago. Noah and Allie talk and get into a brief argument, where Noah continuously asks her what she wants in life. Allie then leaves the heartbroken Noah.

The film goes back to the elderly couple, and Allie asks Duke who Allie chose. She realizes the answer herself, and the scene, briefly, goes again to years earlier, where Allie goes back to Noah again, and they both embrace in reunion. Allie suddenly remembers her past and she and Noah joyfully spend a brief intimate time together, Allie then suffers a "sundown" (described in a deleted scene when Allie has no recognition of anything or anyone around her) and panics. She has to be sedated by the attending physician. This proves to be difficult for Noah to watch and he breaks down. The next morning, Noah is found unconscious in bed and he is rushed to the hospital, but he is later returned to the nursing home's intensive care ward. He walks in Allie's bedroom that night, and Allie remembers again. They talk, and Allie asks him if he thinks their love could take them away together, to which Noah replies, "I think our love can do anything we want it to." They fall asleep holding on to each other, and the nurse comes in the morning to realize that they had died in each others arms.

Although it has a common story, the movie is worth to watching. Nevertheless, I advise you to read its book first:)

Watching a movie where well-known actors!!! From Robin Williams, Gene Hackman to Nathan LAne and Dianne Wiest. This comedy is wonderful:) you should watch it:)

Its story is also a magnificant one:) It is different from the usual ones...The story revolves around the lives of two families, the Goldmans and the Keeleys. Robin Williams and Nathan Lane play Armand and Albert Goldman, owners of the Birdcage, a drag nightclub, while Gene Hackman and Dianne Wiest are Senator and Mrs Keeley, believers in the sort of conservatism. These two families are actually different from each other very much. Because, Goldmands (Albert and Arman) have a gay relationship. At the beginning of the movie, I could not understand this realationship. Although I recognized that Albert was envy of Armand, I could not give any meaning to that. Nevertheless, when I saw the scene on which Armand and his son take place, I understood that. The story becomes very intereseting after that point.

Because on that scene, Val explains something which makes the two families to come together. That is the two families collide when their children Val and Barbara decide to get married. Barbara needs to convince her Senator father that the marriage is the right thing despite the fact that she's only 18. He is initially reluctant as he's too busy planning his re-election. Nevertheless, circumstances change. And he begins to believe that the only way to save his political career is to be seen doing something good. By being affected by the comments of his wife, the Senator takes the decision of allowing his daughter to marry. Because, marriage is the seymbol of inocence. It is a good way of gaining the faith of public. Then, Barbara tells this to Val.

But, there is a big problem. That is because Barbara's father and mother decide to come Val's home. Actually, there is a reason for that but I could not get it. Although I watched that part three times, the pronounciation of the some words were not familiar with me. Therefore, what I could understand is one of the friends of the Senator was dead. And he was found in a bed. After this point, there were comments of the Senator and his wife about the issue, and these were the things that I could not understand.

If I continue telling the story... After learning that Barbara and her familiy are coming to his some, Val panics and enlists the help of his dads in an attempt to make them look like a normal family for one day as the Keeleys come to visit. ...

The scenes after this are very enjoyable. I laughed, laughed and laughed:) It is really and really wonderful:) Especially, I want to talk about the servant of Goldmans'. He is so much comic that you cannot see him in a serious atmosphere. The egg soup he makes in the evening of Goldmans and Keeleys coming together is really terrible:) And his clothes are another factor that make audience laugh. He does not wear shoes, trousers...However at that night, he has to:) As a result, there occurs funny moments:)

The sentences this servant uses are also interesting.. Fr example, he says /klatS/. Even though I am not sure its spelling, I assume that it is "clash". Because, after the movie, I looked at the dictionary and I could not any word similar to that pronounciation. Therefore, I thought that it was "clash". Another thing which drew my attention in his speech was the word "wattamalanes". It is very satrange, is not it? As far as I understood, he is a Spanish.I have been taking Spanish course and his accent is similar to my Spanish instuctor. By considering that, I looked at the Spanish dictionary, but I could not find its meaning. One of his sentence was strange for me. He said: "A manager is on phone. He's got to talk to you." The usage of "have got to" is not so common, therefore, hearing it first time after so much time has passed is strange for me.

In the movie, the speeches which were very easy to understand belonged to Arman. here, I want to add that he is so much sweet:) The sentence which I still can remember is this one:

--You cannot stand sharing your boy with me.

Arman is a lovely person and he loves Albert's son very much. He is as if Val's mother and spend much effort for the happiness of him. While watching these scenes, I got sad. Also when Arman learns that Val has taken the decision of marriage, he says:

"A baby is going to leave us and we do not have others."

So nice is not it:) This shows how much importance he gives to Val and how much sensitive he is.

You should really watch it. While having funny moments, you also look at the stereotype ideas of society with a criticising perspective.

HAVE YOU LOVED IN AUTUMN?

"HE TAUGHT HER HOW TO LIVE, SHE TAUGHT HER HOW TO LIVE." Indeed, this sentence as at the beginning of the movie summarizes the realitonship of two main characters in the movie. In anywhere, love cannot be as pure as in "AUTUMN IN NEWYORK." As in the The Pianinst, I was blew into tears while watching this movie. I love romance, I love the theme of love. Horror, fantastism are way from being innocent. Perhaps that is the reason why I always choose movies on romance or drama:)

As one can deduce from the title, the film takes place in Gotham in the fall. The main character is Will. And he is a shameless womanizer and the 50-year old owner of the city's restaurant. Though he believes himself to be happy, moving aimlessly from one woman's arms to the next, he finds himself oddly smitten by Charlotte. On the first scenes, this restaurant owner Will came to a party given by his old friend. And there, Will came across Charlotte who was beautiful, wit, and innocencent. However, when I learned that he dated Charlotte's deceased mother in the past, I was suprised:) On the flip side, Charlotte has merely a year to live and is not afraid to die because she has nothing truly worth living for. The two find sustenance in one another, but (as all love stories go) they endure trying times...

Nevertheless, Charlotte is either too young or too sick. And Will was not able to control his libido or escape his shady past. So, for me they were meant for one another but how long could it last? The thought of this made me sad and I watched the whole film with this question in my mind. Nevertheless, I want to mention that it's a surprise that the performances are solid and the acting sustains the film as a whole. Richard Gere was showing no signs of aging. Also the performance of Charlotte turned in a credible performance, and her features are perfect for the role of a sickly young woman. Actually I remember her from the movies "Girl" and "Interrupted". Winona is still nice:) Additionaly, she obsolutely gets well with Richard Gere. Despite the generation gap, Wionna is from Japan, she shows her flexibility as an actress.

Unfortunately, the script feels artificial largely because the main characters' dialogue comes across unnatural. For example, when Winona out of nowhere recites random poetry, it seems as if she and Gere are talking at instead of to one another. Also, none of the supporting cast seems to even question Gere’s choice of girlfriend, knowing both that he can’t stay faithful and that she’s on her deathbed. This is really disputable...

What I did not like in the movie is its story's utter predictability.( This was one of the few films where I was able to anticipate every plot twist with more than a 90% degree of accuracy.) Little was left to interpretation or the imagination. Nevertheless, while the images are quite stunning, pretty pictures alone do not make for a good film. What is needed are credible characters to care about and a script that not only entertains, but inspires at the same time. Unfortunately, one out of three is not good enough in this movie..

CAN THE MAGNIFICANT HANDS OF A PIANIST PLAY A SONG OF WORLD TRAGEDY?

...firstly, the language used was not simple to understand for me. Therefore, I watched some parts second even third times:) there are some nuances between the prounciation of vowels. While he is saying "heard", he pronounces it as "hırd" not as /h3rd/, "because" as /bıkoz/...Nevertheless, the thing that I was sure from the beginning was this is a wonderful film. Actually, this is the second time I have watched it. And again, and again I was amazed. This one of those films where you leave the theater feeling horrified but enlightened, depressed but exuberant, appalled by the depth to which human nature can sink and yet deeply moved by the triumphs it can achieve. Therefore, I cannot forget the name of Roman Polanski, the director of The Pianist. It tells the true story of a Polish pianist and songwriter Wladislaw, who barely survived the Nazi occupation of Warsaw during World War II and lost all his family and most of his friends to the death camps.

The first screen of the film is amazing. The story begins on September 23, 1939. On this day, Wladislaw was interrupted by German bombs while playing Chopin’s song( it is very familiar with me, but I could not remember its name.) As the bombs drew closer, he at first continued playing, but soon the station itself was targeted and he and his colleagues were forced to evacuate. The first thing that drew my attention is at that moment, the radio station was silenced for the duration of the war. Also, subsequent horrors was endured by Wladislaw, his family, and the entire Jewish community of Warsaw. Beginning with the simple but ever more outrageous restrictions placed on them by the occupying German army (like wearing the Star of David emblems on their arms). It was followed by the segregation of Jews from the rest of the population by the establishment of the infamous Warsaw Ghetto( sth like that I am not sure, because the pronounciation of the word is not familiar with me).

Early on Wladyslaw's father viciously slapped by a Nazi appeared on the scene. And the most direful thing was Warsaw residents passed by the injured old man paying him no notice. After seeing that, I thought if it was an acceptance of the Nazis' anti-Semitism or simple self-preservation, the Poles' knowledge of what would have happened to them if they had attempted to intervene? Shortly after, ghetto Jews attempting to carry on their everyday business while the corpses of those who have died of starvation littered the streets. It's impossible to resolve my feelings about those scenes whether I was watching insensitiveness or some sort of a determination that life, even this stunted life, should continue? I learned the answer of that question when I watched the Jewish policemen who, to ensure their own survival, worked for the Nazis keeping order in the ghetto.

The scenes after these moments are the ones I will not be able to forget in my life. They were terrible. I witnessed any kind of things which can be regarded as violent, disgusting, horrible. The first one that comes to my mind is random and seemingly arbitrary executions of Jews. And these were not for logical reasons but for any number of offenses!!! Second thing that comes to my mind is the pathetic attempts by the Jews to figh back against their oppressors, and finally the liquidation of the ghetto as the Jews were transported en masse to the concentration camps in boxcars. It’s still hard to believe that what I’m writing actually occurred within my grandparents’ lifetimes that humans could be so cruel to each other and commit such disgusting acts against fellow humans. Nevertheless, I want to add that the director accomplished a perfect work. The depiction is eloquent, touching and it gives the impession that the event told in thet movie happned Polanski’s depiction is eloquent, touching, and staggeringly real enough that we make no mistake: it really happened 62 years ago.

While watching this movie, from the beginning to the end my eyes were in tears. Although the language( Scottish English) was a bit diffucult to understand, any way I understood the value of life, the value of having humanistic feelings and the importance of giving value to every creature in the world once more.