gletzes Reviews

Z (1969)

A few interesting facts and misconceptions about the film.and the true story that it is based upon.

[10/10 · 24 August 2006]

This is not a review.All that is need to be written about this masterpiece of a film has already been written.

However there are 1-2 things worth mentioning that might interest some folks that are not from Greece: Jean Louis Trintignant's character "The Examining Magistrate" was in reality Christos Sargetakis who became the president of Greece for 5 years(1985-1990).

The film ends with the rise of the military dictatorship and it is suggested that the upposition didn't really capitalise on Lambrakis' assassination.That's not what happened in reality.

In reality the Lambrakis assassination caused the resignation of prime minister Karamanlis(the right wing P.M of Greece at that time) and the triumph of the upposition(something like the democrats in the U.S,the G.Papandreou party,NOT Lambrakis' left wing party) in the elections of 1963 with a whooping 54% which becomes even bigger when taking into account the situation in Greece at that time,with right-wing police controlling everything and manipulating the citizens.

Of course the film was made after the democratic-elected government had fallen and junta had taken over.(in fact the democratic government had fallen 2 years*in 1965* before the junta took over and we had a false semi-democratic government that consisted right wing members of parliament and defected members of the G.Papandreou party)

So in reality the Lambrakis assassination DID make a difference in Greece,if only for 2 years(1963-1965) while on the film nothing changed.I guess with the ultimate rise of the junta that was reigning at the time the film was made it was proper to make the film bleaker than the true events.

Mission: Impossible III (2006)

What a great movie.

[10/10 · 4 May 2006]

I am neither a fan of Cruise nor a fan of the MI series.I found the first MI movie to be O.K and the second awful but this new one blows both away.

The movie begins with a bang(literally) and never lets go.The structure of this film has nothing to do with part 2.Here we have a team working together again not the super hero Cruise of part 2(now that i think again,part 2 shouldn't even be called "mission impossible" it had nothing to do with the franchise other than the main character's name).There are many surprises in the plot,the action sequences are great(and i mean really great) and Cruise gets really dirty on this one while his teammates are really likable and Lorence Fishbern has a small but vital to the plot part.

So far so good,but there's one thing that really blew me away in this film:the coolest,meanest villain i have ever watched in a movie:Yep,Philip Seymour Hoffman is that good!!I have always admired this actor but here in a popcorn/summer flick he really makes a difference and thank God his character is really well written.We don't have a crazy villain that overacts(ala Jack Nicholson -type of villain),we have a real cruel person that can also be very confident and very brave at the same time.The scene at the plane where Nathan is torturing Davian(Hoffman's character) would ,at a regular film,occur vice versa.It would be the bad guy that would this thing(i won't mention what it is) and the good guy that would show braveness,resistance.

I won't say much more as to not ruin the plot but all i can say is this is the best action film i have seen in years and i hope that Hoffman will start playing in more big summer movies.

The Wicker Man (1973)

horribly overrated

[1/10 · 10 February 2006]

I have to admit that i was shocked when i saw that this "movie"(and that's a very generous term for this atrocity) has such a high grade on IMDb.

This thing is atrocious.It's one thing to have bad actors trying to act in the movies but having the same amateurs trying to sing and dance is much,much worse.Even the great Christopher Lee comes off as pathetic in this picture.

This movie belongs to no genre because it fails at everything.It fails as a mystery film since it is obvious what will happen after the first 15 minutes and it fails as a horror film since there is no horror at all really.

The character of Sergeant Howie is one of the stupidest characters i've ever seen in a movie and usually the characters are really stupid in horror movies.Here he is ,on an island that, everyone is hostile to him and where it would be obvious even to a 10 year old child that something is very wrong, acting as if the entire U.K police force is just around the corner and all he has to do is call for back up.

Then there's the songs...just shut up already and move on to the finale of this thing.

Don't get me wrong,i am a huge fan of seventies' horror and a bigger fan of British horror movies but this film is just insulting to the viewer.Avoid like the plague!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dawn of the Mummy (1981)

The Ancor Bay version is not the "uncut" one.

[2 January 2006]

O.K,i am just writing this to clear up the misinformation that the Anchor Bay DVD release is the "uncut" one.It isn't.In fact it is missing most of the gore.I have watched the true uncut version,a Greek VHS copy,a long time ago and i can still remember this film being much gorier that what Anchor Bay has released.

Let me explain that in the mid-eighties ,Greece was a paradise for every gorehound cause the arrival of VHS had brought a ton of small Greek distributors that were releasing every piece of horror "video nasty" totally uncut including movies like cannibal holocaust,cannibal ferrox,every Fulci movie and many more, "Dawn of the Mummy" included.

Anyway the movie is horrible but it has a few laughs due to the hilarious "acting" and the music is kind of neat.Other than that i was disappointed to find out that most of the gore is missing from the Anchor Bay version...

The Shining (1980)

A joke....

[1/10 · 7 August 2005]

I am going to keep this short.This "adaption" of the wonderful King book is a bad joke and nothing more.Of course there are many Kubrick and Nickolson fans in this site and,as a result,this movie has mysteriously find its way in the top-250.

Jack Nicholson is laughable as Torrance and so is Shelley Duvall.The story,that has nothing to do with the book,is an incoherent mess and the characters of Jack and Wendy Torrance are complete jokes.

My advice to anyone that hasn't read the book and wants to understand the characters of this story:stick to the TV series ....

Oh ,and the people who are saying that Kubrick had every right to destroy the King story cause King is...not a good writer should stick to reviewing "masterpieces" like "eyes wide shut".

The Clearing (2004)

An incoherent mess

[1/10 · 25 March 2005]

After reading many good things about it ,i finally watched "the clearing".With a cast of great actors like Redford and Dafoe ,one would,at least, expect a decent film.After the closing credits had rolled i was still shocked by how bad and incoherent this movie actually was.

Is it supposed to be an "art" film??I don't think so cause it is too melodramatic for that.The bad thing is that the drama seems way too forced and unrealistic.

The truth is that the script makes absolutely no sense.First of all it never really explains the motive behind the actions of any of the characters,it just overblows their so called "personal issues".What's so bad about Redford's character's life that he has to "clear it"??The fact that he cheats,occasionally,his wife??The guy is a millionaire who has had a good life,has a great son and a great daughter,a wife that loves him(and a girlfriend that also seems to be way above the generic mistress type of woman)o and a new-born grandson.The only problem seems to be that he...has been working hard for all his life to be a successful person.So what??It seems that his hard work has really paid off and there's actually no real problems with his life.

Then we come to Dafoe's character:here's someone who was a manager for one of Redford's companies and was fired.Why is this guy unemployed for ...eight years???It seems that he must have some kind of good education to have a job like the one he had in the first place and seems to have been a man with solid ideas about his work(as evident by his flashback of a conversation that he had with Redford when he was working for him).Why couldn't a man like that get a decent job and have a decent life??Cause he was ,once,fired??Totally unrealistic.

The film really tries to portray these men as "tortured souls" or something and that comes off as really cheesy.In fact i would say that if the creators of this film were trying to say something about the American dream then they failed miserably.

As for the actual events that take place during the movie ,they also make no sense at all.In fact the last 20 minutes of the film come off as an insult to the viewer's intelligence,because there's not one thing that takes place that actually makes any sense.Redford seems to have about a 1000 chances to escape ,yet he doesn't.At one moment he is ready to escape and yet he misses his chance cause he feels sorry for his kidnapper and doesn't want to hurt him!!!Then Dafoe picks up his gun from the water and the mud,which should be useless(if you fire a shot with a gun after the gun has been in the water and mud it will possibly blow up in your face)and the gun is in perfect condition!!! The way an unemployed ,useless(as portrayed in this film) and mentally unstable character,manages to outsmart the entire FBI with such ease brings the narrative of this film to "twilight zone" levels.The cheesy ending(with Redford's wife illusion) comes to finish the viewer off.

This film pretends to be something,it's not(i.e a quality,sophisticated psychological thriller).Unfortunately it fails so hard,that it becomes a disaster and that's the word that describes this film best:A DISASTER.