POV

Well...Woody Allen is Woody Allen yet again. Obeying his one movie per year oath, Allen creates Midnight in Paris as a magical, character-driven rom com. Enjoyable characters-not overly neurotic males nor hysterical women, just borderline so- a catchy, albeit fresh twist & reversal-ful plot. A movie that can keep you watching. Will it though? It might.

I think **** really managed to make a visceral film on a tandem far different from Welles' dark, b&w thrilleresque interpretation of the tragic and the romance. I loved the pastel dominance of the cinematography. If I have to pick let-downs, one is that it does not show extreme depth of character in anyone other than Jane ( We wanna see more of Mr. Rochester's complexity!). Otherwise, it is the perfectly slow-paced movie to watch for a shiver, just enough Hollywood cheesiness and just as much as I can handle. A film for the time you want to be a hopeless romantic, if only for 120 minutes.

Good Jeff Bridges, good Matt Damon, good Hailee Steinfield. Good cinematography, great plot. Not great linear flow-I thought it was too slow, and I wish the Coen Bros weren't so anachronistic in preserving the time period of the Western genre-maybe they should've modernized the length so that it would more curb out instant gratification generation? Alas, an almost perfect film. Atta boys!

MMM...Psychological thriller. What great cinematography. What good handling by Aronofsky of the duality of self, of good and evil, of black and white and gray. I think that there are very powerful moments in the film, and the calmer moments are never calm, but in contrast to their counterparts, calm-er. Good story, good adaptation of the swan lake, good acting, well done.

A dream alternative scenario to the terrors of WWII. The signature Tarantino witty dialogue you've been salivating for since Death Proof? Check. The sharp, enjoyable and cunning characters spreading over the whole spectrum of human psychology? Check. I enjoyed the music, the historical allusions, the Master Christoph Waltz, the plot. Maybe not all of the 2 and a half hours, but definitely the most part. YES!!

An interesting, scenic painting of Greek landscape and urban microcosm. Interesting choice of making a coming of age story as confusing for the audience as for the protagonist in the film. But hey, maybe thats a good thing, the confusion. Right? The cinematography is worthy of a TEN, no question. This is not about escapism, the colors, the contrast, the scenery **** me in. But what about the nudity? Does 'but its EUROPEAN ergo it's okay' really explain all that needs to be explained? What about the dynamic in the homosexual exploration of the protagonist-why is that element unexamined, why does the director tie it in the growth of the protagonist? Too many 'what do I make of this' to make me take Attenberg more seriously than viewing it as an attempt for a euro art film. New Greek filmmakers like Tsangari have potential, but need to write and read and watch films more, so that films like Attenberg are one day soon taken as a good pat on the back, but not as finalized products of creativity.

A story about the end being there from the begining. You search through the non-linear unfolding of the couple's life, for signs that they are not the one for each other, and the signs are there. And that's great. Because this film points out, pulling masks from many of us, that some people stay together because of need for attachment and fear of aloneness, and that not everyone decides to be together just because their neuroses can match and they'll make each other happy. Sensitive Michelle Williams, Tender and moving Ryan Gosling. One of the films you'll want to watch twice to delve deeper in the psychological underpinnings that pinch you to ponder and ponder.

In order to be irreplaceable, one must always be different? Dogtooth is interesting because its different. Lanthimos created a unique experiment-tale that is based on a very interesting thought ( what you see is what you are, your environment defines not only your identity, but your choice of words, and what you think they each symbolize, can really mess with your mind). Yes, but beside the 'different' angles, the pastel colors evoking a balmy Greek breeze that chills your spine while watching the surreal and thriller-esque story about a family, what is the point? what is the conflict? It makes me ask, why has there not been one single Greek movie, after Zorbas the Greek, that is merely a good story, well told? Watch to think.

I found MIRAL exhilarating. Schnabel receives Jebreal's story with care, and sharpens it with his mastery in painting with an incredible cinematography. His camera work has been characterized as shaky, but i think he is a master of framing; he conveys the unrest of the Israel-Palestine conflict through his angles, his choice of shots, the jeeringly touching music, and by his thematic taste. Maybe because I watched the film in the Angelika, among many Palestinians and Jews, maybe because I got to spoke to Jebreal and Schnabel after the screening, I am enthusiastic about the significance of the mere action of putting out there a film that concerns this conflict at this given time in history. Whatever the aesthetic and cinematic significance MIRAL shall have in the future, it will definitely make you question where the truth lies in respect to both sides' role in the conflict. Well done.