Page 1 of 1

#1 The Interpreter - kita od filma

Posted: 26/04/2005 23:32
by Max.Cherry
Kriticar kaze, i ja se slazem, a vi?

"But, beside this little comedic but true fact, something worse id wrong with Interpreter. As you saw, they invented a country called Motobo. In that country, there is president who is killing innocent people. Some guys organize assasination of the presidente in purpose to hide war crimes and genocide. Main message of the movie, at the very end, is that UN will not tolerate hiding of the crimes, or, UN will be sure that every person that did some war crimes and genocide will be arrested and prosecuted.

There is one country. 4 years of war. 200,000 people killed, slaughtered, God knows how much raped and tortured. It was genocide and war crimes that are happened there. There are people who are responsible for those crimes. Whole fuckin world knows who are they.

UN did nothing to stop the war in 4 years. UN did nothing to stop killing, torture, rape, slaughtering. UN did nothing to search, find and arrest those who are responsible for crimes.

Sounds familiar?

Who needs fuckin Motobo?

The worse thing over all worse things: UN, with this movie, the first in history of filmmaking which is filmed inside of UN building, is trying to wash out all responsibility of zillion failed missions all over the wrold, by arresting on big screen some old guy who killed KU people that exist in country named Motobo, only in brain of screenwrter.

Get it now? Seriously rotten."

#2

Posted: 26/04/2005 23:52
by Edin H.
Odakle si ovo skinuo?

Mocan clanak!

#3

Posted: 27/04/2005 10:11
by irfan2
konto sam gledat
al sad necu...
fakat mocan clanak

#4

Posted: 27/04/2005 10:16
by xygirl
:sad:
pih...
a ja jedva cekala da gledam taj film

#5

Posted: 27/04/2005 10:26
by Zadig
pa ako malo bolje procitas onaj text, vidjeces da se film tu i ne pominje uopste, tako da ga slobodno mozes pogledati.



:D

#6

Posted: 27/04/2005 10:27
by foton
A ja sam ga gledao neki dan i mogu reci da nije nesto narocito, prica je naivna i ima milion rupa, ali me zacudilo da se u novom americkom filmu ikakav znacaj pridodaje UN-u.

#7

Posted: 27/04/2005 10:34
by mIRCerka
foton wrote:A ja sam ga gledao neki dan i mogu reci da nije nesto narocito, prica je naivna i ima milion rupa, ali me zacudilo da se u novom americkom filmu ikakav znacaj pridodaje UN-u.
gledala sam reklamu za film, i nalozila se pravo da ga gledam posto se bavim tim poslom, ali mi rekose da malo previse Nicole zanosi sa francuskim akcentom....
mislim da bi Amerikanci trebali malo vise da hodaju po svijetu, da se uvjere da dosta neamerikanaca govori engleski bez rusko/francusko/indijskog naglaska....
sve u svemu, par scena iz reklame (Nicole sa covrugama na malo krvavom celu) me podjestilo na izvjestaje iz Iraka:

12 Iraqi soldiers were killed and 3 American were severly injured, including their interpreter....
:roll:

gledati ili ne, pitanje je sad.....

#8

Posted: 27/04/2005 10:50
by xygirl
Zadig wrote:pa ako malo bolje procitas onaj text, vidjeces da se film tu i ne pominje uopste, tako da ga slobodno mozes pogledati.



:D
eh pa sad nebi se slozila s tim da se film u textu uopste ne spominje
(ako nista, covjek je spomenuo "main message of the movie, at the very end") stoga....

mozda bi ipak ti trebao procitati text malo bolje :D

enivej, film cu pogledati svakako ;)

#9

Posted: 27/04/2005 10:52
by La_Forge
.. ja sam ga juče gledao i ocjenjujem ga jednom 4... (od 1 do 10)..
ispod prosjeka je...
i aja sam se naložio reklamom... kontam dora postava glumaca itd..
ma sranje u boji...
:-x

#10

Posted: 27/04/2005 11:45
by Zadig
xygirl wrote:
Zadig wrote:pa ako malo bolje procitas onaj text, vidjeces da se film tu i ne pominje uopste, tako da ga slobodno mozes pogledati.



:D
eh pa sad nebi se slozila s tim da se film u textu uopste ne spominje
(ako nista, covjek je spomenuo "main message of the movie, at the very end") stoga....

mozda bi ipak ti trebao procitati text malo bolje :D

enivej, film cu pogledati svakako ;)
XYG, onaj gore text nema VEZE sa filmskom kritikom, i ne govori nista o filmu sta filmska kritika treba da kaze. Otidji na google i vidi sta je filmska kritika.
"main message of the movie, at the very end"... ovo je jedina i najslabija referenca napravljena u gore navedenom textu o filmu, i nista nam ne govori o FILMU, vec kako je kriticar shvatio "poruku" filma. Koja je po njegovom ocito sjebana



text je najobicnije sranje, i nema veze (ponavljam li se) s filmskom kritikom, ili bar ne sa dobrom. drugo, autor nije stavilo link "kritike", prema tome ko li ga je samo napiso mozes samo nagadjati.

Film sam gledao, i preporucujem ga. Ko voli Son Pena, dopasce kako je coek odglumio, jednog sjebanog i krajnje umornog lika.
Ako ostavis sa strane nase klasicno opterecenje politikom, amerikom UN-om, pravdom, ratom i ostalim sranjima, moci ces gledi film kako se i gleda (gluma, zaplet, rasplet, realnost, muzika, rezija, supporting act, motivi scenografija i tako dalje)

Onda ces moci reci da li je film shit ili ne. Ako te zanima moj sud, reci, kazacu ti, mada ja pravo volim son pena, pa imam tendenciju da ne kritikujem previse njegovu glumu
:D :D

#11

Posted: 27/04/2005 12:01
by Zadig
Silvia Broome is not just an employee of the United Nations, where she works as an interpreter. She is also a passionate believer in its goals and ideals, and holds fast to the conviction that it offers the best hope for addressing the violence and corruption running rampant across the globe. When she explains this to Tobin Keller, a Secret Service agent assigned to protect her from a sinister conspiracy (and also to investigate her possible involvement in it), he responds with a smirk. "You've had a tough year," he says.

And that is pretty much the only contact that "The Interpreter," a glossy new picture directed by Sydney Pollack, makes with the world as we know it. This kind of movie, stuffed with intimations of faraway strife and people in suits talking frantically on cellphones and walkie-talkies, is conventionally described as a political thriller, but "The Interpreter" is as apolitical as it is unthrilling. A handsome-looking blue-chip production with a singularly impressive Oscar pedigree, it disdains anything so crude, or so risky to its commercial prospects, as a point of view.

The role of the United Nations in the face of shifting geopolitical alliances and ferocious ethnic conflicts is a rich and complicated topic, as a glance at the past few weeks' newspapers will confirm, but none of that complexity troubles the shiny surface of this film, which is mainly interested in the United Nations as a piece of architecture. It should be said that the organization's headquarters building on First Avenue at 44th Street in Manhattan is beautifully shot, both from without and within. Darius Khondji's cinematography captures the clean, elegant modernism that at once expresses the building's idealistic purpose and places it in a bygone era of internationalist optimism. Making the United Nations look good is easy compared to the movie's main imaginative ambition, which is to turn Nicole Kidman, apotheosis of all that is blond in Hollywood today, into the embodiment of African suffering. Silvia, Ms. Kidman's character, may have a European education, but her roots are in the troubled (and fictional) African nation of Matobo, where her parents were white farmers.

Lest we think that she was therefore aligned with apartheid or colonial oppression - "The Interpreter" is not, after all, Mr. Pollack's sequel to "Out of Africa," or at least not quite - we see old photographs of Silvia and her brother bearing arms in a noble multiracial cause. She is fond of quoting the wisdom of the Ku, a tribe whose views on vengeance and mourning are at odds with the grim state of her country. (The moral of "The Interpreter" is, in effect, do as the Ku say, not as the Ku do.)

Matobo is ruled by one Dr. Zuwanie (Earl Cameron), a vaguely Mugabe-like figure who followed a familiar path from liberator to genocidal maniac, and who has squandered both the hopes of his people and the respect of the United Nations member states. It is a measure of just how bad he is that both French and American diplomats agree that he should face some kind of justice, and also that his two main rivals - an old-school socialist (Curtiss I' Cook) and an apostle of capitalist development (George Harris) - have put aside their differences to oppose him more effectively. As it happens, the dictator is on his way to New York to address the General Assembly, and Silvia, returning to the office to retrieve her African flutes, overhears someone plotting to kill him when he makes his speech.

This strikes Tobin (Sean Penn) as too convenient to be entirely coincidental, and as he digs into Silvia's background he begins to suspect that she is more deeply enmeshed in Matobo's intrigue than she lets on. The great disappointment of the script is that it fudges the question of her involvement, leaving some gaping holes you can discuss with your friends at your favorite Matoban restaurant after the movie.

More thought has gone into addressing the challenge of giving Mr. Penn something to do that couldn't be done by a second-string cop-show actor on television. To ensure that Silvia does not suffer alone, Tobin is provided with his own back story of grief and loss, which Mr. Penn must relate in tearful moments when the plot takes a break from third world misery.

At first, Mr. Penn and Ms. Kidman, his brow as dramatically furrowed as hers is smooth, promise some interesting chemistry. Their first scene together has a brisk, parry-and-thrust rhythm, as Silvia, hiding behind a lock of hair gone strategically astray, frustrates Tobin's attempts to figure her out. But after that, nothing much happens. Ms. Kidman, as ever, nimbly switches between vulnerability and clever toughness while adding another unusual accent to her roster of achievements.

Mr. Penn seems a bit more uncertain, burrowing with his characteristic earnestness into a role that hardly exists. From time to time, you may detect a wink of Brandoesque detachment, but more flagrant subversion would have turned this character from the pedestrian confection of a screenwriting committee into someone worth watching.

That committee - which included Steven Zaillian, who won an Oscar for "Schindler's List," and Scott Frank, nominated for "Out of Sight" - failed to come up with either a diverting whodunit or a plausible moral melodrama. Mr. Pollack's direction walks the line between competence and complacency. As the day of Dr. Zuwanie's arrival approaches, the pace of the narrative accelerates, the action moves from Turtle Bay to Crown Heights and something blows up. The two principals are driven by their respective hardships into a chaste moment of snuggling, and Tobin's partner, Dot, fires off some impatient wisecracks.

Dot is played by Catherine Keener, a wonderful, underused actress who, if there is any justice in Hollywood, will someday have her own chance to embody the sufferings of the African continent.

"The Interpreter" is rate
NY times, film sekcija
link http://movies2.nytimes.com/mem/movies/r ... e=20050422


evo, ovo je vec film "revju" tj kritika

konstruktivna, s nekim se stvarima slazem, s nekima ne.
sto je i normalno naravno

#12

Posted: 27/04/2005 12:02
by Zadig
samo cu jos nesto dodati,

N.Kidman igra po meni jednu od NAJHIPOKRITICNIJIH uloga do sada u istoriji svoje glume.

ali eto,
oprosteno joj je
:roll:

#13

Posted: 27/04/2005 12:38
by xygirl
Zadig: rekoh samo da cu film pogledati svakako :D
btw. ja ionako nisam ta koja je rekla da je film SHIT rekla sam da sam procitala text iznad :roll: :D (i po tom nisam donijela nikakav sud ;) )
u svakom slucaju hvala ti na ovim ostalim textovima tj. kritikama, tj "revju" :D
(da... malo si se ponavljao :D, nema veze ;) )
ovaj, jos da dodam :D posto ja volim Nicole pravo imam tendenciju da ne kritikujem ja njene uloge previse :D

#14

Posted: 27/04/2005 12:46
by mrak
Zadig, ti si vjerovatno tip koji dan danas slusa Bregovica i gleda Kusturicu jer razdvaja idejnu od "zanatske" strane umjetnosti, ako su u ovom slucaju holivudski filmovi uopste umjetnost. Ja se nikada necu moci sloziti sa tim, smatram da takva umjetnost nije iskrena i da me neko tu laze.

#15

Posted: 27/04/2005 16:12
by iceman ze
Ja sam gledao u kinu film, i bolji je ugodaj nego kuci. Sto se tice filma, necete nista propustiti ako ga niste pogledali, ocekivao sam vise akcije u filmu, po meni S.Pen je izvadio film da na nesto lici, dok je N.Kidman bila prosjecna, gledali smo je i u boljem svjetlu.

#16

Posted: 27/04/2005 16:16
by Zadig
mrak wrote:Zadig, ti si vjerovatno tip koji dan danas slusa Bregovica i gleda Kusturicu jer razdvaja idejnu od "zanatske" strane umjetnosti, ako su u ovom slucaju holivudski filmovi uopste umjetnost. Ja se nikada necu moci sloziti sa tim, smatram da takva umjetnost nije iskrena i da me neko tu laze.
a) ne slusam bregovica, bezze mi je taj njegov etno fol.


b) kusturicu posljednji put gledo crna macka bijeli macor iznajmio DVD, cisto iz radoznalosti, ali ne moram se valjda pravdati sto sam pogledao film koji mi je bio ok i to je to.



c) jeste, lazu i tebe i mene. Ali ima dosta filmova made in Sveta Suma koji jesu umjetnost i to cista

evo da ti navedem par primjera ciste umjetnosti made in holywood:

- raging bull
- the man who was not there
- KUM
- taxi driver
- once upon a time in america (director's cut)
- dolce vita
- citizen kane
- let iznad k. gnjezda
- I am Sam
- Mystic river
- Partizanska eskadrila :-)

i mnogi mnogi drugi....

:D

#17

Posted: 27/04/2005 16:17
by Zadig
iceman ze wrote:Ja sam gledao u kinu film, i bolji je ugodaj nego kuci. Sto se tice filma, necete nista propustiti ako ga niste pogledali, ocekivao sam vise akcije u filmu, po meni S.Pen je izvadio film da na nesto lici, dok je N.Kidman bila prosjecna, gledali smo je i u boljem svjetlu.
tako nekako.
Kad bolje razmislis, ali da ne komantarisemo dalje jer neko hoce jos i da pogleda film.

#18

Posted: 27/04/2005 16:27
by Zadig
npr xyg...

:wink:

#19

Posted: 30/04/2005 00:23
by CiCiban
nesto kao 4. juli? samo shon pen mijenja will smitha? :-)

#20

Posted: 30/04/2005 01:23
by Max.Cherry
Eh, evo mene opet, vidim zakuhali kako sam otvorio diskusiju.

Prije svega, vrlo je lijepo vidjeti kako se ljudi brinu o filmu uopste u ovoj napuknutoj drzavi. Bez obzira na stavove i predjeljenja, te upucenost u filmsku umjetnost.

Zelio bih istaknuti nekoliko cinjenica. Kritika koju ste mogli procitati u uvodu diskusije nije uopste dosla od nekog stranger-a, kako ste pretpostavljali, nego dolazi direktno od mene. Ja se bavim filmom vec niz godina i nekoliko hiljada objavljenih recenzija (review-a, kritika, kako hocete) u domacim medijima mislim da mi daje sve kompetencije koje ste postavili kao upitne. Navedeni tekst u stvari nije kritika, tu su neki u pravu svakako, to je jednostavno dio kritike, preradjen i prilagodjen kako bi se objasnile neke stvari mojim prijateljima koji nisu odavde. Prijateljima kriticarima, koji su film ocjenjivali raznoliko.

Sam tekst je takodjer prilagodjen formatu ovog Foruma, jer sam zelio privuci sto vecu paznju, i eto uspjelo je, koliko-toliko. Inace, film je jedno cisto prosjecno politicki orijentisano djelo, triler po svim pravilima zanra, sa jednom prilicno dobrom rezijom i fantasticnom glumom. Ja to nigdje nisam spocitao nikome. Ali, film ima jednu ogromnu rupu u samoj poruci, i neizbjezan je gorak okus u dusi nakon izlaska iz kina, zbog vrlo iskrivljene istine i neprilagodjenosti temi. Ovaj film, osim klasicne pohlepe holivudskih studija za sto vecom zaradom, ima jednu skrivenu ambiciju, koju na zalost prosjecan evropski ili americki gledalac ne moze i ne zeli vidjeti. ALi mi moramo i ne vidim razloga zasto ne bismo. Film nije los ako zelite zabavu koju cete zaboraviti nakon nekoliko dana. Uostalom, svi mi moramo imati svoje misljenje a ne samo slijepo slusati druge, zato svi otidijite i pogledajte film, imajte misljenje - i ako ste dovoljno dobri u tome, objavite ga negdje. Ako ne, razgovarajte sa rajom, to uvijek pomaze.

Ali razmislite na kraju, kome treba i Sean Penn, i Nicole Kidman, i Sydney Pollack, bez obzira na svoje nesumnjive kvalitete, kada svojim izvrsnim performansima automatski kompromituju sami sebe?

#21

Posted: 30/04/2005 10:05
by The_Fluid
Ali razmislite na kraju, kome treba i Sean Penn, i Nicole Kidman, i Sydney Pollack, bez obzira na svoje nesumnjive kvalitete, kada svojim izvrsnim performansima automatski kompromituju sami sebe?
ljudi vole brandove, tako su i oni to, filmove i prodaje pojava omiljenog branda odredjene skupine potroshacha/gledalaca, shto ne znachi da no name ne valja, nego manje privlachi pazhnju :-)