''The Blair Witch Project''

The Blair Witch Project (1999)               8/10

Once again, this is a film, that’s very hard to mark, because it doesn’t fit in any of the normal categories. Its original, OK, its not the first of its kind, but it is first that used the style so effectively.  This film defined and you could say created a genre- found footage genre. However, the genre is what it is. After this film, there really isn’t any new place to go with it. There is no other way of shooting or making a found footage film. That being said, it really is worth acknowledging. However, because there is no other way of making ff film, it doesn’t have to mean that all the found footage films are great. Still, I would always give a solid 6 just for being found footage film. It really does give a different feeling and a different perspective into the film- it's a lot more personal. And it is hard to film-it’s hard to think of all the logistics(that no crew is visible) and make it look real and believable, recognizable (the way we (normal people) do everyday filming. Now to be any better than 6, it has to have good story and good actors and good execution.
I am not really into horror movies, however I have seen enough, to sort of know what is going to happen in one. All the time I was watching the film, I kept waiting for the grand moment when the Witch will appear. I was certain that in one of these pitch black scenes, a somehow gleaming white black f**ing scary Blair witch will appear.  That’s why I could not bring myself to watch the film in one go( I admit I had to turn the light on , and continue after I had made tea and made sure there is no one in the dark of my garden) . Anyhow, that moment never came! A lot of classic horror movies have done that so obviously that's why I was expecting it in this one as well ( like Alien films,Jaws , Anaconda, Jeepers Creepers, Predator , etc. these films build up to the big revelation of the ''monster''). In modern films it would have happened rather sooner than later. But in this film, it never did. Now, I am not sure whether I liked it or not- the Witch not appearing. As I was saying from the horror standards, that would have happened, and then when the witch appeared , the film would go on for another half an hour( at least) showing the teenagers fighting with her and blurry shots of action and stuff. Here it never happened. Now, that can be seen as originality or lack of budget that made the whole film short (only around 80minutes) and producers unable to figure out a way to show the evil Witch (what would definitely involve more money).
Well lets look at the facts:
The films budget was $60,000 !! Not too much but probably enough to make the appearance of the witch , so i guess not showing it was more a creative decision. And well, I must admit the film WAS scary! It was really creepily scary, even if it didn’t show the source of the fear. So, hmm, I guess it accomplished what it wanted! It made you feel very at unease and turn on your light. AND it did it with a tiny weenie budged! and well,  to boost the awesomeness the film was shot in just 8 days!! AND Its total gross was/is  $248,639,099 !! for f** sake that's not too bad is it? 248million profit?!. Yes, so I guess that’s the answer to the question.  I believe that makes this film professional and successful and even good ( 50 million people can't be that wrong*)

Actors?  The creators claim, that a lot of the things that happened, where actually surprises for the actors as well, as they didn't know all of the plot, so a lot of their performances are just genuine expressions. However, we don’t see too much of them to be honest, most of the time it’s their back or feet. But when we do see them, I felt them; I felt that they were scared and desperate.  However, again, the closer to the end, the less of the actor’s performance we see -we hear most of it! And once again that works rather well, as we all perfectly well know the face of a crying scared person, and with a little imagination we can clearly picture the horror in their face following the screams and sobs.
As the first mainstream film of its kind, cheap but scary, with believable performances, I give this film an 8!
Of course for a trained, experienced horror film viewer this film probably wouldn't be too scary. Most of all because of the fact that I was talking about earlier, the Witch never appears. Again for a person with a good imagination it probably is scary( and in 1999 it sure was one of the scariest things people had seen in cinema), but nowadays people get lazy on imagining Witches (they are better at imagining numbers and money on their bank accounts). So they have to be shown what the scary evil thing looks like ,and then they can be scared out of their pants, because they have never anticipated or never could have imagined something that looks that creepy, and then that being set into that scary environment and dark scene..! … Well then this would have been a modern scare masterpiece… Maybe it’s time to do a remake?



*according to average ticket price in 1999 , source boxofficemojo.com

''Seeking a Friend for the End of the World'' A story about unlikely situation in which unlikely romance is possible.

Seeking a Friend for the End of the World (2012)     8/10  

Lorene Scafaria's directorial debut. As a debut film very promising. A good storyteller. However, maybe better story teller(she is the writer as well) than director but this is not the film to determine that , yet.

It's not like there are lack of romantic comedies and dramas coming from Hollywood. However this one is different. When I heard about it the concept seemed interesting. The films ending is sorta new( lately though, it seems that we have realized that in case of apocalypse there wont be a bunch of heroes who will save the day...). There are more and more films that try to examine and speculate on the idea of how we humans will interact in case of inevitable doom. However this one is different because it is not dark, heavy or overly depressive but its not comedy as well its something in between all that.

Of course when I saw who is performing the main role: Steve Carell, I was sure this is not going to be a serious movie, although, somewhere deep down , I wondered , maybe this is his "lets try being serious" role. And well it was. It was serious. Steve's character was serious, calm and peaceful, one would say accepting. When in opposite Keira Knightley played a chaotic, emotional, free spirited character. I must admit, it seemed that Carell was better at his role than Knightley, but then again, Knightleys character was more complicated. I don't agree what a lot of people are saying about their collaboration and the films romance : that they could not believe the romance (due to characters and actors being too unlikely to actually fall in love) thus they could not properly enjoy the film and get emotionally involved. I ,however, think this film skillfully made you believe that it is possible, or maybe I believed them because I believe inexplicable love. The whole story is about unlikely romance in an unlikely situation. And in this unlikely but happening situation, this unlikely romance springs up.  It shows the end of the world sad, but romantically beautiful as well.

This film had a lot of moments and time for the viewer to think about his choices and life , and what would he do if he knew the end is inevitable. Would you be like Dodge( the main character) or Linda(his wife that run away) or Penny(other main character, the sad, guilt ridden but optimistic(yeah controversial)person) or Warren(all hopes lost so who gives a shit guy) or Diane( I can and will do anything I want) or the Trucker(the end is inevitable , but I will make my own choice when to die) or 

Chipper Host / Darcy( crazy , happy weed smoking ,orgy ,cafe shop waiter guy)  or Officer Wally Johnson( the guy who does not stop working and obey the law(is the law) even in the wake of an apocalypse)

 or Speck( the guy who is prepared to live through it ,  in an underground basement and ready to restart the world) or maybe you already are like  the Cell-mate and are calm , because you have always known that the end is near?
 Film most definitely showed all aspect of the end of the world situation( the most likely ones) however it did not linger on them too much ,as to not make the viewer feel somehow threatened or disturbed by all that horrible and wrong things, instead it  centered around the romance and beautiful things. Watch this film if you want to go out of the cinema with good, positive feelings , but chose Melancholia if you want to be depressively beaten and overthrown by negative feelings. These both films can be compared as they both have the same concept( inevitable end of the world) , but takes complete opposite approach and mood.
It makes you think and wonder, but not about the awful end of all things thing but about your loved ones and things that you care about, or should care about. 
Its very moving. 
8 for the high emotional quality of the film. Nothing to really say about cinematography or style. This film is purely story (romance) driven.

''Children of Men'': It is a small scale story in a big scale concept.

Children of Men (2006)                                    8.5/10

A fantastic film - stylistically perfect!
A film whose story is driven by cinematography ( you can only make that much long shots in a 2 hour film to still get somewhere with the story).

Very quickly in the film you start to notice that something is different. Well, actually the very first scene (before the main title comes up) is immediately different that most everything I have ever seen. Its starts simply, the camera follows the main character from a coffee shop through a crowd of people to the street ,where it follows him for a moments ,circles around him to face the way he came from when BOOM the coffee shop explodes( the one he just came out off , camera goes forward into the smoke . All this is one continuous shot. A ringing in the ears is all we hear for couple of minutes as it slowly fades out. And with that the scene sets the tone of this futuristic time which appears to be very unstable , dark , sad, grey and lonely. The atmosphere of a life 20 years in future is completely realistic and believable and is created  in less than 2 minutes. A very very strong opening. I wish though, that the film never distanced from that same atmosphere and quality. Sadly in places it does.
 Conceptually its very good, very interesting. The concept of this collapsing world, and infertility is original enough and the infertility issue explains the chaos,sadness and downfall reasonably well.

Now about the technical magic:
The first really long shot of the film is one of the technically most interesting and captivating scenes I have seen( in modern cinema) . Sadly there are some major continuity and cgi mistakes( the windshield that shatters into pieces ,and then reappears as if it didn't fall out ( however, one can imagine that , the car is so technically sci-fi advanced that it had a way of putting in a new windshield -_-.... And the little delay when the person gets shot in the car- in this scene you see that the synchronization of actions could have been smoother ) The rest is simply gorgeous. The scene starts at around 27th minute and lasts for stunning continuous 4 ! minutes . Imagine the skill needed to accomplish that ,for all the actors and everybody. The absolute mesmerizing 360 degree camera in the car! I just watched and could not understand what sorcery is that! An amazing experience. I must admit I watched that scene more than once!
Another great scene , I think , was starting at around 45th minute. Where the main characters are running away from the farm, chased by the terrorists. It is one of the most suspense scenes I have seen thats achieved by such simplicity and silence- yes no over-dramatic music, just shouting , performance and camera movement!! You get really thrilled and even scared. I found myself almost loudly rooting for them to get away, begging to some cinema god , oh please damned car start working! A genuine suspense!

There are more amazing long shots, but I will just say ,for the unbelievable skill of the crew ,watch the film and enjoy those long shots. And if you think you will not notice them , you definitely will! Its not something you see often.
Lastly the scene where the baby is taken out of the house , it is truly beautiful! ( this time with the help of music, though, but that doesn't make it less good , just a little cheat ,that only feels cheat in this particular film because the music is not overly used and when it is used, you immediately notice it) . Story wise and common sense wise , the scene didn't make all the sense , but nothing is perfect, right?

Great work from Clive Owen. He was really good. The scene of his breakdown was truly touching!

After all this praise about the stunning technical work and cinematography , I have to say something bad right? No, but well , as I mentioned before , the story isn't all praise and well it has some of those technical mishaps that are inevitable when trying to make something as complicated as those long shots.

Although the film is called Children of Men, the film is actually a story of Clive Owens character Theo. And because its pretty much centered around him , sometimes it feels like we are lacking a lot of information about what is happening and why, but then again we are supposed to know everything that Theo knows, and we don't , what he doesn't. Sometimes , though, he(us) seems to be acting unreasonably and we are left in dark a lot at the start. Honestly I really like these really close almost 1st person stories , where the viewer in a way simply jumps into some characters life and from that moment lives with him till the end of the film. The film really makes you believe that the character has lived outside the film ,he has his own history and memories. So in terms of this character the film does good ,and the film is complete. When you look in terms of Children of Men , you are left with a wondering. Why, what happened, how, whats next?
At the end of the day it feels like a small scale story in a big scale concept! You are quickly introduced to an intriguing image of our future and an interesting concept, however you are only allowed a short glimpse in that world. There could be loads of  sequels, and ones I would happily watch!

Emmanuel Lubezki(cinematographer)  and Alfonso Cuarón(director) both have done a wonderful job on this film, Kudos! 

''Melancholia'' : a true melancholy

I don't really know how to evaluate this film. Really , it doesn't quite fit into any margin. But I will try , and the more I think about it the more I can separate things I can use to mark it.

Melancholia (2011)                        6/10

Yes harsh I know. but I will try to explain in the following flood of words.
What was the film about??Well,  I guess it was about the end of the world.
The film is split into two parts: Justine and Claire.
The names of the two sisters. Two females. Two planets colliding. Sometimes they hate each other.
Two worlds. Two ways of living. Two ways of acceptance. Two ways in which to meet your end.Two types of people. Hmm, actually there was the third as well , John , the husband of Claire , and he surely represented something as well. The ultimate belief in life and the impossibility of an apocalypse , and then when that's shattered and the realization that end is inevitable , he is morally destroyed, and thus his world is instantly shattered, and doesn't give any reason to linger alive.
Justine's story is about apathy,anhedonia and melancholia depression. As soon as she sees the star/planet, she knows it is the end of everything. And she accepts it immediately, and dies (stops living) right then and there. All that she does afterwards is reflex, last spasms of life still in her , some primitive habits. But actually all she is is a zombie. A dead living thing. She has given up all hope all sight of a possible future. She doesn't  really feel any guilt in ruining everything , because ,well it doesn't really matter , because she knows everybody will die anyway , so she doesn't bother. Complete apathy. The film however doesn't explain why Justine decides to still linger in this life and continue living on? Is she unable to take her own life? Is curiosity that drives her: how will the end happen( but then I assume it would be more intriguing to see what happens after I die, so taking my life wouldn't be an curiosity to see how issue). That stayed a mystery for me.
Claire's story is about despair. As soon as she finds out, she panics. Where does despair comes from? From the inner want and lust for life, but inability to control whats going on. The loss of control over your own life. She has the drive to live, and she can't accept the possibility of not living, however she doubts the chance of surviving( although it seems that she does that only because she wants to be encouraged and reassured by her husband).
It felt weird that after the big realization of the inevitable doom, she became calmer than when only speculating on the idea. Its a paradox, but which is fairly believable. As human beings often when left alone turn out to be more capable than when surrounded by others (In general ,when we have less time we often do more ,than if we had endless amount of time for it).

So that's how it was built , I think. But , honestly I think , it should have been 2 separate films then. Why put those two in one, if they are two? Lars von Trier does not succede in showing, completeing these two. Well, maybe he wanted to show how they do combine in one? As the two planets smash inside each other , the two females finally get through  to each other? Does the boy, the child, plays the part of the third combined element?( but that would work if there was a mother and a father, as then the child plays vital part in both their lives.( The prologue would imply on that though, the shot of the tree people in the garden with the 3 sky objects above them- Moon, Sun, and Melancholia.) ) Maybe the child was the only one that they both cared about at the end, and even the ''apathy'' realized that its sad that this innocent boy has to die?

So there is definitely  something to the film. It raises a lot of questions.  And a feeling. So yes technically its good. But did I like it? No. It didn't speak to me. Maybe its because it has the two parts, but it never got to connect with me , not only me I think in general , it doesn't have the It ,that allows you to connect. OR maybe I don't have the It that would allow me to connect, as I know there are people that really seem to connect with the film,  I guess those people who have been in a similar state( deep melancholy and depression). However a fact that can't be skipped: in places it was slow- too slow. Also just like Justine , before the 2nd part starts, you are in a state of apathy , you just don't care what happens, because, well, you know, this lady doesn't care, and all she does is look sad, and numb. The 2nd part tries to turn that over, and introduces this person full with life and hopes, and all, but as Justine lingers on- your apathy lingers on. 
Neither the apathy and neither the despair seems to reach any climax, it just lingers there till the end. It never plays out to the end. I mean , if you make a film like that , you push it to the end, if you try to reach the limits, then you should reach them AND push over , not just merely touch the line. Its for example , what Tree of Life did , it did go all the way , but ok , that's a different story.
It just happened. It ended. Ye well, maybe that's not mainstream and all, maybe some people will like the film just because it just showed how the end happens, maybe maybe, but as I mentioned , I expected something more. Something bigger , and I am not talking about the sizes of the colliding planets, I am talking about the emotions ,they were there, but they weren't played on enough. Make-up , lights, close-ups, performance , all that could have been intensified.

The camera work is quit art-house-y. But in this film seems rather pointless and disturbing. The story asked for something smooth(in camera movements), not shaking and pan and zooming all around.

Plot wise , just too many : Why? moments . Why does she have to go and piss in the garden? Why does the horse cant walk over the bridge, why does she have to lie naked on the river bank, why was the spoon joke necessary, why are the "sister" nothing alike(purely physically) (that's just plain annoying , but I guess that is to intensify how different they are in personality) , why did she ruined the wedding , why did she fuck the boy , why ( I don't want to continue as to not give to many spoilers( not that they change the outcome) ...

As I read somewhere its a film for those who knows what apathy and melancholia deppresion is like(have experienced them). Well yes, but then why would anyone who has experienced it would like to watch and revisit those I imagine unpleasant feelings, if this film doesn't give any ANY solace, but only serves more depression on your plate!

Hmm now I feel like put even a lover mark , its confusing.. I will leave it a 6 , just because of this ability to confuse , and no doubt it has the perspective of having something really deep , you just have to dig really hard. And for the ability to make a discussion.

''The Divide'' : Dividing the good and bad.

The Divide (2011)                                                       9.5/10!!

        I actually saw this film 2 weeks ago, but it was so powerful , that I haven't been able to forget it.
      Its striking ,shocking , fearless!
I am not usually into something that's described by those adjectives, but this time I could not stay ignorant.

     First of all , brilliant score! The music by Jean-Pierre Taieb was  emotional and beautiful and at the same time tragic and very moving! Perfect score for this kind of film.

       ok wow 9.5, right? it must have been perfect?
OK, its not all praise. Some of the actors seem to lack professionalism , and the start of the film ( the actual start , not the prologue) was a bit messed up and chaotic, and sometimes even stupid. However the film repaired itself. At the start in the group there is a child, and immediately it feels like the child shouldn't be there , all the parts that involved the child was a mess, and felt awkward and just , well,  bad, not to even mentioned that the child actor was bad, anyways. as the story goes , we quite quickly ''get rid of " the child ( which actually didn't make any sense , not for the story not conceptually and actually just wtf) BUT it works for the better :D. Because after that it goes up from there. ( actually the radio part was stupid as well , but that goes away as well)
        From there on the film gets to the point. A story about how people slowly go insane and mad and brutal and violent and become monsters, if we are locked out of the world in a dark with random people with no hope of life outside.

       So we get to the point . The film is about  despair , helplessness , feat at the beginning. But then , I think this is one of the first films that  gets over that , and concentrates on the what happens after hopelessness and despair and fear. Madness. But not just madness, the inner animal , the brutal human being. The primitive animal. This is one of the story that show what happens when there is no responsibility left. When a human being is given the choice to do whatever he wants because there is nobody that he is responsible to , not even himself, because he knows he is going to die anyway. So the hell slowly brakes loose.Of course one may say it would depend on the person or peoples character( who would go nuts, and who wouldn't) and that's true. The film does show different personalities. And that is a huge plus as well, because the films doesn't just show good guys, but real life bad guys , and how those guys would turn even worse-evil , when put in those circumstances. Usually these type of films show how good people turn bad, when faced with death and despair. But here bad guys get disgustingly mad and bad. Power and control , is what they lust then. When come to think of it , its easy to see how , when all of the possibility of being in control has been taken from a human being( he is locked in(like in a prison) with no control of his life and survival), control suddenly becomes the only thing he desires , and tries to pretend he has, and tries to gain back with all his power.
I guess I have to mention the sexuality , as that was quite a big part of the film. Freud would be proud. And all those who agree with him in that sexuality is one of the main drives on human life.
This film definitely shows that it is so, but you will not be proud of it. Well and that easily ties in with the control and power part.
Well as I mentioned they show different personalities, so yes there are good "guys" as well, and people who stay true to ethics. And then there are those who are jealous , and those who cant let go and move on. and those who just want to be useful and do whatever is required.

  All of this sounds quite scary and disturbing, and it is , it really is , the film is disturbing, no doubt. but the most scary part is , that it is believable. AND that is the sad truth that the film conveys.

      An stellar performance by  Michael Eklund. Scary and one meant for nightmares. I think a new horror villain actor has been born.(judging from IMDB he has 6 feature film roles coming out this year.) All of the actors play their parts well. And the performances seems to get better the closer to the end we go. Maybe it's just because you have slowly familiarized the actors, or maybe they really do get better as the tragedy intensifies and the roles get more demanding. (I guess sometimes it is easier to perform a madman's role than an everyday normal guys ( because that just might come out fake) but crazy sick person , is not something we have all seen everyday( so its more believable) and actors in general have admitted that playing villain is more rewarding). OR maybe because it was shot in chronological sequence! This probably was an interesting experiment for the director , but it only harmed the film, because as I mentioned, the performances and story at the start don't make whole lot of sense. So I assume later, on when the actors came to realize what is like to happen, they got into the characters way better. As did  Milo Ventimiglia at the start he seems annoying and irrational, but later he plays his part perfectly.

        Some awesome scenes/shots sequence ,clearly a reference ( and style wise taken ) from the all well known Requiem for a Dream drug pill consuming sequences. Actually in a lot of ways this film reminds that film.
Overall great , beautiful cinematography and composition. A lot of Stanley Kubrick style symmetric shots used over and over( all the corridors and rooms). 
         The end is just pure magic , in my opinion. So strong and bold , and effective and emotional. Mostly due to the amazing music, and the rest is actors performances(great at the end), and cinematography( the high speed (slowed down movements). Its esthetically brilliant.

        Plot-wise? Ye , it doesn't make 100% sense. Ye you still wonder :and what next? and who were they and why that and that happened.
But when it comes down to how it felt , and the portrayal of the tragedy , it was complete! Emotionally it was complete- there was nothing to be added .
Thus 9.5  . -0.5 for the plot gaffe and sorta bad first half.

Definitely underrated film. However, it truly isn't a cinema film, it is way more personal, you just wouldn't feel comfortable watching it in a cinema full of people. And its not for everybody. you should know what you are going into before actually seeing this film.
(I didn't quite now ,but I had a fair amount of information ,still I was unprepared for the second half, but luckily it worked for the best, although at points I though I should stop (its bad , and unaccountable) But you just have to keep on and see it through.

''I, Robot'' : I, Entertained.

I, Robot (2004)                                                                   7.5/10

A good old blockbuster. A great 2 hours of entertainment.
Will Smith in his trademark role. (Although I still think that his performance in I am Legend is way more professional.)
 The hat that he wears in the first half of the movie, though, is so annoying that it almost ruined the whole film experience for me as I could not concentrate on the plot, but had to think who in the hell would wear something like that in 2035 or even nowadays... ok wear it, but why does it have to be in that weird angle, one ear out , on under :D .. ok its not like I have to wear it.

Kudos for the amazing visual and special effects. It is weird watching film made 8 years ago, and realize that it has better sense of how to use sfx that movies released now( Khm.. khm.. amazing spider man khm..).
An interesting concept , however one that has been talked about and interpreted in many ways. Nothing original but well made nonetheless.
Doesn't really go in depth in any of the more compelling concepts and issues concerning the world of robots and AI and creator and creation, but then again that HAS been discussed endlessly , so why linger on that once again, if we can add extra 10 minutes of cool car crash sequence...

Quite a lot of unexplained but highlighted enough plot details , which at the end of the film doesn't matter, but still makes you wonder why where they necessary to include then at all.
The robot design was original and cool no doubt. They are similar to those robots in "All Is Full of Love" a song by Björk , but lets not be nit-picking.

Overall quite light and bright film. Although , it does touch on some interesting and serious issues and thoughts, it doesn't linger on them too much, so its simply entertainment, with a 'bread crumbs' as speculations on future.

One final though, it never really gives you the chance of asking yourself : what would I do , how would I react and what would my opinion on robots be. it never gives the time to linger on that, and the story is just too tight to have any spots for the viewer to participate with his opinion and perception- the whole film is quite point-blank.

And I never understood why is it called  I, Robot?  Any good thoughts as to this , no doubt , very intriguing title?

''Wild Strawberries'' : Eulogy for memories.

Wild Strawberries (1957)                                    9.5/10


Just purely beautiful film. I never though I in my 20 years could feel such a nostalgia and melancholia.
Be sure to have some tissues by your side after watching this film. No you will not be crying because of sadness, they will be more like happy tears. Good tears.
I don't think I have ever seen film that influences the viewer more that this. It speaks so directly yet completely individually to everyone who is watching.  While watching this film you will catch yourself lingering on one (or maybe a couple) very strong memories. For me it was quite surprising, but the memories that came to my mind didn't leave me for a long time after seeing the film. This is definitely not a film about some character in it , its a film about us , about every one of us , about our memories, and how slowly undeniably we close in on our final day, however the film is more comforting than dooming. 
It made me happy , it made my sad , but most of all it made me nostalgic. When I was watching it I was abroad , and that only intensified the nostalgic feelings.
Some may say that I they are too young for this film, but I don't think so , I think you should watch it time after time, just to remind yourself of the beauty of memories, of the ability to be able to remember and live and re-experience life through memory-metal images of our own history.

The main role actor Victor Sjöström is brilliant. His face somehow is able to portray seemingly all the nostalgia , innocence , fear of death , longing , in the world , and at the same time be so calm ,that it makes you feel safe and.fearless.

There is a saying that memory is the greatest curses inflicted on human race, well this film proves that that just isn't true! However , just like free will, memory is both : a curse and a gift.

Vertigo (1958)

Great poster by the way

VERTIGO                                                     9/10

First of, this was my first Alfred Hitchcock film. I had seen bits and pieces of Psycho and Birds before, but never a complete movie.
What can I say. It was beautiful.
One very important thing for me was the music. It immediately sets the tone for the film. As little as I have seen I still have noticed that music is a big part of Hitchcock's films. And it works. Its creepy its romantic its thrilling and it works perfectly with the shot and emotions portrayed by actors.
 This is a story about love and attachment. How attached we become to the things we love, to memories- image of something.
Great performance by James Stewart. He really managed to portray the longing , nostalgia , melancholia, vertigo (no doubt there , his performance easily conveyed the feeling of dread and terror you might get when experiencing vertigo, very frightening). As for the lead female ,Kim Novak , she didn't have so much material to work with, but she was convincing in her acting, although, she had to act acting , so at the end obviously the viewer is a bit lost because he sees one actor playing two characters, and then you don't know which one was more acted and which was more of an effort. Probably the female part could have been better written, I am not going into details as to not give too much away of the story.
It was absolute pleasure to watch 50s USA as well. Those cars, clothes , designs, and colors, an colorful time to live in.
Why 9? Well, because it is a perfect story about affection.
It makes you wonder about all the things you have loved and how you would like to return to that time when you loved them.
Oh , and of course , the vertigo effect shots were stunning , something that works amazingly on your visual sense. Kudos for discovering "contra-zoom". That itself is worth watching the film.

''Citizen Kane''

Citizen Kane (1941)                                           8/10


First I have to say , that it is not easy and not even right to compare modern post 90s films to  early black and white films. They are different. Neither better not worse , but different. One thing I am sure about, though, is that they are ''more'' original. Then again, there are theories that claim that nothing is original, and then again, that everything is in its essence original ,as in an original order of the same old ( an original
juxtaposition).
    Still watching this film you can't not notice how the film shows a story of how power corrupts. Which is very often the main concept for many a movie nowadays.
Obviously this is not the first time someone has claimed that power corrupts. But where this film succeeds is that it doesn't feel fake or trivial. Actually it's not so much about power itself, but the lust and need of power. I think its quite perfect portrayal of power-hungry people. And the whole dialogues between Susan and Kane about how he wants to be loved, and all he needs is to be loved, but that he doesn't have any love to give, is really sad in a way , but true. There are people like that. Of course this film doesn't try to solve any of consequential questions (like how to teach them to give as well as receive), but mere shows how sad it can be , and how empty and lonely that might leave you. And therefore , the lust for power comes from the necessity of love, which is essential and primal to all human beings. So when you don't receive the love because you don't give it you try to get power thinking that then love will somehow be due to you from the ''inferior''(less powerful) people.
At the end , you do feel some sort of pity about the man who got all and lost everything , but then again you don't.  So after watching it I am left with a little emptiness (neutralism) concerning the main character. (thus the mark 8)
At the end of the day , I guess its about the corruption , how the pure becomes corrupt.
And about our inner , deepest necessity  and want for love. For love from everyone. Nobody wants to be hated or disliked.
 Technically of course its stunning (for 1941) , the actors are great , Orson Welles is really believable and convincing , as are the other minor actors. 
As a lot of commentators point out , it is sorta out dated when it comes to the media power and influence part. But then again , I don't really think that was what the movie tried to emphasize on.
Over all its an esthetic experience and a sad story about powerful men(in general).