Change Your Image
![](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNzAxMTE3NjI3NF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMDc5MzM3MDI@._V1_SY100_SX100_.jpg)
xnicofingerx
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Le samouraï (1967)
THIS IS COLD
Le Samourai, deliberately a designation that doesn't fit? More of a Koroshiya, a contract killer, than an honourable warrior. Without friends, stealing cars, travelling in back rooms, exploiting the affections of a woman, trapped in routines, deceived by his peers. A remote existence, lonely, silent, desolate, always on the edge. This is not the only reason why the film can clearly be described as neo-noir, but also because of its low-contrast, almost black-and-white visuals and many shadow plays. Despite this, the film dispenses with typical genre features, pacing, suspense, good-evil delineation of the characters, a standpoint on right and wrong. Why does it still have the stamp of a cult film? First and foremost, of course, Delon, minimalist, focussed, opaque, melancholy, iconic appearance, iconic look. Tailor-made! He doesn't play the main role in the script, the director wrote the script for him. Nevertheless, I still didn't really warm to the film on my third viewing, it's these 100 minutes of icy coldness.
Fly Me to the Moon (2024)
The wrong film at the wrong time with the wrong concept
The new film with character actor Channing Tatum. A trivial comedy or a trivial comedy? Oh yes, Scarlett Johansson, she's still there too, what a screen presence that was. I had only seen a brief teaser of the core of the story beforehand and was in a state of surprised anticipation. Surely Hollywood isn't going to seriously document the moon landing fairy tale? Serious quickly became a thing of the past, Channing Tatum that is. But he's not the real problem, rather the basic direction. A hectic pace alternates with lengths, everything is styled and without corners / edges, the content is a conglomeration of contradictory information. A little biopic, a lot RomCom, whereby good chemistry is essential for the latter. Would be. A big-budget disaster with an announcement, who waves something like this through? A few patriots who are resistant to counselling, presumably, now unemployed or at least a little poorer. If the viewer holds out long enough, at least the finale is useful as an important contemporary document of history, however and whatever really went on behind the scenes.
Twisters (2024)
FUN!
Sharks and tornadoes, a similar love of fear. However, both sub-genres are frequented to different degrees; the one with the storms offers just a handful of films and definitely no 'Jaws' (1975). This is certainly due to the higher technical demands and, of course, the budget. These aspects are not 'Twister's' problem at all, it's like a stormy climate change disciple's dream. In a world in which, hm, you wonder why there is still a house in it at all. So you can't expect even a hint of realism, but that's what makes it fun. And once such an orientation has been established, why not go all-in? No cliché untouchable, a stereotypical set-piece, a score from the hillbilly pub, but hey, that's fun. Right, that was and is my key word. Will Daisy Edgar-Jones make another serious film now, does Glen Powell really look dazzling or is he just a phoney? Either way, they're fun together. No questions anyway, those have to be completely ignored for this great opportunity for entertainment. All in all, it's a huge load of rubbish, but one that's fun.
Alien: Romulus (2024)
and once again too many expectations
Fede Alvarez, and thus the following card: a remake specialist with the promise of a good result, the best you can get out of a lack of new ideas. All right, if that's all there is to it, all the director still wants to stand for. But at least it could have been worse, see Exorcist and Halloween. Less anticipation is aroused by Civil War's tease.
Anyway, here we go, and in the best possible way. A great look, we are actually back in the world of parts 1 and 2. The cast is less appealing, are they trying to lure young adults into the cinema by means of identification? We're back to the topic of annoyances, this time even plural. I'll tell you this much, nobody will be remembered for their charisma after the end of the film. All right, the 'artificial person' does a really good job. Thematically, the undertones critical of capitalism are taken up again, expanded to include the marginalisation of minorities. Well, it's 2024. And the target audience. Of course, everyone else is also tried to be picked up again, Facehugger check, Android 'Ash' fail. Phew, that looked really bad. There are also a few ideas of my own, especially regarding the alien genesis. Alvarez seems to watch too much porn. Or me, haha? No! Anyway, I saw both a penis and a vagina. I can't report much else exciting now, nothing really knocks your socks off. At the end, Alvarez gets to emphasise the horror in 'sci-fi horror' and it gets really wild and unsavoury. But again with a lot of potential to offend in the overall context. The rating is really difficult, the franchise tears you apart from two sides. As a neutral film, it wouldn't be bad, good genre fare, with some unattainable role models, the aftertaste becomes increasingly bland on closer inspection. Anyone who says 'flop' for part 4 or even part 3 should definitely not say 'top' here.
Pet Sematary: Bloodlines (2023)
Does not hurt, feels more like nothing at all
Made up for the sake of honour, or rather in the sometimes torturous role of completist. But also a little out of curiosity as to whether it's really as bad as its reputation. Visually it's not, in the horror genre you're presented with a lot that's even more unsightly. The actual problems of the film are then quickly identified. Fundamentally, of course, the big footsteps it follows in, its unnecessaryness, especially without a literary template. A cold rehash with a presumably more commercial than artistic approach, an intention on which 90% of current films are exclusively based. Furthermore, the "remake prequel" is characterised by harmlessness in a negative sense. The horror factor is low, the suspense factor almost non-existent. Nor does it play the brutal card, so it definitely lacks any genre identity. The focus is on explaining the background, but when has that ever worked well in a horror film?
Conclusion: Not as bad as it is made out to be, but definitely superfluous.
I.S.S. (2023)
Such an opportunity, so wasted!
The basic premise is as exciting as it is timely. Secondly, unfortunately, someone out there is enjoying major conflicts, but possibly just for profit, over and over again. This is probably one of the most special constellations in an absolute escalation, a view from the outside and yet right in the middle of it. Unfortunately, the origin of the film quickly becomes apparent, possibly the type of director, but in any case a lack of cinematic neutrality. Useless! Great Americans, smart, positive, suave, diverse, evil Russian. So normally switch off! Not necessarily. Now the viewer can show that he not only watches, but also sees. Ideological inadequacies are ignored and thoughts return to the content, not the misguided realisation of that in this film. The human madness of following false models and / or leaders even in the face of doom. Something forms a sense of belonging to someone, equality becomes inequality. Inspiring questions, existential thoughts, some potential for pondering. At least something, but the makers of I. S. S. Have little part in it.
The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare (2024)
The reward for no expectations will be a good time
An "Inglourious Basterds" rehash, the next unsavoury twist on reality? Gum-chewing Yanks who, instead of hitting the sack like in any other war, are deeply rooted in fantasy, outnumbered, shrewd and brutal in their brutalisation of a stupid majority?
On the one hand, the answer is no, they are snobbish Brits, without any humility after the generous gift of Dunkirk. On the other hand, yes, a fairy tale, but one that at least doesn't distinguish itself from pure trash through a script with content, like the aforementioned perhaps-model. Apart from all the nonsense, you can try to see the film as an entertainment product. And that works. So it's more like an "Inglorious Bastards" (1978) or, because of the calculated trash factor, a thoroughly styled "The Dirty Dozen" on popcorn. Spaghetti western sound, great images despite a moderate budget, cliché cuddling, an extremely high body count and a rousing pace. There are also some discoveries. A convincing Til Schweiger. You read that right, I'm amazed myself that I'm saying that again. And the Jewish femme fatale, sly, aesthetic, two-faced, cosmopolitan, cunning, charismatic, goal-orientated and cold-blooded.
However, the audience doesn't seem to like it, which is surprising as Tarantino's arse was kissed massively for something similar.
A Quiet Place: Day One (2024)
Deduction of points in every area
An unexciting film announcement, yet another rehash of familiar material. Accordingly, apart from low expectations, there are only a few questions.
Did we need this rehash? No, there are few new insights into the concept and no spectacular ideas in the realisation. Rather, this is firstly fan service, apparently there is enough according to the box office figures for the first two parts, and secondly a nice meal in between for horror/scifi/fantasy fans until the next (rare) real banger. In the scenario depicted, there are of course at least a million fates, here simply a few more, essentially two, are depicted. (But please don't add more parts because of this breadth!) Only the discrepancy between doomed and willing to survive was a special and yet interesting constellation here. Whereby Lupita more than just scratches the edge of overacting.
What should still be relevant to answer is the qualitative comparison to the predecessors. With the Day One setting, i.e. The day of the apocalypse, many people will no doubt be expecting a continuous demolition. Wrong, the rather calm style with short action scenes is retained. Nevertheless, the spin-off falls somewhat short in all areas...
Pamyo (2024)
Wonderfully scary ghost rollercoaster
Sit down, full concentration, there's a lot on offer here in the usual Asian style. Right from the start, all fans of the discreetly supernatural, or perhaps rather the hard-to-understand earthly, are teased with a whole host of interesting thematic incisions. There is tension in the air and an intangible horror. And we are soon on a wild trip into an unknown world of the paranormal. As I said, it doesn't remain as discreet as it was at the beginning, but becomes an exotic ghost hunt, with a course of events that isn't even that unusual in the meantime. Thank you, you big Asian but, any other scary film would be over now, this one picks up speed again. As the exhumation becomes more and more extensive, the criminal case-like plot grows to geopolitical proportions. Great script, super actors, fantastic atmosphere, perhaps not always entirely convincing ghost effects, but in any case an outstanding contribution to the genre.
Immaculate (2024)
I was POSITIVELY overwhelmed
Amazingly well filmed and acted, 2024 ahead of The First Omen for me in terms of occultism and religious horror. Blessed, I thank God for entering that word choice, with a marvellous score. Answers and question marks make for a captivating rendezvous. And importantly, as the crucial essence of the genre, this from start to finish. Borrowings from European cinema yes, nunploitation no. Well, a little, but primarily 70s horror. And the contrast between light and dark is a deliberate stylistic device - after all, this is Cecilia's destiny. Just like the harsh impact of violent peaks in the bittersweet basic tone. And at the end of the escalating ordeal, the viewer possibly gains an essential realisation: the suffering of Mary. Thank you, emancipation can be so unobtrusive after all.
El hombre del saco (2023)
Strang stranger things
I use a horror template that always promises success, mix it with the hip coming-of-age elements and go full throttle on jump scares. How can I still make a mess of the whole thing? Ok, I don't want to exaggerate. How do I make a merely average film out of the good source material? I'm borrowing too much from the Stranger Things concept without making my own. The choice of children doesn't make much of a difference, there's a lack of charisma for the most part. The synthy sound is mediocre and doesn't match the ambitions that the film sells in its marketing. I realise somewhere in the middle of my journey that I don't actually want to make a real horror film after all. What do I want then, I don't know, because generally there's a lack of big ideas? And scary, let alone horror. But hey, the pacing is right and the film only takes 90 minutes to watch.
Bad Boys: Ride or Die (2024)
Ma$terpiece
For the witty, stylish and discerning fans of Fast and Furious, Transformers and all the other cinematic masterpieces. One Bad Boys instalment is as good as the next, and this one is no exception. This time, the wonderful Jerry Bruckheimer has acquired two talented directors from North Africa who have the right eye for great Western cinema. The latest release shines with realistic scenery, great dialogue, a story full of twists and turns, a charismatic villain, two absolute acting icons in the leading roles, a magician behind the camera and a soundtrack that flatters the ears. Martin Lawrence has returned to great form for the new edition and the duo are bursting with energy. And at some point, the iconic 'Whatcha gonna do' finally comes, I had goosebumps. We had to wait a long time for this film.
Plan 9 from Outer Space (1957)
It is what it is, not what it should be.
'Plan 9 From Outer Space' or "When Sheep Follow the Flock". 'The worst film of all time'? Certainly not. Someone said it, the quote became chic.
Let me go through the basic film components in detail:
Camera: absolutely ok.
Score: also at least average
Actors: everything from mediocre to good, with no real outliers in absolute highs and lows. A certain closeness to the theatre, i.e. Overacting, was not unusual at the time.
Editing: quite wild and uneven. There is a noticeable lack of concept in the development process; a confused whole was obviously cobbled together from ideas and set pieces under the pressure of completion.
Story: see above, but even more relevant for the bad reputation. It can hardly be described as such. The red thread is not a fabric, but rather a wildly coloured ball.
Screenplay: probably none.
Pacing: the pace is right at the beginning, but you feel like you're on a motorway with potholes. In the last third, it's more like a country road, just before turning into the 30 km/h zone.
Dialogues / monologues / voice-overs: carved out of a dry piece of wood with a blunt knife.
Effects: contemporary, anyone who knows this period will be familiar with this type of image. Here in particular, the minds were very creative given the circumstances.
Creepy factor: Bela Lugosi is always a show (in contrast to his inevitable double), Vampira also has a lot of dark charisma. The ghoul, especially his resurrection, is even a real shock highlight.
Message: amazing!
The film is an ambitious attempt to mix horror and scifi, both of which are still in their infancy in the mainstream, but stumbles over a limited budget and the limited talent of the actors involved. The attempt to mix genres in particular backfires; it would have been better to focus on the horror.
Back to Black (2024)
Blasphemy
Who is this girl? What does she have in common with Amy Winehouse? What, now the actress is singing herself? How dare she! Oh, the dad is nice! Is he? This Blake seems to be okay too. Anything else? Something so unbearable.
That's probably what someone thinks who doesn't just watch any old biopic but really likes Amy. Amy Winehouse, the greatest music artist of modern times, one of the last exceptions in a business that is now dead. Just business. Just remember that the female superstar of our time is the personification of the average. It is precisely Amy's exceptionality that the film portrays. It doesn't. The film's Yellow Press focus obviously seemed much more compatible with the masses. The addiction problems, the toxic relationship with Blake. So the script is the main problem, the necessary green light of certain unbearable real people, the non-terrestrial untouchability of the artist Amy, the over-simplified reduction of human personality. The best moments are when music comes from the tape and you simply close your eyes.
Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes (2024)
unnecessary/good to have
A well-rounded trilogy, one that is connected in terms of content, gets a sequel. Sounds like the next dodgy money-spinner at first, but from experience not at all a good idea. The first 45 minutes are completely dehumanised, welcome back to the purely animated 'real' film, an un-cinematic future that no film fan needs. At least none who really care about the medium. However, the film then returns to its core theme, the interactions of the species, that silken bond between the new and old rulers of the planet. Or rather a thorny one. As always, there is plenty of room for mental projections onto our real here and now, precisely because a similar change is taking place as in the starting point of the previous film series. This is also taken up as a vibe, everything smaller and slower. The same themes, just less loud and more striking. Conflicts between those who are different, false leaders within one's own ranks, the question of what freedom means, where it begins and where it ends in the interaction with the big picture around us. And unfortunately, in addition to the aforementioned less, the viewer is not spared the plus of clichés and kitsch, only briefly remembering that the human girl looks the way she does, or the inefficiently constructed subplot with the eagles. The intro tonality of a prelude doesn't want to set in towards the end, as it seems like a self-contained film. An okay film, but not one that cries out for more.
Wicked Little Letters (2023)
A women's film, but watchable
Parental Advisory. It really gets down to business here, a tough choice of words spoken or read out loud. And that's where the fun begins, this contrast to the setting of the good English seaside town in the 1920s. But there is also a serious background, or several: Prejudice, family and social pressures, equality, emancipation. All of this is based on true events and the cast is excellent throughout. Of course, the plot is predictable from minute ten, but the entertaining and humorous staging, as well as the great performances of the actors, make the film a great Sunday afternoon programme. But without children!
The Watchers (2024)
A bloated debut with lots of holes
Normally with a Shyamalan film, it becomes quite nonsensical at the end. In this half film, unfortunately, it's already 20 minutes in, and not only that, it's even more nonsensical. The same applies to the performance of all of Dakota Fanning's co-stars. You don't feel like you're in a magical forest, but rather in a sanatorium. Okay, that's probably meant to reflect the mental state of the prisoners of this secret power. However, I too was trapped in a meaningless, uninteresting, unexciting nothingness. Even the question of who or what didn't really get through to me, and that's just a weakness of the production. The self-proclaimed surprise - I don't even want to talk about a twist here - was also rather lame. An annoying film? No, one that simply doesn't trigger anything. Another thing about the basic classification: I would call this a mystery thriller, not so much a horror film. It's also Shyamalan style. Visually, everything was perfectly fine, apparently the budget was disproportionately high for a first film.
IF (2024)
If you have friends like this, ....
John Krasinski, from Hollywood-made to Hollywood-making. A man like from one of his scripts, written with lard on thin parchment paper. A henchman who presumably does or can do exactly what the omniscient superiors, a hodgepodge of calculation, free of any creative vision, like to see. But is that what the viewer wants? Never mind, consume and shut up. This kitsch is exactly what the modern-day foundation of the American film industry is made of, which is supposed to liven up the dull everyday life of the dull masses. Or is this "warm-hearted drama" with a running time of almost two hours supposed to be for children? There's a lot to be made in the family film category. The piano droning (in the "big moments" blown up to orchestral proportions), the irrelevant choice of words, the simple-minded characters, the sweet and sour plot. Why? All of this is served up here without that certain something, the necessary substance, perhaps even honesty, those not-so-secret components that stand the test of time. No, a far cry from the emotional fantasy blockbuster, a far cry from Spielberg or Lukas.
Plus the cast. Ryan Reynolds is now the definition of typecasting, his miscasting is brimming with inappropriate sarcasm, with him presumably not just acted but lived. There are his roles, that is one, but this one is not.
As already asked, a family film? I'm part of one, but probably not the target audience anyway. It better not be my children either, this film doesn't affect them, or rather disturbs them, i.e. The weird "ifs", rather than conveying the famous message. One that consists only of calendar sayings and beer mat wisdom. A drawing board work. Emphasising work, i.e. Not created artistically or via passion.
Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F (2024)
Back with a bang
If you're not constantly reading the relevant gazettes, the latest sequel comes relatively out of the blue. After the dull Zamunda rehash, expectations are naturally relatively low. Anyway, film off and a first aha: this is what the late 80s / early 90s looked like (well). The first familiar faces. All people are the same, yawn, and all the actors have of course aged incredibly over the last 30 years, except for the man with the black genes. So in this respect, the next cosy nostalgia factor. More of this, et voila! Original score on a continuous loop, an obviously motivated Eddie Murphy, a refreshing new buddy team in the form of his (role) daughter and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, a high gag density with a pleasant hit rate, plenty of action that keeps the pace high. Spirit, the magic word. In most cases it can't be reproduced, but here it can be felt in every minute. It's a shame, unfortunately it wasn't enough for an exciting screenplay, but if a Bad Boys makes it there, this film undoubtedly belongs in the cinema. If you liked the first two parts, you'll definitely enjoy this film too.
In a Violent Nature (2024)
a small modern classic has probably been created
Firstly, a good approach to rethinking the slasher genre with high artistic standards. In the meantime, it's almost a gift to the fans, given the mostly shamelessly celebrated lack of ideas that goes hand in hand with this low-dimensional and quantitatively overstimulated horror subgenre. Slasher doesn't quite cover it either, or rather the boundaries between zombie, backwoods, camp, splatter and gore are blurred here. In addition to the almost first-person perspective of the killer and some other interesting camera angles, the special sound is particularly striking. No score, apart from a few live radio songs, but natural sounds on Max. The spoken soundtracks are always in the foreground and artificially linked to the images in order to create at least a minimal narrative framework. In addition to the killer view, the viewer is thus better placed in the scenes and an appealing arc of suspense is created. This is important, given the usual linear ten little Negroes principle. But despite the kill-after-kill, final girl and other clichés, the film tries its hand at a certain unpredictability. Some attacks are full-on screen, others are almost off-screen. The unbelievable level of graphic violence also ensures that boredom is a thing of the past. I'm probably understating the case, but be warned, this is absolutely only for the hardcore. I think the labelling arthouse slasher is a little too high, and probably not what the makers were aiming for, but we have such an ambitious work here that, in combination with a high-quality production, a small modern classic has probably been created.
Kommando Leopard (1985)
Especially interesting for German Flick fans
At first glance, it's a neatly produced B-flick, but at second glance it's a name-dropping that will make a fan's heart beat faster, especially the German one. Behind the production Antonio Margheriti, Erwin C. Dietrich, Peter Baumgartner, in front of the camera, and, to name but a few, Klaus Kinski, John Steiner and, of particular interest, the dubbing legends Thomas Danneberg and Manfred Lehmann. Strangely, Danneberg speaks Lewis Collins in the German dubbing and is then spoken by Rainer Brandt himself.
Sure, the high expectations aren't met, when have they ever been with this type of film, but the pace is right, the actors seem motivated and the effects fit. Plenty of bangs and bangs, lots of pyrotechnics and very convincing miniatures. There is a short break in the middle section, where there is action. Commendable, but dangerous territory in terms of the genre. Unfortunately, Kinski doesn't get enough screen time, but he's obviously up for it. After all, the Philippines and Venezuela aren't the worst locations. You can watch it without expectations.)
Trigger Warning (2024)
Jessica Alba fans, take a look
A Netflix film. An action film with a woman in the director's chair. Two years of post-production. A story that's been told a million times before. Just some of the reasons not to watch it. But probably exactly one for a viewing: Jessica Alba. She has looked the same (good) for 25 years and is at least a reasonably solid performer. So, subjective weighting question, I had a tip of the hat in one direction. And what is there to report? As I said, it's all been seen many times before, better, but without question also worse. There is no unique selling point, so to speak, and therefore little reason to exist. The actors are ok, as are the visuals. Hold on. CGI fire! The only major effort in the direction of an action film, otherwise only a manageable amount happens, comes from the hard drive. Weak. The very poor reviews at the start are perhaps not entirely justified, this is genre fare for those who want genre fare. But I can't give it a good review either.
Robot Dreams (2023)
a great film, but you can't allow such a basic premise
I don't like dogs. But that doesn't matter, in this concept animals of all kinds generally slip into human roles, but remain restricted in terms of language. Not a word! So we're in for a long 100 minutes? But there's an even bigger problem, the central theme: it's about loneliness, friendship, separation and affection. Okay, but a robot as a solution? So machines in human roles too. Yes, this is the tenor of 2024, transhumanism, etc., which is alien to creation, but certainly far from a tolerable message. And forever out of touch with reality. After five minutes of running time, there is still a heavy stone on my soul, an unbearably heavy one. A film develops that divides me beyond belief. The dehumanised sequences versus many touching moments. The interplay of the two dominates the film and is primarily beautiful to watch, but objectively and on closer inspection very questionable. The wonderful visuals, drawn, yes, drawn, which must be emphasised once again, are a decisive sleeping sand in the direction of warm-heartedness.
Another little subjective aha moment for me: the setting is New York and it's the 80s. Suddenly, Reagan Youth is blaring out of the run-down back streets.
Wonka (2023)
No Wonka, but ok
It starts with a song. Oh dear. But even before that, the question arises as to who needs this remake. No one really, and that's why it's not a remake - after all, everything has already been said or shown. But apparently not everything has been sung, because it continues at a fast pace. So it's a prequel to the previously known film material, which at least might be interesting instead of rehashed. As usual, Wonka is set in a fantasy world, not Victorian England, as it seems at first. This is shown by the constellation of characters, which seem to be obligatory in 2023, and the magic beyond the previous dimensions. Not a Roald Dahl book, nor a real Roald Dahl adaptation. Willie Wonka has little in common with the literary character, despite all the fantasy about a youthful version. Rather an edgeless, smoothly ironed, indisputable, thus also unmystical. Simply suitable for children, as I said, no Dahl.
Financially, everything has worked out at the box office, so it may soon be Wonka - The Musical in your town too.
Enough ranting, Wonka is doing reasonably well, a magical screen fairy tale, a family film. And the sing-songy behaviour also wears off at the end.
One from the Heart (1981)
more than underrated
Francis Ford Coppola's financial nail in the coffin and the temporary end of his dream of an independent film studio. Yet we really don't have a bad film here, visually even an excellent one. Please watch it on as big a screen as you can - the colours, the play of light and shadow, the lighting in general, the camera work, the montages, the artfully artificial backdrops. To use the word in connection with One From The Heart: art comes from artificial, and the film is a unique work of art. Something completely different to date in Coppola's career, a fairytale-like filmed romance which, despite its bad reputation, has found several (more successful) imitators to this day. Here, the viewer's gaze must not leave the screen for a second, otherwise he will miss an intoxicating shot, a magical illusion. And then there's the fantastic soundtrack by Tom Waits and Crystal Gayle.
So the crux of the matter is the content: a couple, their everyday life, ups and downs, especially downs. The script is usually accused of banality, but isn't the filmed constellation the centre of most lives in the audience? A sad self-confession by the so-called critics. Allowing the emotional worlds in a film to be projected onto oneself is not least a matter of attitude. Our couple is deliberately portrayed by average actors, but I emphasise that they are not average actors. The acting of the actors, all of them, is admittedly deliberately somewhat artificial and reminiscent of theatre, but this is probably part of the basic vision of a studio film and also, in a negative sense, the impersonal communication on set, which Coppola tried to implement here as a new tool. Once again on the subject of overacting - no wonder there are some musical-like sequences, the director wanted to breathe new life into this genre. He received support from his beloved old Hollywood in the form of Gene Kelly. Unfortunately, at the time, the film missed out on the audience on the one hand and on realistic financial planning on the other.