Atheism and Islam : The case of Alber Saber

Alber Saber

Alber Saber

On Wednesday, a Cairo court convicted Alber Saber, a Christian Coptic blogger and activist, and sentenced him to three year in Prison for “Blasphemy” and contempt of religion. Why? Because Saber shared the famous anti-Islam movie “The innocence of Muslims” on networking sites.

Saber, now an atheist, was arrested 3 months ago. Back then, People surrounded his house and called for his death and accused him of heresy, atheism and the promotion of the movie. Saber, along many others, was the victim of a campaign led by Egypt’s most conservative Islamists to restrain free expression. The verdict comes as the country plunges into a political crisis over a draft constitution, it gained the support of Islamists who considered it a step toward stability and was criticized by activists who found it suppressive and that it takes Religion as a shelter.

As terrible as it sounds, the situation is far worse.

According to the Washington post and based on the the annual “freedom of thought” report from the International Humanist and Ethical Union, atheists can be executed under the law in seven countries where, obviously, Islam is the state religion. If you’re an atheist living in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, the West African state of Mauritania or the Maldives, never think about coming out. Stay in your godless closet and practice your blasphemous demonic threatening behaviors privately. If you’re lucky enough, and you’re living in Egypt for example your head will not roll for being an atheist, however the law will superficially target you and categorize you as ‘different’ and eventually restrict some of your rights and you can get arrested, like Saber. This is not surprising because in Islam apostasy is punishable, as most of the Muslim scholars agree, and while few punishments are actually happening these days, the existence of these laws are a scandalous violation of human rights, because they exist and they’re legally approved therefore they can be used.

In these seven countries you are not allowed to question the existence of God, or to be skeptical about his teachings because that would threaten the ‘stability’ of the society, ironically these societies ‘legally’allow the following:

  • Men can marry four women (at once).
  • Men can marry underage girls.
  • Men can divorce their wives whenever they want with no restrictions.
  • Women can be electronically tracked by men using advanced tracking devices (KSA).
  • People can be punished by ‘stoning’ or flogging for offences including fornication, alcohol use and slander among many others.
  • Women can’t drive (KSA) and are not allowed to leave the country without permission from their male guardian who has to consent by signing a paper at the airport.
  • In case of theft, the hand of the thief should be cut off from the wrist, although it should not be done for just any case of theft because cutting off the hand is a serious matter. Again, this doesn’t happen today, but it is mentioned in the Quran, and it is accepted among the religious scholars. The law exists.
  • Men can place their wives in a ‘House of obedience’ if they feel that they are rebellious. (House of obedience is the Muslim term for the house in which a man has to place his wife if she does not follow his orders.)
  • Women get half of the inheritance of their brothers.
  • Women are not allowed to remarry within 3 months of their divorce.
  • Men can marry women of other faiths, but women can’t. Also, they cannot have marriage contracts with men on their own since they have to have male guardians signing for them and in divorce cases they are not allowed to have the custody of their children once they reach the age of 12.
  • Short-term contractual marriages for pure sexual pleasure are allowed.

The list is endless. This is just a tiny sample of what’s allowed and what’s not. These rules are not to be criticized or questioned because they are the structure of a perfectly stable society. You, I and anyone else can easily reject these claims because the societies mentioned above are far from being perfect thus the existing rules are flawed and unable to provide social stability, therefore they should be re-evaluated and maybe replaced and this what creates ‘opinions’, obviously. The problem?

Most of these rules belong to the “Shari’a”, the religious law of Islam, which means it’s totally forbidden to question their efficiency, you can’t have an opinion about them. But if these rules created some of the most oppressive and underdeveloped societies in the world, why wouldn’t we?

Because like Saber, we’ll get arrested, marginalized and maybe… killed.

The subject doesn’t matter anyway, it doesn’t matter if it’s about a movie or an article or a book or anything. This is, and I quote from Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui (deputy chief of Amnesty’s Middle East and North Africa program), “an outrageous verdict and sentence for a person whose only `crime’ was to post his opinions online”, because if we belong to a society that is full of contradictions, oppression and insecurity we have the right to ask why? What is the root of this oppression? What is the cause of this constant deterioration?

The answers to these questions are easy, of course. But since they’re considered ‘blasphemous’, I’d rather not share them because you know , “no opinions allowed”.

To Pray Or To Party?

It is well known that some churches have been transformed into houses and\or bookshops particularly in Europe, but the story doesn’t end here. Many churches have been transformed into bars and nightclubs as well. Ironic much?

Well, this is real and here are some  photos.

Club Paradiso, a former church converted into a club in the center of Amsterdam.

Club Paradiso, a former church converted into a club in the center of Amsterdam.

Spirito Martini – Church Turned Nightclub in Brussels-Belgium

Spirito Martini – Church Turned Nightclub in Brussels-Belgium

Spirito Martini – Church Turned Nightclub in Brussels-Belgium

Spirito Martini – Church Turned Nightclub in Brussels-Belgium

Historic Church turned nightclub

Historic Church turned nightclub

Historic Church Becomes Fashionable Modern Bar in Nottingham

Historic Church Becomes Fashionable Modern Bar in Nottingham

Church turned nightclub

Church turned nightclub

The Hobbit: An unexpected journey (2012)

The-Hobbit-poster-2

Driven by passion, Peter Jackson once achieved a nearly impossible task: he made a cinematic adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s fantasy novel The Lord of the Rings. The result was a morally weighty, visually absorbing, thematically moving and award winning trilogy that pleased the fans, stunned the critics and put Hollywood formulaic blockbusters to shame. Grossing a total of $2.91 billion, it turned Jackson into one of most successful and trusted directors in the world.

Driven by greed, Jackson decided to return to middle earth by blowing up J.R.R Tolkien’s little delightful 300 page children adventure “The Hobbit” into a new trilogy, leaving the critics skeptical and the fans worried about this odd decision. The result was a visually dazzling but an overlong and overstuffed first part.

The Hobbit: An unexpected journey tells the well known story of a young Bilbo Baggins and his grand and unexpected adventure with his wizard buddy Gandalf and 13 dwarves to reclaim the lost dwarf kingdom of ‘Erebor’ from the dragon ‘Smaug’, coming across all manner of beasts (superbly designed and animated) and dangerous situations. As intriguing as it sounds, the film doesn’t really get going until a good forty-five minutes into the narrative. But that won’t matter for the fans who just want to see middle earth again and Bilbo Baggins being Bilbo Baggins. The movies are destined to make money and a lot of it because after all revisiting middle earth is always a treat. Even in ‘The Hobbit’, middle earth was flawlessly realized on screen, a totally immersive universe populated by weird and authentic characters and where artificial sets were wondrously blended with the real breathtaking landscape of New Zealand, Jackson homeland. Shot in 48 frames\second Middle earth became strikingly real. This groundbreaking method of shooting at a faster rate captures gorgeous images and creates clearer and sharper scenes with incredible details. Middle earth simply looked different and there’s too much to look at in ‘The Hobbit’.

The main problem with ‘The Hobbit’ is that it’s not really about a Hobbit as the title suggests. Not a lot happens here, the story barely focuses on Bilbo Baggins and more time was given over to fill the movie with needless side-plots that aim to please the fans. The Hobbit as a book was a charming novel, because of its simplicity. It’s not an epic tale of good-versus evil, it’s simply a story about a character that was spending his life safely in his hobbithole then decided to step out of his cozy place and start a journey that will let him eventually realize that the world is a bigger and a more interesting place than his beloved town. There are some good and charming moments in the movie, like the house party with all the dwarves and their behaviors .Martin Freeman delivered a delightful performance as a hobbit desperately witnessing his place being disrupted by the dwarves. Freeman is a natural born Hobbit, but sadly enough he gets so little chance over the course of nearly three hours of running time to develop his character.

Every time the focus wanders away from Bilbo, we get this feeling that there’s no coherent narrative structure here. The elves became the center of the story and not Bilbo, and Thorin (Richard Armitage) became the main protagonist. Armitage, the new Aragon,is really good here but this is not his story. One of the weakest points in the movie, if not the weakest, is the fake sense of epicness that Jackson was trying so hard to force, for a simple reason: In The lord of the rings, middle earth was in trouble.  The Dark Lord Sauron wanted his ring back so he can conquer and rule all of Middle-earth, there was a real crisis. In the Hobbit, the dwarves want to get their gold and city back from a dragon, does this look like a crisis? Is there anything urgent about it? Did we really need a countless amount of action setpieces that tried so hard to create a sense of urgency? No, because simply, there’s nothing that urgent in the Hobbit, it’s not an epic tale. Jackson who co-wrote the screenplay excessively used Gandalf’s character whose appearance at the very last moment of every dangerous situation was an emphasized deus ex machina, a plot device that Tolkien barely used in his books. It made the scenes predictable and less interesting.

My favorite part in the movie is definitely Bilbo’s encounter with Gollum, genially played by Andy Serkis and looking more realistic than ever, the scene was worth the wait. Filled with witty dialogue and beautiful performances, it delivered more reliability than the entire movie. Andy Serkis portrayal of Gollum is simply transcendent, it’s a CGI character but there’s a lot of psychological complexity and it’s very clear thanks to Serkis’ talent and acting abilities.

When I was reading about Tolkien a couple of years ago, I found out that the man used to rewrite some of his stories to give them more grandeur. He couldn’t do it with the Hobbit, because he felt that the story will lose its soul, and he’ll ruin its light adventurous humorous essence. Peter Jackson is trying to do what Tolkien himself failed to do, and based on what I saw I think Tolkien was absolutely right. You can’t force epicness. It’s either an epic story or not, and as I said above ‘the hobbit’ is certainly not. “An unexpected journey” is not boring, but it’s not engaging and despite its fake grandeur the movie, that lacked a good narrative structure, created an oddly empty experience.

Rating C+

SAG Awards 2013 Nominations

Argo

The nominees for the screen actors guild awards were just announced with Les MiserablesLincoln, and Silver Linings Playbook leading the list.

Steven Spielberg’s “Lincoln” had nominations for Daniel Day-Lewis for best actor, Sally Field for supporting actress as Mary Todd Lincoln and Tommy Lee Jones for supporting actor. Tom Hooper’s “les miserables” scored 3 nominations for Hugh Jackman for best actor as Jean Valjean and Anne Hathaway for supporting actress and  a nomination for its ensemble. David O. Russell ‘s “Silver Linings Playbook,” had lead-acting nominations for Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence and a well deserved nomination for Robert De Niro for best supporting actor.

The list, mostly not surprising, included a nomination for Javier Bardem for best supporting actor for his gripping performance in “Skyfall”. “Moonrise Kingdom” deserved a best ensemble nomination as well. The complete list of nominees :

Best Ensemble:
Argo
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel
Les Miserables
Lincoln
Silver Linings Playbook

Best Actor:
Bradley Cooper, Silver Linings Playbook
Daniel Day-Lewis, Lincoln
John Hawkes, The Sessions
Hugh Jackman, Les Miserables
Denzel Washington, Flight

Best Actress:
Jessica Chastain, Zero Dark Thirty
Marion Cotillard, Rust and Bone
Jennifer Lawrence, Silver Linings Playbook
Helen Mirren, Hitchcock
Naomi Watts, The Impossible

Supporting Actor:
Alan Arkin, Argo
Javier Bardem, Skyfall
Robert De Niro, Silver Linings Playbook
Philip Seymour Hoffman, The Master
Tommy Lee Jones, Lincoln

Supporting Actress:
Sally Field, Lincoln
Anne Hathaway, Les Miserables
Helen Hunt, The Sessions
Nicole Kidman, The Paperboy
Maggie Smith, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

Thoughts on Lars Von Trier’s ‘Europa’

lvt copy

The camera is looking down at a set of railroad tracks and the hypnotic voice of Max von Sydow says: “You will now listen to my voice. My voice will help you and guide you still deeper into Europa. Every time you hear my voice, with every word and every number, you will enter into a still deeper layer, open, relaxed and receptive. I shall now count from one to ten. On the count of ten, you will be in Europa. I say: one. And as your focus and attention are entirely on my voice, you will slowly begin to relax. Two, your hands and your fingers are getting warmer and heavier. Three, the warmth is spreading through your arms, to your shoulders and your neck. Four, your feet and your legs get heavier. Five, the warmth is spreading to the whole of your body. On six, I want you to go deeper. I say: six. And the whole of your relaxed body is slowly beginning to sink. Seven, you go deeper and deeper and deeper. Eight, on every breath you take, you go deeper. Nine, you are floating. On the mental count of ten, you will be in Europa. Be there at ten. I say: ten.”

This is how ‘Europa’, Lars Von Trier’s absorbing thriller, begins. Released in 1991 as the third part of his ‘Europa trilogy’, the film follows the story of Leopold Kessler (Jean-Marc Barr), a young and ‘idealistic’ American of German descent who returns to his homeland, a post-war Germany, to help rebuild a country that was torn apart by war and to show some compassion to the German people after the end of world war II. He arrives in an American- occupied territory, his uncle who works as a sleeping-car conductor, helps him and gets him a similar job for the mysterious Zentropa railway. He later meets the femme fatale Katherina Hartman (Barbara Sukowa) the daughter of the owner of the railway company on the train. Surprised by the unusual presence of an American who’s taking a civilian job in post war Germany, she asks him why he’s here, and as an idealist he naively told her about his good intentions. He gets invited to dinner at the house of the Hartman family, where he meets Colonel Harris (Eddie Constantine) an American old friend of Katherina’s father, Max. Max is living with an inner guilt because of his past with the Nazi regime and because under his surveillance the Zentropa railway has been used to transport Jews to the concentration camps. Later that night, Colonel Harris asks Leopold to obtain some information about a pro-Nazi group called “The werewolves” while doing his shifts on the train, a group who have murdered some German diplomats who have cooperated with the allies and caused a lot of damage and disrupt. Leo, who is now in love with Katherina, agreed. Leo begins a steamy relationship with Katherina and later, the werewolves start sending Max threatening letters because of his post-war cooperation with the Americans. Overcome by guilt because of his past with the Nazis, he commits suicide. The death of Max and Katherina’s later revelation that she used to be a member of the werewolves will make him take choices that go against his idealistic principles as he becomes involved in a Pro-Nazi Terrorist conspiracy.

Masterfully shot by cameraman Henning Bendtsen, ‘Europa’ is a rare example of how a film can use multiple visual styles while remaining faithful to the substance. It is considered an experimental film because of its unique and rich visual composition. It features black and white photography with occasional insertions of colored shots, actors genially interacting with rear-projected footage, hypnotic voice-over narration, double (and sometimes multiple)-exposures creating strikingly beautiful surreal images, dialogue that switches from one language to another and more. This compilation of styles worked perfectly because each style helped emphasizing a particular situation. The intrusions of colored shots were stunningly beautiful, but they highlighted a particular character or object that will eventually alter the plot and thicken the story. The multiple-exposures or the interaction with rear projected footage visually represent the psychological state of the actors, we can see what’s going on in their minds through the images. The interposition of images metaphorically represented a sense of perplexity and disorientation of a post war society. The use of two or more languages created an intended confusion that will stimulate the viewers’ curiosity and make them eager to analyze the scene or maybe watch it again. This is a dazzling interpretation of a rich material; Von Trier co-wrote a multi-layered text and visually executed it using every possible filming technique recalling the works of Welles, Hitchcock and Lynch and creating a dark, intense and exemplary war film that proved him to be, and I quote, a “movie-mad stylist”.

Europa’s  main element, the train, represents the passage of humanity toward destiny. ‘Europa’ is a rare instance in which voice-over is welcome in a movie. Wonderful and appropriate use of switching from monochrome to color, without feeling contrived. The conflicted loyalties of the naive antihero reflect the ambiguities of reviving a necessary corporation during reconstruction that had collaborated with the Nazis. The genuine shock of Max’s suicide. It is redolent of Kafka, and Reed’s “The Third Man”, and the clouded politics hints menacingly at the coming darkness of the cold war and the lingering cancer of Nazism.

‘Europa’ is Lars Von Trier at the peak of his career; unfortunately he later dragged himself into controversial but self-absorbed films that aim to shock and not to manipulate, and while getting the all the attention, none of his latter efforts are even comparable with this movie.

Anna Karenina (2012)

Anna-Karenina-Poster

Revisiting a well known classic novel that has been adapted for the big screen many times before is always risky and adventurous, because those who’ve read the book want their beloved characters flawlessly portrayed on screen, and those who watched the movies are familiar with the story, so why would they watch it again?

They would if it’s been told differently.

Joe Wright took a radical approach to tell the story of “Anna Karenina”, the unhappily married aristocrat who put her marriage and social life at risk after carrying out a scandalous affair with an officer named Vronsky (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) due to an emotional disconnect in her marriage to the wealthy St. Petersburg politician Karenin (Jude Law), a decision that will eventually lead to devastating consequences. Wright who already succeeded with his acclaimed version of “Pride and Prejudice” proved himself to be a unique storyteller when it comes to period dramas. With “Atonement”, always with Keira Knightley, he proved himself to be a director with a distinctive and incredibly captivating visual style. The movies succeeded because they were visually enchanting and emotionally resonating, and while a lot of people agreed that the visual enchantment continues to soar with ‘Anna Karenina’, the audacious style took over the substance resulting in an oversimplification of Leo Tolstoy’s complex novel.

Instead of a conventional structure, Joe Wright decided to tell the story theatrically by staging most of the action in an actual theatre, metaphorically suggesting that the nineteenth-century Russian society was as fake as a play and the aristocrats, with their extravagant costumes, were living their lives as if on stage, faking their attitudes and behaviors and constantly evaluated by the others, the audience:  This is a decadent, disintegrating claustrophobic society where you are allowed to break the law but not the rules. This was literally portrayed as a play, and an actual curtain goes up at the very beginning of the movie uncovering the actors and then the main characters are introduced in a very stylized way. It’s a very unconventional opening; but in my opinion, it fits more with musicals, particularly because of the way the movements of the actors were orchestrated. The visuals were distracting more than enchanting, but I have to admit that the opening sequences featured excellent camera work and exquisite production design. The camera moved us from one set to another very smoothly, and new sets were wondrously unfolding and popping up from nowhere. However, this whole staging concept became less interesting after the first 30 min, when the plot moves from St. Petersburg to Moscow, because you start feeling the limitations of the sets even if this was intentional. The experience became less cinematic, less imaginative and artificial.

The weakest point in ‘Anna Karenina’ is Tom Stoppard’s screenplay. The attempt to modernize the classic text by oversimplifying its characters to reach a less demanding audience didn’t work well. Mainly because without the complexity of the characters, ‘Anna Karenina’ is a simple none-engaging love story. What elevates the book and its characters is the detailed interpretation of the psychological state of Anna and the others and although the book itself is a slow read, it is emotionally intense and absolutely enthralling. It is a character study novel; it is a book about characters so you can’t oversimplify them. Now for those who haven’t read the book, they won’t find enough motives behind Anna’s behaviors. Karenin’s character was shockingly underdeveloped, in the book he was the main reason behind Anna’s impulsive decision and because of him she was emotionally weak and easily manipulated. In the movie he was portrayed as a serious and grumpy politician but a caring husband as well. The important lines of his character were reduced to the least, making the whole behaviors of Anna non- persuasive, pretentious and overdramatic and thus no one will feel sympathy for her. The whole love affair appeared as an over-dramatization of a typical love triangle formula.

Knightley was good as Anna, but this wasn’t her most memorable performance. She looked very comfortable on screen and obviously she loves doing period dramas, but she was trying so hard to portray a flat character, her lines didn’t help. At times she was excellent, at times she was annoying. As for the supporting cast, they did their job well, but again their characters were utterly flat and straight forward.

I still admire Joe Wright; after all he’s an adventurous filmmaker. This is his most ambitious movie to date, I personally didn’t like it but I appreciated the efforts and the experimentalism in ‘Anna Karenina’. This is a never-seen-before concept, a whole new visual experience that may please a lot of people. Maybe with time, the movie will be re-evaluated and will get better reviews, because of its unique structure. I think the movie could have worked if it wasn’t an adaptation of a complex novel like ‘Anna Karenina’, but again this is the work of an ambitious director and I personally can’t wait for his next movie.

Rating : C+

Brazilian Architect Oscar Niemeyer died aged 104

Sad news, one of the most influential architects in the world Brazilian Architect Oscar Niemeyer died aged 104. Famous for his deep explorations of the aesthetics possibilities of reinforced concrete, his works were described as “monuments”. He admired the form of the female body and its curves and reflected his love with stunning and undulated structures that instantly became case studies. One of his very famous quotes:

“I am not attracted to straight angles or to the straight line, hard and inflexible, created by man. I am attracted to free-flowing, sensual curves. The curves that I find in the mountains of my country, in the sinuousness of its rivers, in the waves of the ocean, and on the body of the beloved woman. Curves make up the entire Universe, the curved Universe of Einstein”

He was responsible for the construction of all the civic buildings of Brazil’s new capital in 1956 and in case you didn’t know, Niemeyer actually has a project in Tripoli, Lebanon. He’s the man behind the “International fair of Tripoli” and although the project is unfinished because of the civil war, it remains one of his major achievements. Here are some photos of the fair  taken by Cristobal Palma.


t

For more Photos click here.

Silver Linings Playbook (2012)

silver-linings-poster

As the title suggests, ‘Silver Linings Playbook’ is a drama that focuses on a character who is trying to turn a string of negatives into something positive, he’s trying to find the silver linings in life.  It’s not an easy attempt when this character, Pat, is just released from a mental institution. He’s bipolar, he’s on meds, he needs to attend therapy sessions and he moved back in with his parents, his only place to stay because of the “incident” that happened eight months ago.

Few months earlier, Pat (Bradley Cooper) returned to his house to find his wife taking a shower with another guy, he lost it and he beat the hell out of him. Because of this “incident” (as he calls it) he was locked away in a mental institution, he lost his house and his job. But despite having lost almost everything, Pat’s attempt was to get them all back and start over, since he was released from the mental institution with the idea that there are “silver linings” to everything, and thus a chance to get back to his wife Nikki and restore his broken marriage. With this uplifting optimism, he agreed to have dinner with his friends Ronnie and his wife Veronica, mainly because the latter occasionally sees Nikki, therefore there’s a chance to reconnect with his wife through her. It’s there when he meets Veronica’s younger sister Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence), a troubled widow who will turn his plans upside down.

This is a very beautifully written and executed film. It features some of the finest performances of the year. The already great Jennifer Lawrence was superb, but what surprised most is Bradley Cooper because I’ve never taken him seriously as an actor. David O. Russell will probably change the man’s life, because his performance was utterly compelling and Oscar Worthy. He flawlessly portrayed a character who’s trying very hard to overcome its sudden outbursts that once led him to hurt his family and friends by acting violently or telling them hurtful words. He explores the dark and intense places of his personality with a gripping performance. Lawrence plays a-seen- before character, but David O. Russel’s interpretation of this corny type of characters was different.  The moment Lawrence appeared on screen, the show became hers. Her performance was so astounding, so magical and so profound. She played a damaged character as well but her ability to switch from one mood to another was mind blowing, all done with a fascinating emotional intensity and utter honesty, it left me wondering if there’s any young actress as good as her, because the magnetism she has is unbeatable. You simply can’t get enough of her; this is certainly among the best female performances so far this year, if not the best. So the movie is about two imperfect characters that are not shy of embracing their imperfections. Their imperfections are the reason that sparked their friendship; they’re not afraid of expressing their pain and misery and yelling insensitive truths into one another’s faces, with a beautiful balanced dialogue that is as funny as painful. Their search for hope created beautiful on screen situations, although most of their encounters weren’t as intense as I hoped.

The supporting cast including Jacki Weaver, Robert De Niro and surprisingly Chris Tucker did a great job as well, mainly because of Robert De Niro’s performance. He finally returned with a meaningful appearance after years of dreadful movies and disastrous roles. He played the skeptical father who wants to spend time with his son. His interpretation of the character will remind you of the classic De Niro; this is really a fine performance that deserves the highest praise.

With all the perfections I mentioned above, the movie wasn’t perfect. It is an honest portrayal of bipolar disorder; it features wonderful characters and decent premise, but while I was totally immersed in its first half, the movie lost part of its charm in the second half. I enjoyed the early encounters between Lawrence and Cooper; they were intense, occasionally hilarious and thought provoking. With the help of a well crafted dialogue, the characters kept exploring their dark sides and mental instability. The second act featured less interesting encounters as the premise of the movie changed dramatically. I felt that Lawrence character wasn’t fully exploited. The potentials of her character are unlimited. With her acting abilities she was capable of creating a landmark performance, but instead of pushing her and allowing her to reach this point, the director threw her into less interesting and repetitive situations that weren’t as intense as the earlier ones. I ended up hating parts of the movie and feeling disappointed a little because this was a missing chance. It simply wasn’t an Intriguing conclusion.

This remains David O. Russell’s finest work to date. I’m not a fan of O. Russell, but if this is supposed to be a romantic comedy then I salute him for it because he took it to a new level. I didn’t criticize the structure of the film, because I’m still not sure if this was intentional and simply a reflection of the protagonists’ instability. After all, this is a movie about imperfect people so why does it have to be perfect? This is debatable, but the movie is never a failure. It is flawed, but pleasantly engaging. And despite the flaws i enjoyed it a lot. It showed us that life isn’t perfect  but with the right person, even an imperfect person, it can be.

Rating: B+

Beirut Spring | A Lebanese Blog

Blogging Lebanese politics, business and society since 2005

Languidly Urged

And as lovable as a pink, overfed whale.

Traveling Thane Furrows

Sharing Seeds of Benevolence, One Step at a Time.

Curnblog

Movies, thoughts, thoughts about movies.

Let's tlk abt movies

reviews by Anis Tabet

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.