Alexandria: Again and Forever

As much as I don't understand Youssef Chahine's cinema, I will give him credit for creating some of the most beautiful images in the world of cinema. In this, Alexandria Again and Forever, the filmmaker seems to be having a ball with his salute to other genres of film. While the main story, about striking actors and their attempt to force the government into a resolution is terribly boring, the other parts such as the director preparing a movie of 'Hamlet' and his set up of Gene Kelly Musicals, toga pieces and what may appear to be Bollywood musicals are a RIOT to watch. I honestly feel Chahine has it in himself to do a full blown musical, as all of the musical bits are brilliant, while the rest is just blah.

I had been always a fan of Chahine movies, but I always criticize what I never liked But honestly this movie is one of my favorite movies of all time, sound weird when lots of people gave negative reviews about it. First, you have to understand what the plot is about, and what is the other dimension he's discussing in the movie, if you still want to give this movie a chance, please read about the actors strike in 87, after forcing actors to accept a new law for their association and what it represented back then by forcing ideas to the people (that's what shown in the first song "take my eyes to see") And the other story about the brilliant actor Mohsen Mohieldin who left Joe to chase his own dream. Considering the ideas represented in this movie, the nice story about friendship, the battle between generations, the beauty of originality vs. the ugliness of the new petrodollar involvement in the Egyptian society, movie making and ideas In my humble opinion, it's a masterpiece but you have to give it a chance .

A better movie that Fellini's 8 1/2, Chanine brave enough and able to dance that he didn't have to hire Marcello Mastroianni to play a director in search of challenges. Youssra holds her own against Claudia Cardinale. Fellini also shied away from politics, whereas this movie makes cases for collective action, for democracy, and for individual choices and modes of affection. For fragments of invented movies, it takes on Shakespeare and classical military epic and Gene Kelly. A feast that includes a hunger strike.

It is from the rights for any film maker to make a movie talking about himself, his own life, his personal weakness, his very personal struggles. But the only condition for this is to create a film that is: (1) beautiful. (2) can be seen and appreciated by anyone else. The problem here with Chahine is that he didn't consider people watching this piece of film. I admit it is beautiful, somewhat attractive and well directed. The songs are touching. If you are a big fan of chahine you will feel interested to see him in person act, dance, sing, and casually involved with real actors and country people in the film. But the question here is i may not be concerned to know about this very personal struggling of him. I got the feeling that Chahine talks to himself loudly in this film and it may be rude of me to listen to him! I have nothing to do with his problems with his first actor or with his eternal Hamlet dream. He might have inserted the story of the artists strike and so on for this very same reason. He wanted us to feel it is a general film for anyone not only for him. According to me, a good autobiography film means that the director is looking into his own mirror but with the audience appearing with him. Here i felt that Chahine is alone in the mirror. My advice for you, if you like Chahine watch the film, but don't expect a masterpiece.

I do not usually review the movies I watch, but this one bored me to the point that I felt I had to say something about it. Excruciatingly boring. I recommend spending your time doing anything else rather than watching this nonsense.