Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Or Reset Your Avatar
Underworld: Evolution (2006)
Unfortunately, I used to love that kind of hard-core fantasy sci-fi action flicks but I guess I can't follow anymore. I don't even know why this sequel has even been made because I don't remember the first one being such a hit. Except for Kate Beckinsale, the entire cast is flat and uninteresting. The movie is not even fun, just unimaginative, brainless and boring. There is no script. The action is not even choreographed or shot well. I've been seeing violent films since my youngest age, but this is violent in the most disgusting and useless way. What's the point? Where's the excitement? Just imagine if this was directed by the likes of James Cameron, Paul Verhoeven or John McTiernan. How come we don't see anymore Terminators, Aliens, Robocops, Total Recalls or Predators?
Big Fish (2003)
Is Tim Burton dead?
This is what came to my mind when I came out of the theater. This is a major disappointment from one of my favorites directors. I found it lame, a bit boring and more surprisingly from Burton: unimaginative. This film don't make you feel anything. What could have been interesting, the relationship between the son and the father seems realy false and dull. And I think it would have been much better with Johnny Depp instead of Ewan McGreggor (not that I have something against him). Also Danny Elfman's music is his worst composition ever. I sincerely hope that "Charlie & the chocolate factory" will be better as I love the book and I think Burton is only guy able to direct it right.
Children of Men (2006)
No emotion, not powerful, disappointing...
So I saw "Children of Men" and unfortunately I didn't really like it. Don't get me wrong because it's seriously done, but the fact is that I didn't care one bit for it. It has an AWESOME PREMISE, but the result has no emotion whatsoever, and is not engaging at all. It's pretty much flat all the way through and it doesn't lead to anything (there's no conclusion to all this)... Come on, with something like this you gotta make something powerful out of it! And it's really depressing too because it's so close to the world we live in... I like depressing movies but when they're about people and not about the world as a giant crap hole....
And 10 minutes of Julianne Moore only?! That's probably the worst for me !
V for Vendetta (2005)
This is not cinema
This is a bad, uninteresting movie, disguised as an intelligent movie for mainstream audiences. I can't believe people like it but who cares. If this is supposed to be the good American cinema of today, then we have to worry about the survival of cinema as we knew it. The Wachowski brothers are definitely assassinating cinema. I have nothing against Natalie Portman, who gives a fine performance here as always. But the entire movie is just plain dull. I mean the political content is good (even if it's too obvious to be smart) but as a movie itself, it's really bad. There is no arch, no real story to grip on, the characters have no emotions, no personal story. The way it's filmed is annoying as is Hugo Weaving who has nothing to do but talking with a mask in a theatrical manner. The fights are not even bad-ass. At the end, soldiers are just standing, waiting for V to kill them, pretending he kicks ass! I think I'm gonna really stop watching Hollywood movies, because it's going downhill and it makes me sad, can't believe kids today are growing up watching this kind of sh**t...
Man on Fire (2004)
Unnecessary long, pretentious and morally suspicious (spoiler)
Don't get me wrong, I love action and revenge flicks, I've seen many of them since I was a kid, including Dolph Lundgren's latest "The Mechanik" which is quite good. And Tony Scott certainly know how to use a camera and even might be a genius shooting and editing films.
But with "Man on Fire" (and even more then with "Domino"), Scott shows that rather than using his film-making "genius" skills intelligently, he uses it puposelessly to show off and compensate a lack of substance that his material doesn't offer him. "Man of Fire" is close to 2 hours and half when it really should have been at least an hour less.
The way Scott shot and edited this film also makes you wonder if he really wants you (the audience) to sit through his film because his constant camera moves and flashes really are a torture for the eye and makes you wanna leave the theater or turn it off after 5 minutes into it.
At times where the MPAA and studios have questionable attitudes regarding ratings, violence and making PG-13 movies, I find also suspicious that a $70 million movie is made of a B-movie script with a character who cuts fingers, puts a bomb in a man's ass and blows a guy's hand with a shotgun, all this to avenge the death of a little girl who ISN'T even dead! Go figure then why a studio will pass a better script because of the language or violence... Thus said...