Reviews written by registered user
|19 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I saw this on one of the paid cable movie channels late at night (or
rather early in the morning), and my guess is they only showed it,
because they thought no one would be watching.
But what a great movie it is! The story is hilarious, the acting is good, costumes, light everything just falls into place perfectly.
I was sitting on the couch and laughing out loud, it was so smart and funny. That said, I can clearly see that this is not everyone's cup of tea: there are no 'normal' human relations here, there is almost no 'action' the storytelling technique and the subject matter require an intelligent viewer, a lover of unhurried movies.
Tarkovsky's 'Stalker' (a very different movie from this one) made me fall in love with cinema many years ago, but I have recently read in a film encyclopedia that its story was 'going nowhere, slowly'. This comes to prove that even masterpieces are sometimes misunderstood and underestimated or even ridiculed, so I am sure the Curling King will be slept through or hated by many.
But that has never been the point.
Let's concentrate on a real problem: there seem to be no English subtitles for it (unless you see it at a film festival somewhere), and Norwegian is... well... Norwegian.
I hope the movie will soon be released into the unsuspecting English- speaking world there are many people out there who will fall in love with the Curling King.
Every now and then an engaging and well made film comes along that is
either misunderstood or falls victim of a general negative trait in
reviews that do not make it justice.
I had read some negative opinions before going to see the film, so I wasn't expecting much. I was pleasantly surprised.
Not sure why people did not like it. The first 'Taken' was not 'perfect' or 'best in its genre', but it was fun, and Liam's character was interesting, well acted and recognizable, so these are the exact traits 'Taken 2' builds upon.
The story kept me interested and the solutions, devices, information seemed believable and were quite engaging. On several occasions I was at the edge of my seat, so the story-telling technique was good.
What I did not like was the acting of Rade Serbedzija. Don't get me wrong: I like the guy, but I believe he has been continually given the wrong parts. He is simply not menacing enough to play the bad guy. For some reason any time a Russian, Turkish, Serbian, etc. mobster character is scripted, they turn to him to play it and he simply cannot cope with it. It is easy to see that Rade is good natured and has an agreeable character in real life, and this aura of 'goodness' carries on to the movies.
At any rate watch the movie and make up your own mind.
I only give this movie 5/10 since it is supposed to be so high class
and a lot of money was spent making it.
Apart from that it is the worst installment in the Mission Impossible saga. It has by far the worst script so far, the worst dialogue, the least believable action scenes, etc.
I had a bad feeling about the movie the moment I saw the director's name. The guy is amazing when he makes cartoons, but MI:4 proves that cartoons and films with live actors are two different things. Everything here feels fake and typical cartoonish dialogue and "funny" moments simply do not work.
It is also the first time when Tom has gone wrong when green-lighting a project, and I hope this does not turn into a trait of his.
It is very regrettable that a script so full of stereotypes (like the ages-old stereotype of Russia and Russians that Hollywood has been feeding us with), the stereotype of the Arab world, etc. have been so easily and readily adopted by a director as smart as this one.
I am really sorry they made this film, and really sorry I watched it.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This is easily the worst high-profile movie I saw in 2009.
Here is what you get:
(1) a lethargic action thriller riddled with dialog exchanges that could put an insomniac to sleep, (2) some dark and psychotic scenes full of perverted violence, (3) a pathetic sex scene with latex-clad superheroes, and (4) an absurd ending which the director and screen writer may have considered quite wise, but is in fact complete and utter nonsense.
The whole movie is a joke, so stupid at times, that I laughed helplessly at my own misfortune, having paid to watch it.
By the time it ended most other people had left the cinema.
It seems that even if one makes a meaningless, long, overly violent (at times) and otherwise profoundly boring movie with an absurd ending, there will still be people out there who would feel passionate about it.
For an artist this should be a depressing thought.
What a film! I have watched it two times: I liked it very much the
first time round, but the second time it made me cry.
There is nothing excessive here - everything fits into place: the story, the music, the characters. Isn't that the shortest definition of perfection?
And here is the moral: narrow is the path of the righteous man, but he has an obligation to his own conscience - the very fabric of this world - to uphold what is good. No matter what the cost. Laying your own life down may sometimes be a fair price.
"Redbelt" is by far Mamet's best film to date. By all means - watch it!
I paid 50% on top of the usual price to be one of the lucky few to see
the movie before its official opening. I don't think it was worth the
That said, 2/3 of the movie were not actually bad and if you can switch off the sound when there is dialogue, you should be fine. The special effects are outstanding and the fantastic creatures are interesting to watch and look real even on a big screen.
Where this movie does not succeed is the scripting. The story progresses in the most uninteresting and predictable way, people think and act like puppets on strings. The worst parts are the scenes when there is no action - you may need to pinch yourself not to fall asleep.
The introduction of Maria Bello as a substitute for Rachel Weisz's character can hardly be called a success: she lacks the youth and passion required for this role. Luke Ford (playing the son Alex O'Connell), is believable, but he looks just as old as his father on screen! Annoying inconsistencies of this kind ruin the effect this story could have had.
When will film producers finally figure out that even in a summer blockbuster the reality of human emotions and the integrity of the story are the most important ingredients?
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I am a fan of part one and therefore could not wait to lay my eyes on
the sequel. Finally, it did "come to a cinema near me" - in the form of
a preview shown at an awkward time. I did not think twice - even if I
had to pay extra and stay late.
The movie started slow. First, they showed us - in a couple of dated stills - the history of the prequel: how Hellboy was originally found - and then jumped a few years into the future to tell us how he first learned about the Golden Army. This first scene - with the little red horned boy brushing his teeth - left me with mixed feelings, it looked so odd and out of context.
However, the film starts to pick up speed and really gets better by the minute. Prince Nuada is introduced with his swift martial arts moves that - I dare say - put to shame some of the scenes in the Matrix. But most importantly - the story is well thought through and when you think about it after leaving the cinema, it still "holds water" so nothing of the beautiful imagery is spilled.
And beautiful it is! It is breathtakingly hauntingly beautiful... There are so many fantastic characters, real and unreal blend perfectly - both the work of the CGI experts and the writers of the script. Most if not all characters are designed and executed with such perfect attention to detail on both levels - philosophical and visual - that it must really take a lot of thinking to find a weak spot.
But trust me when I tell you, that you will not have a lot of time left for thinking. The visual storytelling talents of Del Toro have always been praised, but here the strength of their expression truly reaches a peak! Elves, Trolls, Gods of the forest and Giants of stone - one might think that he has seen it all in the LODR trilogy, however this director's vision is something else. Elves are white and ethereal but there is also something wicked in their chalky faces and cat-like eyes. Trolls are ugly, menacing and at the same time - comic. There is a plethora of cunning gadgets and a universe of seamless magic co-existing in an uneasy equilibrium in Hellboy 2.
There are also some laughs - well thought through and perfectly timed - that were maybe missing from part one. But the most interesting of it all lies not in the visual stunts or clever tricks - it is in the simple fact that this film tells a moving story that touches the heart. It is a story about love and what it can make us do: betray and kill those closest to us, or lay our life down to save them - and be ready to destroy the world in the process...
Remember I told you that the film gradually picks up speed? This masterful dance gets almost hectic towards the end - both visually, philosophically and emotionally. The mechanics of the Golden Army are deadly and perfect in their own way. Our hero saves the day, but we are told that he lives for the world to get destroyed. "Would you sacrifice everything you know to give life to your loved one?" It seems that there is no correct answer to this question. And if that is so, then we are all going down in flames - just like Guillermo del Toro predicts in this second installment of his Hellboy saga.
Go watch this movie. It is better than the polished and hollow 'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull', because it has heart. It is much better than 'Wanted', because it is visually stunning, but not showy and it has moral integrity. It is even better than 'The Hulk' - which is the best of the three mentioned but still looks one-dimensional and shallow when compared to del Toro's masterpiece. I would not say it is perfect... but for its kind it is not just engaging - it is captivating, and it is a lesson in philosophical storytelling, given by a Master.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This is not a truly great film (greatness being something that
differentiates God from man), but it boasts rock solid storytelling and
is the only American science fiction movie to date which has actually
managed to play with the notion and visions of foreign planets without
sacrificing the material reality of its characters, dialog and plot. In
that respect "Outland" is more than just blameless - I believe it
should be taught at film universities.
The story takes place on a planet in space, but they have managed to shift the interest elsewhere - or rather - keep it where it was originally supposed to be: at the center of the human heart. Do not expect fancy special effects (although this movie does not try to shy away from them), but it all seems so real, dirty and worn, so down-to-earth, that the viewer is not distracted by looks and can concentrate on the important questions the story raises.
Will people in the not-so-distant future think up a new moral code? When it comes to hard work and people loosing their sanity over it, isn't it just a question of greediness before profitability turns into exploitation and murder? This story takes place in space, but it is really set on Earth and its ethical scope of interest is in the realm of the eternal collision between right and wrong, evil and good.
I do believe that with time "Outland" will be reassessed as on of Sean Connery's finest. It deserves so.
I do not believe "Reservoir Dogs" is a great film. It is worth seeing,
yes, but mostly because of all the hype that has been created around
If one tries to think with his own head, he is sure to agree that Tarantino's first movie is too pretentious and uninteresting, its space design is claustrophobic, and there is way too much blood that serves no purpose. It cannot keep the viewer's attention like "Pulp Fiction" and it is far from the flamboyant directing of "Kill Bill".
In short, it is as effective a vehicle, as a baby-walker to a child: it serves a purpose, but I would not call it art.
In Tarantino's beloved style, allow me to express my point, using somebody else's words: this movie goes nowhere. Slowly.
The most important reason why one should watch this film is Bruce Lee's
presence in it. I have long wanted to see more of his work - and get
beyond the now famous "Enter the Dragon".
That said, "Fist of Fury" is almost impossible to perceive objectively. Is this a real movie: can it boast with impeccable cinematography, innovative storytelling techniques, inspirational acting? In all ways mentioned, "Fist of Fury" is a third-rate treat.
The only element that makes a difference is Bruce himself. He acts with aplomb, overdoing it most of the time, but still - making a great impression, being as agile and energetic as humanly possible. Unfortunately, this film's unnecessary aggressiveness, misplaced eroticism and biased hatred for all Japanese, do not reinforce the impression of his charismatic presence.
I do believe that "Fist of Fury" is worth watching - if you have seen Taranatino's "Kill Bill" or Jet Li's "Jing wu ying xiong" (aka "Fist of Legend"), you are bound to find an abundance of visual and plot parallels.
Imperfect as it is, "Fist of Fury" has established itself as a source of inspiration for both directors and actors of later time.
|Page 1 of 2:|| |