Reviews written by registered user
|29 reviews in total|
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011) The certainly most famous
detective of all times returns in an action packed adventure of lies
and treachery. Holmes and his side kick Watson are trying to assemble
bits and pieces of a puzzle to find out the identity of the person who
is behind terrorist attacks, that took place in Europe, and foil his
After watching over half an hour, trying to find out where all this was going, I found myself closing my eyes (unwillingly) for a couple of minutes, because of boredom, simply bad slapstick comedy and more then horrendous storytelling. The Screenplay is predictable, yet ununderstandable, trying to hard on creating a suspenseful script a la Robert Ludlum. Nevertheless, after an hour we get to know where the screenwriter wants to take us, but the beginning is just messy.
The Direction and the photography (technically speaking) have pros and contras - I appreciated a lot the use of tripods and other technical devices like travelling or steady cam to get some clean still shots at the actors and make the action more comprehensible. Specially nowadays, that most Hollywood action movies are shot with shaky cam. Simply embarrassing. - Less appreciated, was the fact of non innovative narrating, everything is as we expect it to be. The fighting sequences are rather slow, using multiple slow motions, way over used and sometimes repeating the same action too often which kills the surprise effect
The editing is likable in most non violent sequences. During the fights, it is flashy and unbearable at most. Already seen jump cuts in the time motion makes the action anything else then fluid. The rhythm of the whole narration is rather deceiving, boring and maybe too distracting sometimes.
The actors did quite well. But I wouldn't throw flowers on the stage either.
I am not wise in special effects but they are mostly well done and I must admit that I was quite impressed in the forest bombing sequence. The Time Motion jump cut was rather pleasant, I would even say needed if not, actually impressive in that sequence.
Anyway, Guy Ritchie has proved to me once more, that he is a very talented director who lost it all after Snatch. Not even with a Blockbuster, bearing the name of one of the most respected Man on earth ever, was he capable of returning to his magnificence of filmmaking. For me, Guy is a one hit wonder and will always be. 4 out of 10 for an unmemorable movie, but a plus for one impressive sequence.
Paul It is nothing more then a very typical road movie. It all takes
place in the United States and involves two comic creators from the UK
that go on a trip, sightseeing the important places where apparently
extraterrestrial life form has been sighted. They accidentally meet a
quite unique, English speaking, swearing, funny little alien, named
Paul. All three embark on a journey to save his life, while he is being
hunted down by the government. Of course We all know lead us to,
friendships develop, they struggle and fight, fall in love for a girl,
etc, etc, etc. Bla Bla Bla.
I can't really say much about the screen writing nor the direction or the photography and the editing in this film as it is quite simple and fit to tell the story perfectly. Nothing that is worth being mentioned or even criticized.
The only thing I might throw in as a devastating critique, is the fact of trying to convince us so hard that the belief in something so extraordinary like God is wrong or simply pathetic. I am not saying that I am believer, but I am not the opposite either. I accept: saying something is not true, while having the proof. And saying there is nothing more absolute then Darwin's theory (evolution, etc), is kind of childish. Specially when nowadays scientist still struggle to find out what is what and are still uncovering facts that might reject the Darwinish theory completely. Nothing is as it seems. And an alien of such knowledge would know that better then us humans.
I was not bored with the movie, I was not really laughing, but mildly entertained. Average for me 5 out of 5 even though there is a quite interesting and un expected turn in the movie. Good for boring Sundays.
Peur(s) du noir / Fear(s) of the Dark A collection of 6 different,
animated, black and white tales where fear is the main protagonist.
Now each tale has a different story to tell, but they all capture quite well, one of our most primal instincts. Fear. And this is delivered through some rather pleasant animation, each one in a different style and also different tone. Those, I would call them somehow modern fairy tales, are located in a different time and space continuum from one another. So you are never at the same place twice.
You should be experienced in watching independent cinema and maybe be a lover of animated movies.
These shorts make you think, make you ponder, make you actually wonder, what is it that I fear most? Not really scary but worth a watch for those who have a romantic heart. 6 out of 10 is my vote.
Being John Malkovich: The attempt to portray the life of an
internationally known actor, through the eyes of random people, makes
this story unbelievingly funny. Even though I sense that the meaning of
all this, might be: "we should not interact into other peoples lives,
or businesses" , I therefore think that the movie itself made quite
well. You should be someone accustomed into viewing, strange and
bizarre stories. The start maybe what seems to be a typical drama
regarding a looser puppeteer living with his wife and some animals. We
actually get caught into their lives till one day our protagonist finds
a secret portal to Being John Malkovich. Starts out to be a realistic
movie but the deeper you get the stranger and surreal it gets.
A very well written screenplay in which the information is passed onto us through different characters in different ways. Meaning: We know exactly as much as the protagonist, we know more the some characters and we certainly know way less then someone else.
This brings me to the editing, which is good for it's purpose. It get's the story running, never makes you feel bored and has a good rhythm as well as some pretty interesting cuts.
I would say the directors choice of using two different visual styles, depending on who he focused, makes the story much more understandable as well as funny, some, but far from being really innovative, the screenplay, again makes it so different.
Acting wise great. Each actor knows exactly the character they have to be and how to make them believable.
All in one, I'd give it a 7 out of 10, for being absurdly funny, unrealistically true and above all entertaining, leaving you a quite indescribable aftertaste after watching the movie.
The invention of lying: Starts like a simple comedy, but in the first
few minutes we learn that the world, which is being portrayed in this
feature film, is not the world we live in. The screenwriters opted for
a world in which lies do not exist. Everybody tells the truth and says
what they really think. In the end it tends to be a little bit boring
because of the turn that the movie takes. A typical romantic comedy in
an utopic world.
Great screenplay, with marvelous humor, in which every character is completely honest. Seldom I sensed so many replies that gave a movie a unique feel. Unfortunately as the story unfolds after the big turn, it all gets somehow predictable and boring in the last 40 to 30 minutes of the movie.
Simple direction, not much more needed. The story is told in a quite classic technical way of directing but gets the job done. Same thing with the editing.
Actors: I loved them, specially Mr. Gervais whose apathy way made him more believable as a the character Bellison and his English accent added the special and even final touch to those funny sentences left behind in this movie.
All in one I'd give it a 6 out of 10 because it was a nice fresh wind in the screenplay writing and because it keeps you entertained for nice and simple comedy. The 4 remaining points are because of the predictable last half an hour.
I think we all know what this movie is about, but yet I don't
understand the purpose of such a film.
A high standard call girl is in a relationship with a personal fitness-trainer. She goes out with some clients, dinner, talking, almost never sex.
Steven Soderbergh, a famous director with only a few good movies, was in charge of such a disgrace to cinema,
There is no screenplay, the dialogues have no consistency and don't contribute anything to the non existing story, there is only one main character and a second. There is no character development. The direction (excuse me if I say so) is f***** up. The cinematography was an amateurish intention of being professional. I understand natural lighting, but I don't understand how a full team accepts totally out of focus shots throughout, almost half of the movie and having a digital camera on automatic. I think the editor was more than frustrated to edit a movie like this. Honestly in my point of view, there was nothing to edit, they could've changed all the footage, put the order the other way around, it wouldn't have done any difference because it's outcome would be the same.
In the end I was just watching Sasha Greys pornographic performances which were way better then what she accomplished in this masterpiece of boredom.
Once the movie was finished I just noticed that the movie hasn't even started. I shall give Soderbergh a lesson in cinema, for sure he'll learn something interesting from me.
This french thriller has nothing of a thrill but a sleeping pill. If
you want to go to bed watch this movie. It'll do you some good.
A cop who's partner (boss) and friend of his, gets killed, He wants vengeance and does so infiltrating a drug dealer gang who transports Drugs from Marocco to France. Basically nothing you haven't seen before
Story wise... I thought the story was more then typical, full of clichés. All the characters actually are the same, no emotions at all. They all do speak a few words and nothing more. Only the girl does some acting but then, for me it seemed over acted. Like she tried to hard. The direction of the movie is a plain disaster in means of originality. It's typical nice shots and usual shots, mostly blurry by the way (new way of docu style maybe), it was intentional, therefore it doesn't work as an artistic visual asset. The editing may be the only good thing, but then you ask yourself: Was there anything more to edit and who edited it? Editor or director? Basically the magic of editing is the rhythm of a movie and this one fails. No rhythm at all.
The music itself might have been a good asset, but I thought the directors choice in putting the music where he believed it belonged was just wrong. Most of the movie no music at all and when there should have been, there wasn't and when u expect no music, there is. I have the original soundtrack which is a masterpiece when you ride your car, but in the movie all this art from the hand of Agoria Dj, was butchered.
In my opinion if you want something new with a lots of speed and action packed road flick, I still recommend Mad Max (the original first movie). Leave this one out cause even bad teen romantic comedies are better.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This movie is just as fascinating as staring at a wall. I will tell you
exactly what this movie is about and how everything just happens.
Wannabe secret agent meets Massacre secret agent. Wannabe secret agent walks around with flower pot full of heroin or coke while Massacre secret agent kills unknown people. They get to places and Massacre secret agent keeps killing. You never really get to know why. Then Mr. Wannabe secret agent breaks the flower pot and Massacre secret agent keeps on killing people with no apparent reason. One car explodes and when you think that no police will have an appearance in this so very realistic movie... well. SURPRISE. Some cops appear for a whole 5 second sequence. Guess what for. Exactly so they can die on an explosion, then another car explodes, one car chase with Massacre secret agent with bazooka killing the mastermind of a terrorist act on the road plus in some political meeting the wannabe secret agent is looking for his girlfriend who is part of the terrorist group. Very plausible and yes very real indeed. One of my faves to put on the top 5 as worst movies ever.
I don't want to spoil the end because it is such an interesting story, it's just amazing how a big amount of money is wasted on such a piece of pure artistry. Pure talent wasted their time for creating one of the most mind blowing action pieces of boredom. I thought Avatar was going to be the worst but I think I mistook myself. if I could give it a minus ten I would but unfortunately I don't live in a world where my word means something.
After downloading this movie I am going out to buy it on DVD. I was
very pleased with it.
A Spanish - french production that portrays the more than typical story of the little boy afraid of the dark. Tipical? Maybe. But after you watch it you can be sure to be submerged into a childs world of spookiness and pure visual poetry. The story unfolds as stars start disappearing. So the boy meets the cats shepherd, whose purpose you will learn during watching this delightfull film, who will help little Tim (the boy) to go on a journey throughout the night. As the world is being devoured by what Tim fears most. He must struggle together to save the night.
I wouldn't say a touch of Tim Burton, but definitely this typical french and Spanish touch of Gothic visual in which nothing is straight but curvy and angled. A very pleasant eye catcher is the architecture of buildings in this little piece of art. It is what makes the whole ambiance plus the different light scalings and brightnesses. This movie is mostly in a blue tone which emphasizes more the suspense of darkness.
In the end it unfolds to be very predictable somehow but still a Wow for the lovers of old visual poetry as I use to call it.
Reminds me of summer nights looking up in the sky and staring at the stars with a full moon and some nice mellowy clouds.
I love Tykwers work because in comparison to other spectators I do
appreciate his feel for cinematography and his touch of originality and
unexpected, above all unpredictable turns and plot constructions in the
screenplays. Second, the camera is his eye and he does explore a lot
with this and exploit it also to maximum in his movies.
But let's be honest: the international was his worst film so far. Typically new intelligent Hollywood. Nothing interesting in there, slow as hell, no sentence, in my point of view, that a makes a hell of sense to me and technically, direction, camera, special effects, editing quite uninteresting. Only the acting gets some credit from my side.
Once you see that film you you will get to the conclusion that anybody averrage director made this film. No signature of Tykwers in this one. I think he lost originality for good, once he turned to Hollywood budget film-making. Another wasted talent in the big bad industry of cinematography.
|Page 1 of 3:||  |