Reviews written by registered user
|1159 reviews in total|
_The Most Painful : Indisputably, Sandra Bullock's looks. Why the queen
of natural beauty on screen, turns into another Botox freak in real
life ??!! It's aching that she looked, all the time, exactly like
Morgan Fairchild in (Holy Man 1998). Yes, when Eddie Murphy was
electrifying her !
_The Most Red : Emma Watson. Sure she cast the wrong spell while doing her make-up !
_The Most Funny : Although I'm not a fan of her, but Ellen DeGeneres proved, as an Oscar night host, that she's better than Hugh Jackman, Steve Martin, James Franco, Anne Hathaway, and that Family Guy guy !
_The Most Smart : The idea of "The most re-tweeted image". It's not only a smart idea, but also a unique and happy moment.
_The Best Line : Jared Leto's to his mom "Thank you for teaching me to dream".
_The Worst Line : Kevin Spacey's to us "Steve Martin's comedy keeps us laughing AND THINKING" ??? Well, that part keeps me thinking of laughing !
_The Most Strange : Steve Martin's honorary Oscar in the first place !!!
_The Most Shameful : That 2017 film museum. If my eyes don't trick me; it's clearly penis-shaped !
_The Most Flawed : We have a tie. Firstly, Pink's performance of "Over the Rainbow". Despite her effort, her short breathe disappointed parts of the song. And secondly, Idina Menzel's performance of "Let It Go"; where at one point her singing lost sync with the music.
_The Most Divided : Showing the photos of the "In Memoriam" segment on some piece of music, THEN hearing Bette Midler singing "Wind Beneath My Wings". Why not gathering the 2 matters together ?!
_The Most Horrible : Cate Blanchett's Dress. For the second time, after the Oscar night of 2011, she wins in that category. That thing she wore was more like a colorless long floor rag that recently wiped the splinters of a broken cheap chandelier !
_The Most Wise : Matthew McConaughey's speech of "I'll never be my hero". This is poetry. Sweet and deep poetry.
_The Most Nasty : Director Steve McQueen's kissing mania after winning the best picture award. I was screaming : "Dude, stop kissing all the men on the lips !"
_The Most Gawky : Jennifer Lawrence for bringing up the issue of some ones laughing on her, or else, backstage !! Baby, don't care and let the show go on, otherwise you're gawky. And sorrowfully you confirmed it !
_The Most Wicked : Director Alfonso Cuarón's mistake when he said "The wise guys in Warner Bros.", then corrected it to "The wise people in Warner Bros.". I bet, Mr. Cuarón's mistake there, was intentional more than unintentional !
_The Most Magical : The real hard work behind every single detail runs on that stately stage. I have to salute that army of unknown soldiers whom perfectly collaborate to make this night as perfect as it can be.
Eventually, the Oscar night is still cool show to watch. And in this case; we are the winners.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This is the first movie by (Mohamad Shebl) whether as a writer or a
director. (Shebl)'s dream was making Egyptian horror movies, and from
1981 to 1992 he directed 4 movies, and 12 documentaries, before his
death in 1996 while he was just 47-year-old.
The story, which he co-wrote with (Tarrek Sharara) and (Hassn Abd Raboo), is about 2 young lovers. A girl (played by Mounna Gbbr) and her fiancé (played by Ali El-Haggar). Both of them were on their way to a party of the new year's eve, but their car had an accident, and they found no where to go except a strange castle. They met there with many vampires led by count Dracula (played by Ahmed Addawya) who instantly fell in love with the girl, wanting her for himself. The 2 lovers discovered that Dracula is in Egypt in so many forms and images (doctor, taxi driver, plumber.. etc) to suck not the people's blood but their money, as the typical profiteer of our modern days. During some conflict between Dracula and one of his ambitious assistants (played by Tal'tt Zean), the 2 lovers, with Dracula's mutineer servant (played by Haddey Saddekk), managed to open all the windows, let the daylight enter; burning all the vampires, and get free at last.
The movie's goal was easy; a cynical satire (close to caricature) towards Egypt after the 1970s, with all the economic chaos and social upheaval, all in a form of a musical horror. But the script wasn't that good. It abbreviated all what it has to say in that sequence in the movie's middle, so directly and out of the fantasy mood. For example I still ask : why the rest of Egypt's Draculas weren't invited in the castle ?, this way the movie should have been less direct and disintegrated. And why when you want to give a little info about Dracula, spell out the whole thing ?! Questions like these !
Aside from the weakness of the script, the budget was too low to be seen, the masks weren't scary, the dance numbers were too poor and too long, the direction was excessively exotic sometimes, while doing plenty of technical mistakes, and the pace suffered from strong sense of boredom. So it was somehow a semi-nightmare itself, and the ugly reputation caused by a lot of bad reviews wasn't fake. However, despite these many problems (Anyab) is, believe it or not, a real exceptional movie in the history of the Arabic cinema. It's the first movie about Dracula, a musical horror with satire, and something which nobody has ever tried to make before or after.
The intention of making a different cinematic taste was on. So you'll have cartoon birds with the live image, a bit of the comic books' style, clever droll soundtracks with the appearances of Dracula's copies in the daily life.. etc. Plus more than one tribute. One for (The Rocky Horror Picture Show 1975) when we see (Tal'tt Zean) wearing a T-shirt with its poster on it. Another for (Youssef Chahine), the iconic Egyptian director, as one of (Shebl)'s idealsthat when we watch a bit of (Chahine)'s (Iskanderija.. Lih?) or (Alexandria.. Why?) (1978). Btw, all of (Shebl)'s documentaries were about (Chahine).
There are good moments : The funny details of the vampires' dinner. Some mockery at (Christopher Lee) by Dracula himself. The narrator (who's out of the story) is furiously having a big discussion with Dracula (who's in the story !) about the actual existence of vampires in the contemporary society. The comic sketches about the many "Draculas" whom we met daily, and how they torture the helpless us successfully by their unstoppable greed; being the hungry Fangs of the factual life. The happy ending as a dreamy song under the pyramids at dawn. And the shocking last scene; when the narrator tells us that "Good beats evil.. every time" while he takes off his face to see how he was another Dracula all along (This is the most memorable moment of this movie and its smartest touches ever).
The movie's musical creation was unique, impressive, and so fresh for its time. It's composed by the (El-Emam) brothers, (Mody) and (Hassen), who appear briefly in the end as the maestros. Although the movie's main 3 stars (Ali El-Haggar), (Ahmed Addawya), (Tal'tt Zean) are mainly singers, and the female lead actress (Mounna Gbbr) is a TV announcer, but they all were above average and delivered nice acting. Add to them (Haddey Saddekk), a newcomer back then, as the aggrieved hunchbacked servant, and of course the great cinema director (Hassn El-Emam), (Mody) and (Hassen El-Emam) father, as the narrator with his original wit.
Actually great ambition is a very small word to describe this movie. The idea of having a singing Dracula in the Egyptian cinema is quite odd in the early 1980s (and till now !). Therefore (Anyab) or (Fangs), with all of its troubles, is a rare work, very bold experiment, and cinematic adventure more than a movie. It was done by a group of talented young artistes to challenge and change the Egyptian movies at the time. Still ambition is not the only factor to pull it off. However, among all the dreamy movies of the present Egyptian cinema, I extremely miss the insurgent spirit that made such a crazy nightmare !
This will not be a review; rather a talk from the heart. I remember
that I have watched Blanche through the second channel of our national
TV, where it used to be aired early in the morning. I remember that was
around 1996 or 1997, back when I was a teen. And I remember that I fell
in love with (Pascale Bussières)'s image as (Blanche Pronovost) !
I adored every second of her. It was very sad watching a scene that didn't have her. I was fascinated by her sparkling eyes, cute face, and smooth voice. Not to mention her decorous costumes, and that oblique hat. I wished running into her, or any other girl like her, to live into those eyes, forever !
(Blanche Pronovost) wasn't less good. I can't forget her painstaking character, or her struggle with the priest, which was in fact a struggle between science and religious fanaticism. When they fought over which to build first; a hospital or a church, I still memorize her line: "Without hospital; you won't find prayers for your church.", what a great logic !
So I loved Blanche; the TV series, Blanche; the character, but not (Bussières) anymore. Strangely, after watching her in some photos from the series before writing this, I found out that she doesn't have any effect over me now. I even questioned myself "So this is who bewitched me once ?!". Maybe my taste differed. Or maybe hearts are illogical anyway !
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This is not another "Adam Sandler disappointment"; as he used to
deliver lately. Sure I laughed, many times too. His character isn't the
only funny one. The movie has a lot of funny characters, done by nice
cast. For instance, Guy Pearce, in his first comedy I think, gave an
attractive performance. And I loved the 2 kids. They were adorable and
gifted. Even Russell Brand, who I usually can't stand, did wonderful
moments. The comedy has nothing to do with Sandler's very well known
type of adult jokes (which I, as adult, madly hate !). The bedtime
stories were various, and their CGI was lavish. So based on the above,
my verdict is : Lovely Movie !
Now I'll leave the keyboard to my alter ego, the number 1 nasty points' seeker on IMDb..
There is a great disturbance in the force.. sorry.. in the script. If it's a fantasy, then what's the source of fantasy in the story ? Why nearly all of the kids' imagination comes true ? Being one of the "I'll relay on myself, not magic" movies, then from where that magic comes ?!! Apparently, the movie didn't care whatsoever about that point, which caused deep confusion, and didn't leave much to the lead character to challenge. NASTY POINT THAT IS !
In fact, that script doesn't care about many other things. Take a list : How come that the hotel's owner's daughter, played by Teresa Palmer, was the heroine of Sandler's first fantasies, knowing that we didn't see him fond of her in real life since the start ? The hotel's owner is ready to give the whole management to just a sincere handyman ??! Sandler's presentation was nothing but a hoax. Yes, he talked warmly, but without real idea or specified theme. Brand's character suddenly loves Palmer for no reason but seeing her in a bikini ?! (knowing that Palmer is horribly skinny.. Paris Hilton skinny !). And last but not the least, tell me one reason makes the old high school bitches feel sad when they see Russell in Sandler's arms ?! Especially when they include who we'll know later as a successful powerful woman ! NEW NASTY POINTS !
The end is supposed to be happy, but the one I watched was happy in outrageous and forced way. The matter of "can't call him on the phone to tell him stop the demolition" was fabricated; just like the 2 kids sneaking into the school minutes before the demolition. And if I forgave that, how can I forgive the matter of Sandler, who never drove a motorcycle in his life, riding that motorcycle like the world's best biker ??! Pearce's character ends up as a waiter ? Why he descended to the bottom like that ?! And how come that Palmer marries poor Brand in the end ?? Well, this too happy ending is against the movie's moral, concerning relaying on yourself not magic, since it solves everything with magic ! MORE OF NASTY POINTS !
Despite not finding any readable proof, I bet that many scenes were shot digitally. It's disastrously shown in many moments, where the digital image is a bit lazy and badly bright. It discomforted me during the viewing, if not the movie's comedy before me. And finally, how that movie wasn't rated R for horrific images ? (Doesn't Courteney Cox's face freak you out ? It freaks me out !). So based on the above, my verdict will be : NASTY MOVIE !
Bedtime Stories is an elegant, well meaning and funny movie. Faulty at times, and too sugary at others. However eventually manages to be some empty fun. And we need that from time to time (Ok, me and my alter ego had an agreement !).
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
"Ok, when will it end?", "No, really.. When Will It End?", "Be
Overrrrrrr!", "This is enough", "This is more than enough !", "I'm a
good dude, so why I'm punished with things like this ??!", "What are
the lyrics of A Day In The Life of a Fool ?!", "Watching this, is like
a Life of a Fool already !!", "So, why Maggie Simpson isn't given any
much of a role in The Simpsons ?!", "Btw, doesn't it bother you when
all the family is having an action scene, and Maggie isn't there ?! You
have to ask yourself where was she ? How they left her alone ? Did they
let her with Flanders ? And if yes, does that happen frequently ?",
"What are the lyrics of A Day In The Life of a Fool ?!", "Grrrr, you
said that before !", "Oh God, even my inner monologue becomes boring
!", "Clearly this movie's bore is CONTAGIOUS !!"
Well, that was me while watching Dark Water. Sorry. Dark DAMN Water !
So this is a Horror ?! Last time I checked, Horror movies are supposed to be thrilling and scary. But this one isn't this or that. It's not even tame Horror. It is not a Horror in the first place !
All the deal is about the horror of unseen, very kind, child, a school bag that doesn't go away, and needing desperately a plumber ! I don't know why many potential ideas weren't utilized. I mean the janitor character could have looked creepy, instead of mixed up, weak-kneed, and sometimes faint-hearted ! The movie could have had good jolts, not all obvious, anticlimactic, and frankly bad ones !! There was no creativity whatsoever in terms of old, new, or rather found shocking moments. Unless they thought that seeing a splotch in the ceiling is enough horror !!
Hence, you can say that the script didn't make any decent effort. But what could you say if knew that the directing didn't make any decent effort either ?!!!!!!
The director must have been working under massive dose of sleeping bells. I won't say that he was as dead as the ghost child in the movie. Actually No. That child was so lively compared to him !
It's enraging when the directing doesn't make anything effective (or doesn't make anything !). How many moments that weren't treated fairly in this movie ? Nearly the whole thing ! "In a horror movie, you're supposed to frighten." It's in the "Genre Movies for Dummies". So how come that director didn't read it ?! True that being un-scary in a scary movie; is a problem. But when the pace slips away too, it's a disaster ! Review my inner monologue again to get the full picture !
Furthermore (yes, there is more !), I couldn't understand why the movie was deliberately perplexing at some points. For instance, if the intro's little girl from the year 1974 is our heroine as a child, so how come she's in the picture of the upstairs' family ?! Hmmm, maybe that's because the heroine sees herself in that very child. But how she felt the bond with her that early, without hearing her story ?! Plus, seeing that from the heroine's point of view, from start to finish, sure misled the viewers to think that those neighbors are related to her someway. I guess the movie-makers thought "Ok, mislead them. Maybe that would compensate for the lost horror !!". Another matter, when the heroine is in the haunted building's elevator for the first time, she feels something weird under her hand, and the janitor wonders, as if he saw Jesus Christ, "OH MY GOD!!". The thing is the movie doesn't explain what did she feel ? And the same can be said about the janitor's astonishment, knowing that he till the end had no idea what the heck was going on ?! So, what was that "OH MY GOD!!" for, especially while all what he saw was just a woman standing alone in an elevator ???!!!!
The possible pros : (Jennifer Connelly)'s presence and performance. She was exhausting, deeply agonized, confused, and struggling to smile all along. Her truthfulness earned the movie something solid. (Ariel Gade), as the daughter, was into the point as innocent and vague. Despite their swift appearances, and the fact of them as catchy names on the poster only, (John C. Reilly) and (Tim Roth) did fine. Yet, the best of the movie was in its last 10 minutes, when all the factors made their long-awaited "descent effort". It was when this movie remembered its old goal, and finally turned into a Horror !
The real lost in this movie wasn't that child. It was the craftsmanship of making that child's story work as something any thrilling or scary. Therefore, the sole horror in Dark Water was its bore. And oh boy, was it greatly done ?!
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Since the start of the 1950s, Hollywood knew that the rock n roll
generation would be big part of the moviegoers. That became a method
since the late 1970s, with the super success of Star Wars (1977), to
promulgate that the viewers between 18 and 32 years old are Hollywood's
target audience. Hence let's make as voluminous and happy dreams as we
can to entertain the heck out of them, so they can escape from their
daily life's problems. Now, this small film from Japan is for that very
demographic, yet for making them face their daily life's problems.
You won't find actual drama, or conflicting characters, just long dialog between a young woman and man, and successive images from a city, however loaded with heartfelt pains.
Phantom undresses the young person's self in a big contemporary city (Tokyo in the film), for nothing but undressing the human in today's developed civilization. It has great eye for the little details; whether in the urban life or the intellectual or psychological reaction towards it. The film's 2 talking characters express their deepest urban fears (forgetting her name; since everybody stopped calling her with. Or being chased by zombies; that don't take over him completely) which overall mirrors the fear of losing individualism, rather humanity, in and by the big city.
The script is extremely precise when it comes to count fears like these, or discussing them simply. And with fears come hopes, which the script deals with in the same way. The "she" character needs just a special dream, decent job, and some love. Because without them, she's a speedily aging ghost, doomed by not feeling anything or being felt by anyone.
The 2 characters are unnamed for more than one reason. Firstly, to feel yourself in them. And secondly, to indicate how crashed they are by that city, which almost obliterates their name or existence. There are many clever lines to root these meanings like "The real difficulty is to find a place in a world that does not necessarily have one for us". Or "Without noticing it, maybe we all become phantoms". As a whole, the dialog is memorable because of its truthfulness, and the way it philosophizes the urban tragedy in what seems as another ordinary chatter.
The script wasn't the film's only achievement, since the image proved a lot of uniqueness. Unlike another "long conversation of a film", like Before Sunrise (1995), the image runs in poetic mood some times, dream-like mood for other times. It managed to be as lost as the characters in that zombie city, embodying the hiding of the human (where all the dialogs are off screen, and most of the faces' shots are foggy), declaring frankly that the real "antagonist" in this "drama" is that 100 % material civilization, which feeds on souls by its wild rules.
I highly liked the sight of the 2 leads in many shots as random red lines or faint light pulses in the dark; translating the case of warm shadows which they turned into. The faceless lifeless mannequins are the most nightmarish reflection of that city's sociality in the film's conscience. Relating the conversation to one night, while seeing the 2 characters in night and daylight shots, says much about having the same conversation, thoughts, and feelings, for everyday. And while the plastic bag's dance in American Beauty (1999) represents a sense of rare natural beauty which you witness accidentally, the same dance here represents the fear of being weak, lonely and lost.
Yuki Fujita and Masato Tsujioka delivered sensitive vocal performance. They could bring up the innocence, confusion, and loneliness of "she" and "he". The pace is captivatingly meditative. The few yet fearful music tracks, being shown on long shots for murky streets and mute buildings, pictured the gravity of a city that absorbs its people's humanity. And you've got to love the final optimistic message "Things will work out"; indirectly, that's what will make this film a classic to watch for some !
As for the downsides, I have to say that the visuals required more study. For such a meaty dialog, it wasn't enough to display expired machines and men (the street hobos), running strangers with no faces, or off telephone receiver. Undoubtedly the image was poor compared to the dialog at times.
The image in the first 5 minutes was so primitive I was about to leave my seat. I believe it's not right to lose the attention of your viewer that early. Otherwise that was made for shock value, exclusively for the used-to-Hollywood-movies viewers, to alert them that "this is something else", however a bit loudly I think !
I hated the dialog's relief points, since they were nearly all nasty, limited in matters like farting, or sniffing butts !
Phantom pulled off being simple, deep, and fascinating. If you're a young man or woman who lives in a big city; you have to meet your reality, and more yourself in this film. It warns you of losing yourself to your big city, transforming into a ghost (maybe the "he" character is actually a night phantom since the start !). Therefore, you need this film, not to change your habituation of watching usual Hollywood movies, but to change your life itself.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Everything in this Tamil movie says how ambitious and industrious its
makers were. Clear that they wanted to make something so away from
ordinary or familiar. And they did it big time, with nearly all the
right factors. Just count with me..
The insane budget; it's really rare to watch an Indian movie which has something else singing, dancing, romance or comedy and had that amount of money. Some sites say that the budget was US$23 million, and others say US$40 million. But both ways I salute that practical believing in 1) something else the usual goods of Bollywood, 2) Sci-Fi.
The meticulous, smart and hot writing. Apparently, and compared to the majority of the Indian production, there was some hard work behind that script. The events are done with logic, the imagination is fresh, and the thrill is well made. It even manages to win a substance too, since it shows that perfection is scary, and conscience is hard to program in a machine, but not evil.
The excellent performance of (Rajinikanth), being the ideal that every movie star, rather every man, looks for while being a 60 years old (I think it's impossible for some to believe that he was at that age while shooting !). In his dual role, he delivered such a sedate performance, which amazed even no fan of him like me. And if you're accustomed to his body image in his previous movies, you'll know how he went to great lengths to look that lissome !
The mesmerizing directing. Director (Shankar) made an extraordinary cinematic fun which outclasses many many American sci-fi action movies. Enough to say that during the viewing I kept telling myself "This is where Bollywood says to Hollywood : Be afraid. Be very afraid !".
The CG images. I still can't imagine their superabundance (1,500 shots) or ripeness. For little instance, the gathering of the robot and its maker in one cadre, which recurred numerously, was done flawlessly, despite how they talk, walk, or dance together. Naturally, a herculean effort was spent behind every second in this movie.
The snappy yet sane editing. Unlike countless action movies today, it didn't go crazy while the action sequences. The action itself reached top standard. And the costumes were so elegant; which added a lot to the movie's impressive look. Originally, see how the movie's makers didn't shy seeking help from the genre's masters, with hiring (Woo-ping Yuen), the action choreographer in the Matrix and Kill Bill sequels, and also (Mary E. Vogt), the costume designer for the Men in Black series.
However, every giant has his foibles. I didn't like the music score in the third act. (A. R. Rahman) is a trademark for high quality I know, though the mix of huge orchestra, thunderous vocals, and solo trumpet was unattractive, silly and with playing it time after time boring too.
The editing lost some of its rationality in the third act. I thought the pace of it was too rash for its own good (I couldn't be convinced how the evil robot cloned himself that fast).
The street fights, while kidnapping the heroine by the evil robot, inclined to being surreal. For instance, no way none of those million bullets, shot by the police towards the bottom of the vertically turned over car, didn't hit (Aishwarya Rai) in the butt while sitting in it ! And sure the last fight dragged a bit, as if the CGI guys got cocky, and went to assure that they could do anything.
Casting (Santhanam) and (Karunas) as the inventor's funny assistants, and the movie's relief, was the sole casting mistake. They have no charisma, chemistry or talent for comedy. In another movie, those 2 characters could have served beautifully as Laurel and Hardy.
There was uncalculated-well violence; which could have been deleted, a slice of melodrama (like when the saved naked girl dies), and strange comedy (the somehow long and childish mosquito part). But while being not acceptable matters for the no Indian viewer, I think they somehow agree with the Indian viewers' taste. Exactly like the dance numbers, as fundamental ingredient of the entertainment's formula in the Indian cinema, knowing how their existence in any other sci-fi action, especially the Hollywood ones, is considered an unforgivable sin !
According to the fact that the Indian cinema produces more than 1000 movies per year, then this movie is a one in 10000 movies. Putting in mind its unbelievable image and box office success, it's safe to say that Enthiran is a revolutionary turning point in the Indian cinema's history, in terms of CGI and sci-fi popularity. And it's always a pleasure when you witness wild ambition gets wildly fulfilled like this.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Although it has a very nice idea, a very nice cast, a very nice
performance, but the final result isn't very nice.
In its first 10 minutes, this movie promises a hilarious comedy which it just doesn't fulfill. And the reason is in the script.
After those 10 minutes, the script immerses and immerses in long scenes and long talks. Yes, there are like 3 dances, a tree house that collapses over its people, stumbling into ants trap, and falling into swimming pool fully clothed, but all of that moving didn't help out such a static drama. There are characters, clear antagonism, however no real events. The characters talk more than do, which's not for the sake of this movie's conflict, or the sake of this movie as a movie. At times it felt like sitcom without laughs, at others with the LONG scenes it felt like a play. So the movie's vitality was taken away, which exported some tangible bore; and these are all not signs of comedy !
Furthermore, the characters seem so kind from the get-go, which weakens, rather kills, any conflict, and labels the drama as early predictable. Ask yourself : what did the characters really do to each other for winning what they want ? Nearly nothing. The movie lacks pranks, schemes, and catfights. Speeding a car after a deception of a car race, or wearing accidentally the same model, don't pass as conflicting or comic events ! Sure it doesn't utilize its own material cleverly, or sometimes at all. For instance, while the prom's father is fond of the bride's aunt, the script doesn't think of extending that line, even through running gags, because wait.. he's in love with his wife; which's a sanity this movie sorrowfully has much of. So according to the little spent effort, the heat was on for a few times, and off for most of the time. That's why it's not only predictable, but uninteresting too !
I hated some long unfunny scenes like the bride's dinner with her prom's family, or the soppy one in front of the refrigerator. In the latter, the 2 characters talk and cry and talk and make up and talk, in a boring "frozen" manner. Why not a key scene like that took place in a match, a garden with a lot of people, or a suicide attempt ?!
Then, it's hard to believe that the prom doesn't remember his bride from high school (where she used to be the cheerleader in his matches !). If the sister's video, as a beaten alligator, is already on Youtube, scoring 1 million viewings, why she didn't bother herself showing it to her brother since the start ? And while the bride sings pathetically in the rehearsal dinner, how come she turns into Mrs. Eminem all of a sudden ?!
The adorable (Jamie Lee Curtis) strips the lights off everybody, being the real laugh of this movie. I can't forget her reaction when she saw (Sigourney Weaver) for the first time, her alligator dance, or her chaos in the toilet; which's undoubtedly the movie's best scene. (Weaver) is great actress in no great role. (Victor Garber) is a heck of talent, presence, and wittiness that nobody pays fair attention to. (Betty White) is lovely in those horny hip grandma roles which she does a lot these days. That younger brother was memorable, with smart writing for his gags. And despite being the less shining, (Kristen Bell) and (Odette Annable) enjoyed me highly in the dinner room fight; where their reactions looked like no acting at all ! Well, overall the performance was truthful and delightful. And this was where the directing succeeded.
The soundtrack was deadly traditional and as the movie not that hot. Only bits of the music score worked, and Britney Spears' Toxic spread some needed liveliness. And I loved a sense of wisdom in the dialog, of which you can find in beautiful lines like "Nobody leaves High School safe !".
The movie's substance hits being rare and deep. Most of the movies represent the bully as the "evil guy" who must be vanquished in the end by none other than the once-bullied at "good hero". However this time, it's about the reconciliation between the bully and the bullied at, since simply they live in one world, and might meet in life again. So don't be an emotional terrorist, make peace with everybody, and avoid being revengeful since that destroys more than builds. The problem is that this movie wasn't clever when it came to "being revengeful" though !
(You Again) is elegant well-meaning movie, and boring predictable comedy. So bad when a comedy forgets its identity as a comedy, and ends up as smooth social commentary or chatty chick flick !
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This is so awful to stand. And director Michael Mann is the main Public
Enemy here !
The script, which Mann co-wrote, is deadly flat. It has a cat and mouse chase, only. And forget about the rest, any rest !
Who's the movie's John Dillinger ? He's a bank robber, in love, hates killing, AND THAT'S IT! Now imagine that that is considered a character compared to everybody else; like J. Edgar Hoover, Baby Face Nelson, etc. Look at FBI agent Melvin Purvis, it's the worst written character in history. He's damn empty, with no past, family, or mark. What the heck was written in the script ? "He looks, He orders, He walks, He runs, He shoots" ?? Neither the police squad officers, nor Dillinger's gang members, were distinct. The 2 teams were similar guys, who talk blandly; which added bore and unsolved muddle. So, clearly the script's method was : Don't make a good character, or a character in the first place !
Moreover, Dillinger used to be beaten by his father (so he became a criminal ?!). Purvis kills himself after capturing Dillinger (because he hated police brutality ?!!). Well, the movie is too slack to answer. However, even if, why to mention the matter of Purvis's suicide ?? To admit that you're too slack ?!!! Grrrrrr !!
Question : Dillinger, Purvis, Hoover.. what did transform in them between the start and the end ?! The answer : NOTHING! Knowing the hatred this movie planted in me, and aggrandized during the viewing, I had more character development than them !
The people love Dillinger as a public hero, so why is that ? The movie answers us "Go read history you morons, or watch better movies about the same era !". Dillinger stays at the home of 2 Romanian girls, so who are they ?! The movie answers us "Go to hell, I don't care !". One of Dillinger's shooters, hears his final words, but doesn't tell them to Purvis, so why is that ? The movie answers us "Guess it yourself, I have no time !". Again, this script doesn't want to be a script !
So after ruining the characters, motives, character development, explanations, why not the dialog too; which was uninspired and useless. Even the script's attempt to make a magical cinematic moment aborts; since Dillinger's visit to the Dillinger Squad offices seems like a fantasy, especially when no one looks at him, asks him for identity, and in inordinate move delays in telling him the running match's score !!!
Instead of repairing that stale script, Mann cared about shooting the movie not on traditional 35mm film, but on HD video, to be ALL digital. OK, give the man a break. He wanted to be new and revolutionary. But after watching the final result, please, you Mr. Mann, give us a break !!
The image is incredibly primitive; I don't recall a TV image that bad. The lights' reflection on the actors' faces is disastrous. You'll be deeply sad for the good reactions of Johnny Deep. That technique has such a cold effect which freezes the expressions. Yet the way it was used enhanced the catastrophe. OH GOD, I have never ever watched a director who was so fancy of shooting only the actors' faces like this before !!!! Mann overused the close-ups, which were unexpressive already, as if the plan was "Go to the eye, the nose, the ear !!!!". It gets boring and provocative with 140 minutes long. And as if that wasn't enough, he shook the camera non-stop, in a tipsy manner (which assured that the cameraman was incurable sot !), and created the ugliest, most random, cadres, overstepping realism to amateurishness ! The colors were between pale and dark, but I was sick by painting nearly everything with yellow. Whether to represent how the movie's time was old, or how the title characters' life was ailing; that was adolescent. And to make it perfectly adolescent, just watch the camera's shadow, so visible on- screen, too many times to count !
Is that your achievement Mr. Mann ?! Making an artistically poor, faces maniac, unceasingly tottering, sterilely expressive, idiotically yellow, and utterly amateurish image ?!! At one moment, Hoover talks to Purvis about the importance of arresting Dillinger, while Purvis looks way taller than Hoover. So what was the point of view, knowing that Hoover was the one in control ? But I would be the stupidest man alive if thought that the cinematography here could utter a thing ! And to die out of rage, you find critics who say "The picture was beautifully slick and realistic. The cinematography made the cars, headlights, street lights look marvelous" !!!! My only remark is : Who left the mental hospital's doors opened ?!!
Only during the sequence of Dillinger waving to his fans while transporting him to prison, and the scene where he was watching (Manhattan Melodrama), I felt I was watching something close to a movie. Still, Deep was the sole interesting factor in this who's-the-worst marathon. But regrettably all of his performance was violently wronged by that pedant cinematography and horrid directing. Actually, it's a shame that this movie contains shots from (Manhattan Melodrama). Watching them gives you the feel of someone glimpses a seductively grilled turkey, while being forced to eat a dirty hot dog sandwich !!
With that script, (Public Enemas) could have been a vapid Hollywood movie, but with that directing, it turned into worse : a vapid home movie (yet produced with truly wasted 100 million dollars !). Mann has the right to renew, and we have the right to tell him : You Failed. After watching the horrible (Miami Vice), I said maybe Mann hates his job. Now I'll say it frankly : he's vain or dumb.. namely awful both ways !
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Sometimes the Oscars and the film critics agree on one opinion.
Sometimes I disagree with that. This time is one of their biggest !
(The Departed) is a crime thriller. And coming from such an honored director such as Martin Scorsese guarantees thrill and possible substance. However it wasn't that excellent, and had many problems.
The time-line wasn't taken care of (suddenly, within 2 ordinary scenes, not even a respectable montage, a year passed by !). The doctor is falling in love with 2 police officers, where their second is undercover, and no one knows about it (their first, or the mob ?!!). While Jack Nicholson's character, Costello, is a mafia lord, who makes international arms deals, he's still running around the streets, collecting protection money (is he a mafia lord or a small time goon ?!!). Mark Wahlberg's character can't be the relief, can't be convincing, and to tell you the truth can't be bearable either ! The F word is given, every second, in a free and overabundant manner (their grand total was 237 !). Unlike Scorsese's other mafia movies, increasing the cursing or swearing wasn't made for the sake of enhancing a realistic atmosphere inasmuch as compensating the drama's weakness, which didn't happen. On the contrary, it added fakeness, bore and nervousness. And by god's name how a dangerous police mission, like sending a man undercover through the world of organized crime, is known by just 2 persons ?!?!?!!?!
Who told Leonardo DiCaprio that the movie was a comedy ? Because he acted exactly as if he was in one. By the way he looked and reacted, he was a scared mouse all along, so near of crying out loud "I'M A POLICEMAN, KILL ME AND PUT ME OUT OF MY MISERY !!!". Matt Damon isn't charismatic enough, talented enough, and hence veracious or right. I didn't hate his character, rather I hated him being unable to make me hate his character ! His flat face and cold reactions don't tell that he came from the bottom. Vera Farmiga is mediocre at times, and so bad at others. There is no love in her eyes, maybe tension and horror. There is not one atom of chemistry between her and her 2 co-stars. And there is no doubt that she seemed older than them ! Martin Sheen was icy as usual, but this time I can blame the script as well; obviously he had no character.
However, no one was more wrong than Jack Nicholson as Costello, to be the main course in this crap feast. Really what's worse than not understanding, feeling, or being persuaded by a character in a movie ?!! That Nicholson's Costello wasn't catchy, by any mean (and wasn't Irish either, by any mean !). And to add more fuel, Scorsese thought that talking dirty and loud, with some eccentric moves, make a unique evil gangster, but no such luck. So all the performance I watched ranged between Jack Nicholson's Joker of Batman, and Jack Nicholson himself acting vainly. Enough to recall his scene with DiCaprio, while he was suspecting the latter; which was a complete drollery instead of a master scene !
Speaking about farce leads directly to the movie's own substance. It's bogus. When Ray Winstone's character, who's by the way an underdeveloped character, says in bitter wisdom "A nation of rats..", you have to laugh sadly. "Laugh" since this is the script's way to insert policy or social commentary in this already unthrilling thriller. And "sadly" because this adolescence comes from someone used to be subtle like Scorsese. And it's the same adolescence which you find in the last scene with the rat (Ok, in regard to this, The Simpsons' Ralph Wiggum couldn't say it better : "It symbolizes obviousness !!"). As a whole, the way this movie was made, doesn't turn it into a tragedy about the distrust in post-9/11 America, however maybe a farce about the same subject, especially with the end's farcical massacre !
In his worst works, Scorsese is interesting. However here.. it is so bad I think ! His directing didn't win any artistic top; and it's a rare time when he makes something that doesn't impress or affect. As many of his movies it's fast-paced, but his sedate touch was missed. Originally, the script lacks the power of cogency, as if it has no time for anything, and gives us the news flashes only. So with frantic editing, the movie felt like a speedy trailer, becoming utterly delirious. Therefore any intended serious theme or satire came to nothing, and all what remained was mediocre crime thriller of which you don't enjoy much, and regretfully say after finishing "that could have been better."
All in all, in (The Departed) Martin Scorsese pulled off making uninteresting package of nervousness and adolescence, which has no relation whatsoever to his previous, and true, mafia epics like (Goodfellas) and (Casino). Although I may find explanations for choosing it as The Best Motion Picture of 2006 (America's bigwig critics are idiot, 2006's movies are horrible..), but I really don't know how the Academy gave Scorsese his first Oscar as a director finally for this "Bleep" epic of his !
|Page 1 of 116:||          |