Reviews written by registered user

Send an IMDb private message to this author or view their message board profile.

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
11 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Good movie (especially for a first time director), 16 January 2004

In short, a very interesting movie. Why? 1) Good combination of different genres (comedy, thriller, mystery, romance, drama, documentary etc.). 2) Good acting 3) Good music (Nina Simone enchants) 4) Interesting story (real life, depth, actuality)

OK, I understand some critics related to this movie. Most are true but still, the movie leaves its mark when you leave the cinema.

The movie has some strong similarities with the directing and films of John Sayles (see Long Star, Men with Guns etc.). Great that there are more Sayles like directors around these days.

Looking forward to the other upcoming Malkovich movies!


1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Overrated movie, 25 December 2003

This movie doesn't live up to the hype at all. Ok, the scenes are beautifully shot, the martial arts are great, the music is very good, the references are interesting BUT....the story is very thin and the violence is really over the top. Maybe people are desensitized and need this kind of violence to feel again. I feel sorry for that. Is it necessary to show it to underscore the enormous anger and revenge of the leading character? I don't believe so.

I prefer Reservoir Dogs en Pulp Fiction....less shallow and more complete.


Interesting, shocking and badly understood, 30 December 2002

One of the most provocative and original movies in 2002 (for me though). Not the best but definitely one to watch. Why? 1) It arouses lots of emotions 2) Good acting and directing 3) It shows the fragility of life, of the very very small difference between white and light on the one hand (referring to the final scene in the movie) and black and darkness on the other hand (referring to the first scenes and the nightlife). This juxtaposition of light and darkness epitomises in the final shot in which we see only a flashing strobo light. This light shows the fragility of life for me. Time can destroy some lives in less than a second. 4) It is about human nature indeed: the positive and the negative combined. It is about normal human beings getting lost in their pain and anger. Shown in a disturbed camera style like in the movie Sombre. 5) It also shows the delicate and subtle between love and hate as Marcus says and does almost the same things to his girl Alex as does the rapist. This is what is so striking in this movie. 5) The role of fate and (profetic) dreams.

OK, the story is quite simple but the details and the effects of the storystelling are convincing for me. Indeed, I would rate it a 9/10.

By the way, time destroys everything might refer to the second law of thermodynamics in physics :-) Entropy increases with time, this is certainly the case in this movie.

Mostly unoriginal but somehow very addictive tv-serie, 26 December 2002

Just saw the first seven seasons in a row... Interesting tv serie but it lacks some originality as it easy borrows material from films and series like 'V' (many aspects), Twilight Zone (quite some episodes), Twin Peaks (conspiracy, supernatural events, hidden agendas), James Bond (Q -> Lone Gunmen), Speed ('Drive'), Groundhog Day ('Monday') and others.

The strength of the serie is in: - the good combination of proven successful stories and concepts (see above) - effective combination of one time stories and underlying, holistic episodes

Personally, I prefer the holistic episodes as they are more intriguing, complex and dynamic.

It is sad that the latter seasons are less exciting than the first seasons.

6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
The basis for Tierra, Sex and Lucia and Los Amantes, 12 August 2002

Great movie. It grabs you from the start, exciting...a bit obvious at some moments, lots of symbolism, power plays and psychological projections. I saw the movie on video, but I believe this one is definitely one for the big screen. It is enchanting. The end of the movie is a little bit farfetched and overdone (unlike the better Tierra, Los Amantes and Sex and Lucia (my personal favorite)) but this is only a minor comment.

Great to know that Medem will be delivering more inspiring movies :-)))

9 out of 10.

A shadow of the original movie!, 23 July 2002

Personally I believe this movie is a ripoff relative to the original movie. The original was great, amazing and engaging. Additionally, the acting and music was much better than in Vanilla Sky (except for 2 Radiohead songs which embody the weirdness and disconnectedness of the movie). Tom Cruise en Penelope Cruz just aren't convincing in this movie. Also, after the Hollywoodization of the original we can witness more explicit explanations, more sentimental notions, more patriotic ideas and more cliches. The mystery of the movie has been minimized for the masses.

A shame.

2 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
Interesting but not a classic to me, 23 July 2002

Interesting movie (especially for 1973) but not a classic. Good acting, decors, humor and symbolism. A movie about solitude, emptiness, disconnectedness, decadence, longing and escapism (sex, food).


Panic Room (2002)
Fincher regresses after Fight Club and Seven, 25 April 2002

Personally I believe that Panic Room is less complex and developed relative to Fight Club and Seven. I must admit that it is a interesting story (at least in the beginning) with enough 'scare-potential' and the FX and direction are great. Main issues for me though are: - Shallow story (no reference to eternal or sociatal issues) - Story becomes predictable and a drag at some moments in the film

- Not a memorable experience like Seven or Fight Club, it is more like bubblegum

Overall, 6,5/10

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Not shallow at all (SPOILER included), 21 April 2002

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Personally I believe this is a great movie. Not shallow at all as some reviewers say. Why? Because it deepens the relevance of constructivism in real and future life. Because it is about dealing with the past and karma in a reasonably subtle way (the end should have been a bit less explicit I agree).

The main character is shallow and goes insane (and stays all further virtual deaths and reincarnations). It is only so because his inner soul is rotten and is not dealt with. Salvation will be there only if he accepts true friendship, love and hope. Otherwise he stays shattered and searching for (unreal) happiness.

Open your eyes is a multi-layered description of this movie. Open your eyes concerning your own past, concerning the role and influence of media (and false promises) and concerning the (positive and negative) interpretations all of us make everyday. Therefore, I enjoyed this movie in a spiritual way.

People who love this movie, I strongly recommend films from directors Medem (Tierra, Los Amantes and above all Sex and Lucia) as well as Almodovar (Live Flesh, Todo Sobre mi Madre).

9/10 - memorable plot and movie. Unfortunately, the enchantment within the movie was lacking or minimalistic. Can't have it all right? ;-))

5 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Very interesting concept, but inadequate execution, 17 April 2002

After seeing all the reviews, I must say that my opinion is mixed. On the one hand, the plot and concept of the movie are very interesting and surprising. On the other hand, the form and style of this movie are blurry and slow/repetitive at certain moments. It is true that this movie needs to been seen at least twice to fully appreciate its intricacies. It's a family thing and somehow it is a combination of Miikie Takashi's Visitor Q, Seven and Silence of the Lambs.

Overall, I would say 7/10.

I would recommend Frailty (2001) from Bill Paxton to people who like this plot.

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]