Reviews written by registered user
|20 reviews in total|
Let's get one thing straight from the beginning: Teen Titans GO! is not
a reboot of the older and more mature TV show of the early 2000's.
Instead, TTG is a very entertaining mixture of usual superhero romp
(with the gratuitous violence) and self-deprecating humor, with
characters that represent several human foibles, especially when it
comes to how Robin is portrayed: as the power-mad leader of the Titans
who is capricious, eccentric, jealous, paranoid and spoiled rotten.
Most of the humor is the type of pie-in-the-face you find in cartoons
like Spongebob, but there are also plenty of jokes for us adults,
especially for those of us who grew up in the 80s. I also perceive a
libertarian streak in some of the writing; for instance the episode
"Nose Mouth" clearly shows the dangers of abusing a great power
(Raven's black magic) to fix apparent minor personality flaws in some
of the team members, with things getting out of hand the moment Raven
started to see problems to 'fix' around her which turns her into an
evil entity quite rapidly. That has to be one of the best analogies
about government abuse of power I have seen on a TV show.
Now I haven't seen the original show except in passing. I did read some of the comments from what I gather are very serious fans of the original talking trash about Teen Titans GO! These fans are taking things a little too seriously. Teen Titans GO! is obviously a comedy show which lampoons the original TT in particular and superheroes in general. In my view, if there was a bunch of superheroes that screamed for lampooning, it was the Teen Titans; the original characters themselves are quite ridiculous, especially the non-human Starfire and Raven which were invented back in the 80s as sensual überfrauen. In fact I think the new characters are much more attractive and endearing that the original characters precisely because of how each lampoons the older and ostensibly more serious characters. There is an obvious sexual innuendo in the way the original characters in Teen Titans were drawn and portrayed, and in Teen Titans GO! they simply make it obvious in order to make fun of this sensuality (for instance, watch episode "Legs" and "Mr. Butt".)
I do recommend the show and recommend you buy the DVDs. The comedy is very entertaining and funny - not always, but most of the time. The inside jokes are hilarious. The writers have much more creative freedom, thus the jokes and situations tend to push the envelope at many times.
You know you're watching an European movie when the director is trying
to make a point in the most convoluted way. While I was watching Coco
avec Chanel, I had the impression the director was trying to tell me
"This woman broke into a man's world and succeeded! See? She suffers!
Now, she enters their world! See? See?" What director Anne Fontaine
tries to say and what she actually puts in the screen are,
unfortunately, totally different things. I get to see that Gabrielle
("Coco"), who was left in an orphanage in her childhood by a father who
was poor as dirt, along with her sister, later become lounge singers;
and then Coco was able to break into a rich man's world by simple
whoring. I only received hints and instances of Coco's design genius in
between the parts where she arrives uninvited to her eventual lover's
house, as drab a person as a chambermaid, makes love to him, and then
to Arthur 'Boy' Chapel, and so on. She was (apparently) so much the
mold breaker for feminists all over that she started her business by
being bankrolled by her lover, who by the way, decided to marry an
Englishwoman for money. Well, nobody said this was a moral story, only
a feminist one.
But besides all of this, the movie is unremarkable and boring. It paces itself in such a way you can go to the kitchen to fix yourself a Dagwood sandwich and still not miss anything. As a chick flick it does not have the attractiveness of a straight love story, since one does not see exactly what Boy or Balsan sees in this wretch.
5 stars for me.
Utterly pointless thriller about a group of oil explorers working in
the Arctic (Alaska), looking for new drill sites, when an unknown force
is released and starts affecting the minds of each.
Ron Perlman gives a good performance as Ed Pollack, the unit's leader and supervisor. He is trying to obtain favorable environmental reports that will allow the oil company to place several wells and a pipe line. Unfortunately, several incidents puts the schedule in jeopardy.
This movie feels more like The Happening, except with a Global Warming backdrop. Instead of trees making people kill themselves, here it was the ghosts of animals past - pretty preposterous. It was clear the movie has the intention of scaring people into believing "we must do something about Global Warming", maybe to have the Cap and Tax bill passed in Congress. While the situations were genuinely creepy, the movie was spoiled by the obnoxiousness of the underlying political message. The situations were rendered risible by by the whole artificiality and the shoehorning of the message into the story. If only the director had refrained himself from letting us know what he REALLY felt about Global Warning, the movie could have had a chance, although it would not have added anything new to the genre of isolation thrillers.
I do NOT recommend this movie for the story. Maybe for the acting and the creepiness of the situations, but there is little to absorb, like gnawing at a T-Bone with almost no meat.
This SyFy remake at least tries to keep itself faithful to the original
short story by Stephen King.
The movie begins with a group of children gathered inside a tent, where a young boy dressed in a kiddie cowboy suit gives a creepy lecture to the rest of the congregation, while a pig is being sacrificed. This supposedly happens in 1963 in the Nebraskan town of Gatlin. Supposedly, all the adults were killed or had died.
Jump 12 years later, and a married couple traveling on one of the back roads of Nebraska are arguing inside their car, corn stalks being the only backdrop. Suddenly, a teenage boy comes out of the corn fields, holding his bleeding throat, into the path of the couple's vehicle. The man swerves and brakes, but to no avail - the boy is ran over. The couple exit the car, with the woman recriminating her husband, blathering about how he would go to jail. Then the man looks at the victim and sees the slit throat, concluding the boy was actually murdered, even if he still staggered towards the path of his car. He places the body in a blanket and into the trunk, while ordering his scared wife to stay in the car, while he goes to explore the path he child took. He retrieves a suitcase from the corn fields, while someone watches his activity. . .
The man insist on going forward to Gatlin, to inform the authorities, since even thought the child was clearly murdered, he still felt responsible, this despite his wife's objections. When after a few miles they find what looks like a gas station, the man stops the car, exits it and tries to find a phone, with no luck. The gas station looks abandoned, making the wife even more nervous. Afterward, the couple continue driving towards the town, where they soon find the place is as derelict as the gas station they just left, with deserted buildings and streets. The man insists on finding a police station to report the incident, but the wife does not want to hear of it, pointing out to the obvious facts. Her husband's sense of responsibility, however, overcomes his common sense and insists. The rest, you will have to watch, unless yo have read the story. . .
The story continues pretty much following the original short story. The acting is generally all right. The wife is played by Kandyse McClure, of Battlestar Galactica, playing the voice of reason within the couple, even if she comes up as a shrew. The child playing the preacher is not as creepy as the actor that played the same role in the 1984 movie, but I do not subscribe to the notion that is is necessarily a liability - the children may not look like psychopathic killers, but that was the whole point: the kids are not deranged (you will have to see the movie to find out why.) Bottom line, while not as scary as, for instance, The Myst, the movie still holds its own compared with the original 1984 theatrical release, which while enjoying a much bigger budget and special effects, the story itself ends up being increasingly preposterous and lame.
Day The Earth Snored Still... OK, basically, an alien and a super robot
come to Earth and tell humans to either accept the kooky green agenda
or die. That's it. That's the plot. No more. Nada.
Of course you have snazzy CGI effects and the usual gang of walking clichés, but besides this, the movie either bores you to death or makes the Libertarian worth his (or her) salt angry at the implications that the Earth will be saved if we only . . . I cannot give away more, but you get the picture. The script was probably approved by Gore before it was given the OK to film. Disappointing, ridiculous, a waste of time.
Rent the original - the anti-war message comes home better than the greenie, kooky, envirowacko message.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I went to see Wall-E with my wife and 3 year old; I wanted to see it
badly after watching the trailers in IMDb and on TV. I was amazed at
the technological and artistic level that Pixar has brought with this
movie, by making a world that is very difficult to picture - one of
grit, dust, rust, chipped paint, dereliction... this requires a level
of detail that previous movies did not show, because of the programming
and memory requirements. So, the visuals themselves makes the
experience of watching worthwhile.
The plot, simple enough (boy meets girl) is nevertheless well told in a very poignant manner. You just gotta love Wall-E and his advances on EVA, trying to woo "her". The robots are in themselves works of art.
However, the cluelessness of Hollywood had to spoil the movie for me, with an extremely childish "green" message, showing a lack of understanding of economics that dumbfounded me, and many plot holes you can drive an aircraft carrier through. It was clear that the writer took no care when writing the script, leaving in many instances of irrationality and nonsense.
*Warning: Possible Spoilers* For example, Wall-E was able to repair himself using other robots' parts. Why didn't the other robots do the same? What was EVA's purpose? If the executive order given to the Autopilot was NOT to go back to Earth, then why did it bother to send a probe?
(It is clear it had to be the first probe back, since Wall-E became surprised the ship it carried it landed in Earth) How come the captain became curious about Earth 700 *years* after they left it? Do Pixar people really think humans prefer to live inside a space-faring shopping mall? If the ship had the technology to keep the inside of it clean, how was it that the builders had NO success cleaning the trash? It is clear the writer or writers have no knowledge of economics. People PAY to have their trash removed. If places to place the trash became scarce, then the price to remove it would have to go up, making people change their habits. This means that the scenario pictured in Wall-E could never happen. The silly environmental message the writers wanted to convey stems from a wrong premise. This failing and the others exposed above, for me, make the movie a good example of bad sci-fi. If judged for its science fiction, this movie would not be any better than Battleground Earth.
So, I give it 10 stars for its well told love story, superb artistic achievement... less 5 stars for badly done, badly written, not well thought environmental message.
The acting is fine, and it is spectacular to see, but the pace makes
short work of even the most patient bhuddist monk. And why the modern
rock music? It was an awful mess, not coming close to dovetailing with
each situation. The music was more distracting than helpful, or even
interesting. My wife and I actually pressed the "mute" button each time
another awful rock song came, so we could at least enjoy the scenery.
There are also some problems with the editing.
Next time, Sofia, use proper music, or better: do not use it at all. You do NOT know how to choose music, that much you have proved.
Not even a good rental.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I just rented The Last Kiss (actually, my wife did). The problem is
that the movie never decides to tell me what it is about - is it about
a life crisis? It is about commitment, or lack of? Is it about last
flings? In none of those possibilities does the film dwell enough to
make me care. The main character's friends are of little help plot wise
- they either do not give him advise, or support, or tips, or a kick in
the arse... anything that may give them relevance. Looking at their
antics was like seeing totally different movies. It was rather a waste
of time even taking time to know these characters.
I was kept wondering just what did the young girl that created the schism between the main character and his girlfriend ever saw on this guy - I may not be a girl, but even I can spot a geek when I see one. It was not like he had the best conversation on the planet, if good looks were not the issue, so what was it? I told my wife that maybe the girl lost a bet, or that she was dared by her girlfriends.
I was drawn because of the generally good reviews for this film, but I must confess that I think those reviewers gave such reviews because they felt some comfort for their own idiotic decisions - like not taking responsibility for anything, having no interest in making a commitment, and other post-modernistic nightmares. I did not find one, not one single idea, situation or decision that redeemed any of the characters, making the movie an exercise in aggravation.
I went to see "Flyboys" without expecting any deepness or profound
ethical ruminations - only sanctimonious jerks would. If you wanted to
see an anti-war movie, go rent the original "All Quiet on the Western
Front". This is a popcorn-and-a-soda pop movie, to be watched if you
want to have some fun. These movies were made before and they will be
made in the future, so why so many take the opportunity to write
condemnations, here, about the movie's Ra-Ra attitude? Sure, there are
anachronisms - the Dr.1 was fully introduced in 1918 and was a devil of
an airplane to fly, which is why only the most experience pilots would
receive it. I would have preferred to see the star of the Western Front
on the German side, the Albatross D.III and D.V, which were equipping
most Hastas on 1917. However, I understood why the producers wanted to
use the famous three-winger.
If you want another quibble, the engines on the Nieuports did not rotate as the originals. In fact, they were not even true radials, but over imposed stamped plates to (maybe) cover Rotax or Lycoming aeroengines. However, the flight scenes were terrific, and the fighting WAS exiting to see. It was also reasonably realistic - some people did not believe WWI airplanes fired tracer bullets, but they did. The movie did not shy away from showing the horrors of combat, either. This is no "Pearl Harbor", guys! This is no "pro Iraq War" propaganda, if some of you implied this.
Anyway, I was hoping a movie about flying in WWI would appear that took advantage of the newest CGI and I was not disappointed... not much, anyway. Now, I am waiting for Der Roten Baron, which promises to be even better (yay!) Please, spare me your comments about "how low has sunken the intellect of people in this country" blah, blah, blah... Sometimes people go to the movies to have some F-U-N, you puritan jerks!
This is one of those moments when you try to warn people about losing,
perhaps, a good deal of their lives to this slopfest. I watched this
"movie" last night in AMC, having nothing better to do. Alas, doing
nothing would have been actually better, but I was NOT warned.
A Name For Evil starts promising enough, about a bores-out-of-his-skull architect (or something like that) that inherits this wreck of a house, supposedly built during the civil war era. This is supposed to be a haunted house movie, but it suddenly degenerates into somebody's acid trip, when Robert Culp goes out for a walk and jumps into this white horse, goes to a hippie party, gets a blonde chick laid, goes back home, confronts his wife (who believes the guy never left), goes OUT again but this time in his car, goes back to pick up the blond chick, frolic in a pond... then the guy gets back home and kills the wife in a pseudosurrealistic scene, and in comes the credits... uh, forget about the shadows the guy saw at his home, or the tunnel in the basement from where air with enough pneumatic pressure knocks his lantern off his hand...
I know some movie makers in the early 70s experimented a lot, but horror movies are pretty much straightforward affairs, so why in the world did the producers of this stinker see the need to change a well known and tried formula? I mean, gosh, the seventies WAS the decade of The Exorcist and The Omen... I do not know, but I guess the producers needed a good platform for the folksy singer that plays the guitar, accompanied by a full orchestra that happens to be invisible... well, lets say I do not think Mr. Culp remembers this stinker with much nostalgia.
|Page 1 of 2:|| |