Reviews written by registered user
|40 reviews in total|
From the director of truly outstanding, brave movies - Requiem for a
dream, Pi or the Black Swan, all of them being groundbreaking in one
way or another, all of them being a brilliant psychological study of a
human psyche, here comes a story of a hero. The Biblical story of a man
whose faith saved his life - and the lives of several other species.
One of the greatest stories ever told/written/imagined (pick one
accordingly to your own faith). It is also a story of a once genius
director selling out his own beliefs for no other reason than to make
Alright, let's start with the good: Noah, according to Aronofsky, is not a nice bearded gentleman; he's a dark creature willing to forsake his own daughter in order to please the God, to which he has devoted his life. And in Noah we see a glimpse of the good, old Aronofsky. And the visual effects are also nice, which should not come as a surprise given the movie's massive budget. And that's about it.
What's bad, is everything else. Bad, bad, overplayed acting. The Hollywood ending. The idea of the Stone Creatures, without which, apparently, the Arc would not have been built. The list could go on forever; the simple truth is that Noah is less of an Arc, more as Titanic. It's the movie you should skip this summer.
Somewhere in the beautiful, sunny Portugal is a house where the
visionless learn how to cope with their disability, guided by a man who
has mastered the art of living without using your eyes. For you, as a
viewer, it's an interesting venture into the world unknown to you, if
only a testimony to what you are taking for granted on a daily basis,
and therefore, missing.
Jakimowski has a vision, one he stays to throughout the entire movie, without making it seem stale or boring. There's magic here, and a lesson to be learned. It's a movie with a mission, and whatever that mission could be, it's accomplished; it compels you to listen and open your eyes.
Set in the world of the blind, Imagine is the movie the world of the sighted needs to see.
Directed by 47-yeard-old Zack Snyder, Man of Steel is like a 10-year-olds visualization of what a superhero movie would be. It's loud, show-off-y, and packed with special effects; it also lacks sense, story, or anything engaging for more than two minutes. Where the plot isn't flat and paper thin, it's ridiculously predictable; where it isn't predictable - it just doesn't make any sense because of the various inconsistencies (example: the first time the aliens are landing on Earth, TV stations are broadcasting this news along with "amateur footage", featuring a major close-up of the ship. Yet when Clark goes out to see it, you can see the ship is very far away, only visible to human eye as nothing more than a slightly bigger shooting star. Only using his supervision is he able to get the magnification... shown a minute ago on the TV screen). As far as acting goes, Adams', Cavill's and Lane's performances are up to part, but even they cannot save the movie from destruction. But it's the story (or the lack of one) is Man of Steel's biggest issue - it feels rushed, carelessly fabricated on your way to work. If you top it off with annoying product placement (thank you, Nokia and Nikon, I'll stay away from your products) - you have a complete and utter disaster on your hands; one that, I feel, not even the Superman could salvage the Earth from.
The original Project Runway is a classic. After 12 seasons, I can
honestly say it hasn't lost its touch and never lost the quality.
Heidi, Tim and Nina are absolutely fantastic, and they have been,
All Stars, on the other hand, is a completely different story. Stiff judges I can never agree with, boring challenges and the worst of the worst - so many product placements it's like the show is a walking commercial. If you had any doubts, the very last episode cleared them out. It's not even the very core of the challenge that was the problem - contestants were to design a dress for Marge Simpson, which, on some level, was a fresh and brave idea - but how both companies carried that out. The working rooms were all completely swimming with The Simpsons' decorations, silhouettes and stands, Marge's portraits were everywhere (on walls, on the desks) and if you had any doubts just WHO is sponsoring the show - "gifts" were given to the designers, God-awful Simpsons sneakers. "Thank you, Marge", you could hear designers saying, barely able to cover their disgust. Alright. We got it. The Simpsons team is sponsoring. Enough.
I'm not completely against product placement, but the companies must understand it's a very delicate matter. It can't be done by throwing everything you have in storage onto the walls.
Just as I was making my peace with The Simpsons' over-sponsoring, I heard, right in the middle of sewing, someone said... "Who wants some Resource water?"
And I gave up. Me and the show must part ways. I'm sure there are hundreds of people who don't really care - they will eat everything up, everything they see on the screen, they will take in and gladly have their brains washed. Not me.
Put together a bunch of great, internationally renowned actors, a
beautiful, almost magical location, and one of the most talented
director of our times. What do you get? A whole lot of nothing.
Vicky Cristina Barcelona remains to this day one of Allen's lesser efforts. The movie virtually stands for nothing, nothing meaningful, that is. There is no story, no motto, no grander meaning apart from screwing irresponsibly on your summer vacation. I'm amazed how shallow and uninteresting the characters were written, even the scene they star on, the beautiful, one-of-a- kind city of Barcelona is showed lackluster and boring. There's nothing intelligent, nothing to re- live again and again, nothing to think of. It's like the movie never existed. It's huge disappointment from such master as Allen.
On paper, "Willy Wonka" is a perfect title to remake by Burton, and the very first minutes do account for it - Burton takes his creepy spin on the little, snowed in town of Charlie along its habitants. The whole idea goes south as soon as the new Willy Wonka appears: the awkward and highly inappropriate for the role Johnny Depp. Firstly, he's too young, thus unreliable. Secondly, his character seems to be completely rewritten, resulting in a completely different person. Depp is eccentric, but in a very different way, lacking sophistication and confidence. He's carrying cue cards, as if there was somebody else running the factory for him; every question asked by his guests shakes his doubtful confidence. Depp is a magnificent actor, but he fails to deliver the magic the Gene Wilder was so full of, and which he showed in such carefree way... Which proves to show that maybe, just maybe "Willy Wonka" is a title not to be touched nor remade, not even by Hollywood's grand masters.
It may or may not be a decent piece of cinema, but it does raise some valid questions about alcoholism and drug abuse. It has its moments - just when you're ready to write it off as bull****, it comes up with something that draws you in. Bullock is a questionable choice for the main character - alcoholic party girl who will stop at nothing to destroy her life and her family's - but you have to give it to her, she does try. Perhaps she would have been better at it now, 11 years after the movie has been made; at that time she couldn't act more convincing. It's not a true movie about alcohol and drug abuse - it's too sugary and too easy. Still, if it's somehow able to keep anybody rethink their life choices, I say it was worth it.
The biggest problem I have with "The Break-Up" is that it's completely unclassifiable. It's definitely not a comedy (I dare you to find 5 laughable scenes) at the same time being too ridiculous to be drama. It's unrealistic, poorly directed and plain stupid. Long story short, Brooke gets hit on by Gary, they fell in love, they movie in, they are happy. Until they aren't. Mostly because Gary's character is written so poorly; he's irresponsible, lazy and childish. There's no great drama behind it - he's just an asshole and that's it. When the couple decide to break up, the real fight begins, as no one wants to move out of the condo. You'd think the situation would propose a wide variety of funny situations to use, but no. Brooke and Gary's relationship drifts somewhere in between of drama and weird, until it finally settles down on weird when Gary decides to throw an orgy in what used to be their living room to take revenge on Brooke going on a date. That's it. One feels sorry for a bad movie especially when you can feel a good plot lost somewhere in between the bad jokes and plot holes. I adore Aniston, but her talent is just sold short here. And long-haired Justin Long steals the movie.
The Batman franchise had it coming. You could see that subtle change in
all the previous titles, the change from dark, beautiful, freaky even
to the neon-lights, pop and completely mainstream. Not that it's
necessarily a bad thing to be pop, but sometimes some things are meant
to be dark. The very essence of Batman character and his world is dark,
so making so hip and colorful was not a good idea. But that's
debatable, feel free to disagree. And while Batman Forever still had
some flair to the poppy feel, this part doesn't.
The truly terrible thing is the cast. Clooney is possibly the worst Batman ever; Silverstone hasn't still recovered from Clueless and she's convinced, I'm sure, that she's still playing that part (and she's doing it cluelessly); Thurman is good, but she and her skills don't fit here. Schwarzenegger is the one that's making the movie truly dreadful, though. Calling him an actor would be an overstatement. It takes a certain skill to be playing a villain; Schwarzenegger is lacking that skill, and many others. He makes the movie unwatchable. Paying him 25 millions dollars for that role is the sole definition of 'wasted money'.
And then there's the terrible script that really makes no sense at all. It's forgettable. There are too many things that happen and truly nothing really happens at all. After having watched all the parts many times, this part is the one I'm having the most difficulties remembering what it's about.
And that's not a good thing for a movie.
Splice might just be the worst movie ever made, and certainly the worst horror movie ever made. I have to admit, it's been a while since I've seen such a bad movie: terribly acted, ill-written and completely predictable. Towards the end, you realize it's the cinematographic equivalent of a painful, never-ending diarrhea: it hurts, it's lasting forever, and you want it to end, but it doesn't, and it's constantly giving you new plots and confusing you further more. The main idea is interesting enough, and casting Polley and Brody makes perfect sense, as they're terrific actors; that's pretty much everything enjoyable about the picture. The plot is as poorly-written as it can be, it's not funny and definitely not scary... I found it extraordinary that somebody actually made the movie. I would completely rather go see every Jennifer Lopez movie ever made than to see Splice again...so if you're debating on whether to go or not - save yourself the two hours, because you won't get it back.
|Page 1 of 4:||   |