Reviews written by registered user
|37 reviews in total|
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.
The times aren't easy for Jennifer Lopez. She still looks good, she
might have a great voice and a killer body, but first her label drops
her, and then she stars in a movie that's so terrible, it could simply
Let's start off with the plot, which is, I'll be first to admit it, not that bad. A single woman, gorgeous and sweet, decides to go in vitro, since she's always wanted a baby, and we all know how hard it is to find the right guy (apparently). And then she meets her prince charming, about 10 minutes after being done with the procedure. Fine with me, nowhere did it say that the movie has to be realistic. Other than that, the movie touches an interesting issue - when you're single, and you want a baby but there's nobody to make it with you, how do you make your love life and your dreams co-exist? But then the unrealistic situations start to pill up. All the funny moments are already shown in the trailer. And the movie itself, even though it starts interesting, gets completely out of hand - long and weird, making no sense, finally embarrassing and even disguising. The moment I personally gave up was when one of the ladies gives birth in the pool, poops while doing it and one of the women scoops it out with a fishnet - or was it when Lopez passes out into the pool and then, instead of taking a shower like any sane person would do, decides to take a walk? Acting is not even embarrassing - it's non existent. You'd think that after so many attempts to act, Lopez would finally learn a trick or two, maybe even become an actress; instead, her movie dog is better at acting than she is, or, I think it's safe to say, will ever be.
But the thing that bothered me the most is - aren't we all tired of silly romantic comedies packed with unrealistic situations that never happen? Cute, hunky men don't just get into the same cab as you, and then madly fall in love with you and decide to stick around, even though you're pregnant with a guy you don't even know. They don't drive their tractors semi nude. They don't make love to you in a barn full of cheese. That just doesn't happen, and I'm completely serious when I say that even Sex and the City 2 was far more realistic than The Backup Plan; not to mention, a lot more fun.
I guess it was obvious from the very beginning that the sequel to Sex
and the City wouldn't become critics' favorite; but it's not that type
of movie that yearns their acceptance. It's not as much about deeper
meanings, as it is about having fun, letting your imagination go wild,
along with your inhibitions.
And as far as the fun part is concerned, SATC2 is a blast. It's pretty much SATC, but bigger, better, louder and shinier.
Not that it doesn't have flaws. The product placement is, as always, very annoying. The storyline is a bit too much sometimes, and it seems like the story gets out of hand more than once or twice. Carrie's inner monologues have lost their wit and smarts, even though she still delivers great lines when faced with other people. Samantha is her usual self, the one that she's always been. But it's Miranda's and Charlotte's characters that steal the show. Miranda was finally given a chance to sparkle, be fun and brave, something that's been missing in the first part. Davis' performance is extraordinary, and it really shows when York is facing real emotional problems with her family.
Overall, it's a gay fantasy - it's bold, sparkling and bigger than life. It's not a cinematographic masterpiece, but it's a whole lot of fun.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
It's been a while since we were able to see such visionary picture that has no limits as far as the imagination goes. It's definitely shocking and if you're not open minded, you will walk out of the cinema. It surely takes a lot of courage to make such bold movie, and not very less to watch it. There's really not a lot of bad things you can say about it. It's absolutely beautiful, it has a character, it's engaging, and incredibly artistic. The symbolism is what makes is so exceptional. It's one of those movies you can freeze on any given frame and be taken by its beauty. I absolutely recommend it, but be aware of the brutality of some scenes.
|Page 1 of 4:||   |