Reviews written by registered user
yogsottoth

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

"Girls" (2012)
34 out of 44 people found the following review useful:
Incredible first season followed by utter letdown, 27 March 2013
5/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Okay, this is going to be a long one, true fans of the show who understood what was special about Girls please bear with me.

I watched Girls season one with no expectations and was pleasantly surprised at its unique take on human nature and relationships. This show combined awkwardness and reality in such a way that a guy who says "I'll make the continent of Africa on your arm." during sex started to seem charming a couple episodes in because he made you laugh and was real as it gets. Every single character had realistic problems that you could relate to and all of them was weird and funny in their own way.

I could not wait to see season two but I was disappointed beyond belief.

We had left a dumped and robbed Hannah on a beach eating a huge piece of wedding cake, but that sad girl was nowhere to be found now.

In season 2 Hannah is transformed into an extremely confident and kind of a bitchy wild party girl. Oh and she also hates Adam who she was obsessed with and now Adam is the one chasing her. What happened there? When did she come over her fears and insecurities? Why did Adam forgive her? The gap between season 1 and 2 is not supposed to be unseen character development.

Hannah having hot sex with hot guys that were ineptly planted in every other episode much like the shallow guest stars of Friends, more than enthusiastic to feed her already over-blown ego ("Beg me to stay"? "Don't mention the word love to me"? Come on!),

Hannah being a complete bitch to Adam and Marnie,

Hannah being Obsessed with Elijah and who he barely enters into,

Hannah doing coke for an article,

all these were painful to watch with not one shred of humor in them. Why would she call 911 on Adam as if she had just met him? Why invite Marnie to dinner, tell others she's a psycho for coming, sell her out to please Charlie's whats-her-face girlfriend only to get all bff and defend her to Charlie in the end? Speaking of Charlie: "you're never getting any of this again." was a criminal line to write. That's possibly the least Charlie to thing say in that situation where he has a girlfriend himself.

So right when I was about to give up and stop watching the show came episode 6 and 7 like breath of fresh air. Laughs from start to finish, character development, awkwardness in all its beauty, and just great writing and execution. The guys who wrote those episodes (Murray Miller and Bruce Eric Kaplan) knew the characters. Having Adam and Ray spend the day together and those lovely conversations was a joy to watch. Jessa's "But I'm the child." line was pure emotion. But guess what, those were the two out of three episodes in the whole season that weren't written by Lena Dunham.

The last three episodes were entrusted to her again and she immediately toned the mood down to shallow comedy with sketchy plot ideas that had nothing to do with her characters. Sudden onset of extreme OCD? Wow, that's realistic! Charlie the musician guy suddenly receiving the gift of software skills, inventing an app, selling it and being rich and surrounded by ladies? That's even more realistic.. A constantly grinning Adam's dreamy blind date? I won't even go into that. Shosh who basically tells everyone that steps into her house that they can stay forever finds it shockingly irritating that her boyfriend lives with her. The handsome and funny doorman at the party was pure Apatow and Hollywood stamp and it made me feel nauseous.

So what is apparent to me is that Lena Dunham only had a seasons worth of material in her and now all she can write is these fake sketchy ideas she tries so hard to fuse into her beautifully written characters.

If Murray Miller and Bruce Eric Kaplan had written the entire season this would have been a show I would force my grandchildren to watch. She should watch those two episodes again and again to understand that crazy things don't have to happen with every new episode. Adam and Ray returning a dog, Jessa and her father getting together, Hannah having weird sex with a teenager... All you need is to stay true to your characters and just let us see them being themselves in normal daily ordeals.

I'm still hoping for a better third season.

Prometheus (2012/I)
640 out of 919 people found the following review useful:
You too, Ridley?, 3 June 2012
1/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

SUCKED BIG TIME! The story was all over the place, most of the characters were completely unnecessary and underdeveloped, and there were no creatures to talk about really. I wasn't even tensed up for a second, let alone being scared.

Can you imagine a biologist guy, signed up for a mission to explore a different race, shitting his pants and literally leaving the scene at the first sight of an alien body that's been dead for 2000 years? Well, Ridley Scott could. However, the same guy goes ape schit over a real, moving alien cobra-thing and wants to cuddle her! Perfectly consistent character writing! And what the hell was that android guy trying to do with his plots and schemes? What was your plan? Who actually did you serve? And Shaw who did nothing to fill in Ripley's shoes... She attacks the crew, performs a surgery -I'm not even gonna touch that one- that probably overthrows a plan in motion, comes out covered in blood and no one even says "Hey! What the heck?" and they go on another expedition together? And what was that space jockey's problem!? Relax, dude!! I mean you have to be a really mean bastard, consumed with rage to come out of a crashed ship and go after a woman you missed the chance to beat up before.

The final suicide mission could easily be completed with 1 guy.

I will never understand what Shaw hoped to achieve by going after "our creators" to "find the answers". What answer are you gonna find with a beheaded android by your side from a race that clearly thrives on rage and hostility? And finally, this was the most UNNECESSARY use of Guy Pearce ever in a movie.

Making fun of a Ridley Scott movie... Wow, I thought THAT would never happen.

99 out of 140 people found the following review useful:
Will someone say "The king is naked!" please?, 28 March 2009
1/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Because he's full frontal nude! This was not a good movie. Simple as that.

Starting from the first scene, my whole enthusiasm was drained off when I saw the cops torturing a guy for doing good in a competition. My mind was boggled. Has there ever been a more ludicrous, more absurd opening in the history of cinema? I mean who shows their script utterly sucks in the very first moments? Even bad action movies don't do that. It felt like a punch. (You thought it was gonna be good because of all those Oscars, eh? Here you go! POW!)

The following sequences where we witness our characters' past were far from being sincere, real, or authentic. I can't believe people compare this to City of God. It felt so... amateurish. Danny Boyle has totally lost his edge. There was nothing impressive. I don't know how to quite put it right, but there was this "We're so happy to be making this film!" feeling all over the movie and it especially didn't work well for the supposed dramatic moments. They were not real, not new, not original. A little bit of Oliver Twist, and some bad humor. Nothing memorable.

And the show... Ah, the show... A vulgar, cheating, lying, conniving bully of a TV show host? Where do they find these ideas? You can't just suspect a competitor of cheating and send him off to be electrocuted! In a place where a TV show like that is being made, these kinda stuff just cannot happen. This is a fact. Nobody can say anything to make it okay. That was the one most stupid character idea ever to be realized on screen.

And they even told about their suspicions to the press without so much as trying to frame him with some lie like they found something on him. How disreputable is that for the show? And is it so incomprehensible to think that maybe he just knew the answers? "Doctors, professors can't go where he went." my a**!!! As if the questions were prepared for geniuses... The first half was all about India and they even had questions with humorous answers that -like the cop said- a 5 year old could answer. This was *very cleverly* written to legitimize people's suspicions of the cheating thing but instead it made the lead guy look like a borderline idiot. And didn't the host think that maybe the guy could make a complaint, or at least talk to the press? Was he gonna cover it up with his strong ties to the police and threaten the media? He's a TV personality for god's sake! Not a made man! Oh god, it was so absurd.

And has nobody warned the writer about the "perfect chronology between the events in the guys life and the contents of the questions" angle was way too off? Too forced? You gotta be a bit more subtle when you're dealing with stuff like destiny since you're trying to make a real movie. Either go crazy and say "In my movie's universe these things are normal." like Woody Allen does, or make it a bit more realistic and reasonable like it was in the movie Crash. This was just lame, childish, BAD writing. Oh and the lead character must have had such a brain, they should kill the guy and study it. He remembers everything! If our brains stored information like that... Man, I don't even what would happen!

And the ending. The *perfectly* thought out ending where the easiest question in the world comes as the last question, just to tie it all up with a not-so-meaningful memory from his childhood. So cheap. The chaotic brother who just can't decide what to be, suddenly goes paladin and he, very quickly, brings a solution to the girl's problems and sets her free, and even handles the communication problem between the lovers just so that they can have the conclusion talk that will wrap the movie up. So cheap. And he kills the boss who, very conveniently, enters the room first. (come on, man... why would a crime boss enter a room like a deer when he knows there's something suspicious going on?) And the third act is done! Writing is that easy guys. And you can even get an Oscar for it.

David Fincher must have been so annoyed... When you can't even trust the Academy, what's the point of the whole awards concept?

Please let's stop this craze of cheering for bad movies just because of their hype! First the Dark Knight and now this. Teenagers go ape**** over horrific stuff like Twilight. What is going on? I don't think I can handle another one.

15 out of 20 people found the following review useful:
Romero is officially in his old age, 28 June 2008
3/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

**Nothing in my comment will spoiler the movie more than it already was but still if you have issues with spoilers don't read the last paragraph**

Let me start by saying Romero is one of my favorite horror film makers since he gave me such a fright with his Dead trilogy when I was a kid, especially with Dawn of the Dead that I was unable to sleep without my dad keeping watch for months (poor guy). No one, I mean no one, ever frightened me like that again. Therefore I will always love and respect him, no matter what. But the truth be told, Diary of the Dead is such a lame and amateurish film that Land of the Dead which I didn't like very much, looks like a masterpiece compared to this.

You know the story, a couple of unlikable characters who are making a horror movie in the woods realize that there's an actual break-out going on in the world and they set off to find their families (more like to find one person's family in the group) and decide to film the whole thing while they're at it. And that's it... That's the whole story.

The rest is a sad portrait of Romero trying to fill in the blanks between his fantasy zombie-killing methods which are absolutely lame and stretched like shocking a zombie with a defibrillator, or breaking a bottle of strong acid on a zombie's head and while you don't even hurt a finger the zombie's skull melts in seconds. And don't even get me started on that stretched-as-hell clown zombie scene. It's so obvious that Romero only focused on realizing his fantasies and ideas he's been accumulating for years that he didn't give a flying f*** what the movie looked like.

However, Romero uses this lack-of-a-story aspect wisely and fills the whole vast space with his "and the message of this movie ladies and gentlemen..." card. It makes me really sad to think that he used to deliver these rightful messages quite subtle back in his day but now he simply blabbers trying to attack a different aspect of society this time: The Mass Media. He also makes use of the internet, the blogs and mobile phones as well as anything that records, probably in order to catch the attention of the youth audience. However, he's not only clearly displaying his absolute lack-of-info on all this technology but he also fails with delivering his "Media is bad" message.

All through the movie everyone is talking about "finding the truth the media hides" and they go as far as to make a movie to tell everyone this "truth" which is: "the zombies are real". This point of the movie was so absurd that I was shocked anyone could write such a senseless script let alone our beloved Romero. All our characters first hears the news from the radio, every section of the media repeatedly reports that "dead returning to life" which is quite a bold statement enough already for the first day but still, there's this whole "media is hiding the truth and we should uncover it" thing strained throughout the movie that it makes you want to scream "What's there to hide?! Everyone is dead already!" Also, exactly why our characters make a documentary and which survivor would waste their time watching something they've already been through is unclear. There are so many holes with this whole internet and documentary angle that I won't go any further.

Finally, lovable characters we are used to seeing in Romero's movies whom you root for, are gone. We have the cliché all-star team of slasher movies. None of them are believable or likable. Just check out the "hilarious" joke one of them makes upon seeing their very first zombie. Or the incredibly fast emotional recovery of the blonde girl who has just lost her boyfriend. The super-brave lead actress who don't think twice before frying a zombie in her first actual close-up encounter. How about the lead guy who never drops his camera like it's super-glued to his hands (This is the biggest, the most striking negative the movie has). And the wise professor who keeps on delivering poetic lines while you keep asking "What the hell is this guy doing here and what's with that hilarious set of bow and arrows?"

There are so many more things to say but I'll let you enjoy determining those on your own since there are plenty.

All in all, we friggin love you Romero, but this movie completely and utterly sucks.

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Nothing like the first amazing movie.., 19 February 2008
2/10

I cannot even begin to describe disappointed I was upon seeing Apocalypse. I had been waiting to see it for a very long time and was quite sure the critiques were just being critiques and that the movie was awesome! I should have respected the experience.

What the hell Alexander Witt?! Where are the zombies, man?! The whole movie was about the Thing-and-Robocop-hybrid Nemesis (Ah, and how scary I'd imagined it would be..) and the long-coming death match between him and Alice. There was no room for zombies!

Alice was turned into a superhero, acrobatic cycler, angry Lara Croft. Don't get me wrong, this does not give the movie a game-like feeling. (If you want to see the best example for that, watch Silent Hill) The director takes Resident Evil by the hand and dishonorably turns it into an average action flick.

How low can you get, adding pointless action scenes to a zombie movie just to keep the tension up? ("Omg! They're gonna get bored! Milla, break through this window with your motorbike! This'll give us a few more minutes." )

And Jill Valentine... Great choice of actress but bad, bad practice integrating her to the film. She was absolutely suppressed by Alice and didn't really serve any purpose to the film. Maybe two alpha females can't be a good idea.

The writing was bad (lots of "But why?"s and "But how?"s), the ending was bad (although it was supposed to leave us surprised and excited), the characters were mostly shallow and it was not, I repeat, NOT nearly scary enough.

Resident Evil is supposed to be scary. That's like the first and very simple rule of the RE trademark, unfortunately the director preferred to ignore it and showed us how unimaginative he can be about scary movies. If I were a studio, I would never, ever hand him over another horror project.

The amazing vampire make-up alone makes it worth watching., 18 February 2008
7/10

From the moment I read the plot outline of this movie in a magazine, I'd been anxious to see it and this week I did and although it was much different than what I expected, it still was very satisfying. I was hoping for an amazing story that would be told beautifully with no plot holes and stuff. Instead, I've found this cheesy but really cool movie.

All right, there are many moments in the movie that will make you say: "Oh, come on! Who are you kidding?", and you will definitely get mad at the characters for doing stupid things ( an accustomed cliché for scary movies I say. "No, no, no! Do not f.cking go to check the f.cking upstairs!!!" ), and you will easily realize the editing mistakes since there's absolutely no indicator that the time has passed except the claims made by the movie-makers with the subtitles reading: "Day 7" or "Day 27". I mean, according to me, all the movie took place in one night :) Poor character development and the general rushed-up feeling of the movie are some of the other low points.

However, the incredible atmosphere, the somehow-masterfully-managed realism, the gore, absolutely brave and surprising scenes (Someone doesn't care about the rating!), the breath-takingly-cool and scary vampires, the amazing bird's-eye view shot where we witness a total chaos and massacre, and the few amazing moments where we watch Ben Foster doing a swell job as always, makes this movie an amazing and obviously different vampire movie.

If you like vampires and scary movies, there's no way in hell you will get bored watching 30 Days Of Night. If you are one of those people who CAN enjoy cheesiness and clichés on top of it, this movie will be one of your favorites.

Superbad (2007)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
One of those movies that give you much more than you expected.., 1 December 2007
10/10

Superbad is a promising example of new-age comedy and it -without doubt- took its rightful place on my 'favorite comedy films list' right next to Meet The Parents, Kung Fu Hustle, Waiting, Old School, Anchorman and Knocked Up...

The movie is filled with smart and hilarious dialogues, the ones that will give you cramps laughing. You actually might feel you may have to watch it again because you will definitely miss a couple funny scenes/dialogues while still having a laughing fit from the previous scene. I love movies that make me want to watch some of its scenes over and over again and I did a lot of rewinding while watching Superbad. All the characters were absolutely amazing, though Evan (Cera) and Fogell (Mintz-Plasse) were the shining stars of the movie.

Overall, Superbad is a new proud member of the must-see-comedies-community and I'm pretty sure you will be pleased with seeing how far the new-age comedy improved since American Pie.

Meat Market (2000) (V)
2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Annoying&Funny, 10 March 2005
1/10

First of all you will laugh. I don't think the movie is meant to be funny but it's so awful that you can't keep yourself from laughing.

Suddenly people start eating each other in the streets. Of course no one can understand what's going on. And we meet our crew.. A swat team of only 3 members, 2 stupid former employees of the company which caused all the "zombie thing", 3 self-proclaimed female vampires, 1 Mexican wrestler who is allegedly "The Devil" himself, and 3 or 4 zombies (One of the zombies is the director himself). You will see the same zombies throughout the whole movie. Even the ones that have already been killed.

My favorite character was El Diablo. His sound was edited later on. So I guess the director told him to move a bit and pretend that he's speaking. But he's so overacting that he looks like a mad, mute guy who's trying to tell something big he has just seen, but can't. (these scenes are the funniest ones)

Vampires were as funny as El Diablo. It's so obvious that the fake vampire teeth are uncomfortable to wear and speak at the same time so they're always trying to fit the teeth better. And they have laser guns!! And they are fat!! And they are lesbians!! Cool, eh?

Too many unnecessary breast and sex scenes, amateur actors (most probably the friends of the director), exaggerated sound editing in the "eating" scenes, ridiculous story, boring conversations..

BUT, it's worth watching, to see how ridiculous a movie can be.

Cheers.

2 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Kubrick vs King, 25 January 2005
9/10

I'm a Kubrick fan and I adore his movies. But I didn't like the Shining very much. Probably it's because I'm a Stephen King fan as well.

In the book, you can understand every detail and the story makes better sense. But in the movie everything was so shoddy.You can't even understand how Jack went crazy.

You can't see how the hotel makes him one of it's slaves. He just goes crazy.

What I mean is, the major role belongs to the hotel, but it has a very limited part in the movie.

If you haven't read the book, you can enjoy the movie. Because it's not a bad one. It has very scary scenes actually. But like I said before I didn't like it because there was nothing from the book.

Overall, it's a good movie, you won't hate when you see it, but if you've read the book, you may be disappointed a little bit.

P.S:I hated Shelley Duvall when I saw the movie.Her sound and her weird behaviours..There should have been a more "normal" person instead of Shelly Duvall.

Most Scary Movie Ever!!, 10 December 2004
10/10

When I saw this movie I was about 12 and I was scared to death!! I couldn't sleep for days without my dad keeping watch, I couldn't go to the malls for a long time and it took me a month to go back to my normal life and realize there were no zombies in the world :) Now, when I look back I can understand that I was obviously depressed. Depressed at 12! Nobody except Romero can do that! I could watch it again only 1 year ago and it was still scary.

It isn't the first zombie movie ever made but it's the first zombie movie that set the rules for the genre, and it was the best so far back then. To create something so scary and cool with such a low budget... Now that's success.

An incredible script, lovely cheesy acting ("Perfect baby, perfect."), the amazing 70's atmosphere, original directing, cleverly placed social message, dark humour, the most thrilling OSD ever made (Goblin), beyond its time make-up effects and of course... the Buddhist Zombie! (God, the guy still gives me the creeps.) These are a couple of the many elements that make this movie a horror masterpiece.

Other two members of the Dead trilogy are incredible, very scary and thrilling as well.

So, if you want to have a classic horror night, why not go with the trilogy? You won't regret it.


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