Change Your Image
StAdrian
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Matrix Resurrections (2021)
The best thing about Matrix IV was the popcorn I had in the movie theatre
Imagine a Matrix movie where the role of Morpheus is unclear, even confusing. Imagine a Matrix movie where fight scenes are so cut that you cannot see any emotion that goes into the scene. Imagine a Matrix movie with about 2 h of exposition dialogue and entire pieces of the script lifted from the trilogy. Imagine a Matrix Movie where the Merovingian has no impact. Well, now you can see all that. It's called Matrix IV...
On the up side: the acting is good and there are a few good (philosophical) ideas in the script - like, maybe 3 such ideas. The rest... it's the down side. The heartbreaking down side.
Don't Look Up (2021)
Brilliant, but I give it 9/10 for two reasons.
I give this movie 9/10 for two reasons: FIRST, the opening scene is a disaster in terms of scientific accuracy. I'm not an astronomer, not even an amateur one, but the opening scene is so, so disastrous when it comes to (at least) decently portraying the process of looking up into the universe, that it will make anyone with an average background CRINGE. Big bright lights inside the telescope dome, an office (yes, an office!) with a big computer screen inside the opened dome, well-lit offices behind glass walls visible from the dome, etc. And in the 21st century, they use a whiteboard to calculate the trajectory? Seriously? No computer-assisted analyses involved. No models of the Solar System? They had more tech in the movie Contact, 24 years ago. Speaking of which, the movie Armageddon, 23 years ago, did a much better job at portraying the discovery of an asteroid/comet. This is ironic, as "Don't Look Up" is supposed to be (and is!) a radiography of how societies today ignore science. Obviously, the filmmakers didn't do their homework when it comes to observational astronomy. I know that it's a movie, but at least a minimal/decent level of accuracy is expected, especially if you are going to make a point about science. The SECOND reason why it doesn't get a perfect score is that, at times, it seems to give credence to the idea that women are too emotional to coherently present a scientific idea. However, this was somehow offset by the fact that, at different points in the movie, the male character doesn't seem to do any better. This observation of mine is subject to interpretation.
Other than that, the movie is a perfect meditation on our world right now, with its social media, politicians, conspiracies, the ultra-rich CEOs, the tech, and even the role model superstars. Definitely worth watching!
Justice League (2017)
One step forward, ten backward...
After morally elevating the script by not mindlessly killing civilians when crushing cities and buildings, they crushed the dialogue and filled it with cliches. The characters are two dimensional and often seem present on the screen just to make a point in the script. Visually acceptable and morally bearable, it could be watched on mute (no captions needed). It's a disaster...
Wildlike (2014)
A story about loss and the dealing with it
It is a good - quite classic - story about loss leading to a journey. It's about losing trust, about losing someone and about finding some measure of meaning and a bearing. The writer does a great job finding the (sometimes) subtle ways sexual abuse creeps in. Albeit not very profound, the movie is definitely good.
The negative points: the editing and the sound. When a river sounds like a rustled plastic bag, you have a problem with your sound. When the cutting between scenes makes you move your eyes a little too much, then you know the guy isn't doing a good job - the director didn't talk to the editor beforehand. These two problems appear at times and they were a bit annoying. Other than that, it's a neat job!
The Circle (2017)
Multiple failures
Perhaps I went into the movie theater with very high expectations. Or perhaps "The Net" has imprinted on me too deeply at a very young age. Whatever the explanation, The Circle objectively fails to engage the viewer, to leave a memorable experience. Yes, the movie has all the ingredients for success, but it somehow fails to touch.
The first problem is the camera work. Watson's performance is more than worthy, but the camera fails to capture it in an engaging way. On the other hand, Coltrane (Mercer) is just appalling. Both the camera and Coltrane's performance make the scenes between The Heroine and her love interest(?) look cheap, and the line delivery wooden. All this is particularly bad in a scene of a fight between the two - a scene with a lot of emotion - that is filmed literally from outside the building! Most of the time in that scene, all you see is two vaguely familiar human shapes, and you cannot connect to the characters. Add this to the wooden dialogue of the scene, and it turns into a complete failure.
The script contains too many narrative roles rather than characters. It diversifies without delivering, and major key plot events are missing. Episodes of hacking that should feature in a such movie, are completely absent, even though the results are dramatic for the story. For some characters, sudden dramatic changes take place completely off screen, leaving the viewer rather bewildered, struggling to fill in the gaps. Another problem with the script is that it does not give The Heroine too much credit. It reuses expressions like "let's take it a step farther" and strongly suggests that a CEO of a company like Apple or Google would accept advice from an intern on matters that border national security or the definition of democracy. It is ridiculous and it turns the movie into a science fiction wannabe. It would have been much more believable if The Heroine would have discovered those things, struggle with them, question them and then act.
Boyega (Ty) does step out of his Star Wars role. He is less intense and believable, but his character lacks depth and plays almost no role in the movie as a whole. Again, it's the script! One could realistically argue that the outcome would be the same with or without Boyega's character showing The Heroine an empty tunnel and provide her with a confused, fragmented story that is neither about the past, the present or the future, but a hodgepodge of memories and concerns that are not backed by the plot.
All in all, the idea had potential, the theme is a current one, but the camera work and the unfinished (?) script fly this movie right into the ground.
Independence Day: Resurgence (2016)
Rock bottom...
Alongside Battleship and Godzilla, this movie is among the worst SF movies of all times. Some of the actors can actually act, but not even they can save anything because of the unbelievably bad script. You have to see it, to believe it, true, but it is not worth your time.
First, it is very hard for the audience to emotionally relate to any character or event. It is so blatantly clear that actors speak for the audience to "get it" that their dialogue has no meaning other than to document facts we have not seen. And even so, the interesting questions you might have will remain unanswered. The CGI is OK, but its use completely overshadows any meaningful emotion the viewer might have in relation to the events on the screen. It's simply too much and the attachment is impossible.
Secondly, the script is bad. I mean really bad. I know I said this before, but there really are no words to describe it. You know it when complete sections of dialogue are lifted from Independence Day (1996) and paced in this one. As they don't fit the characters anymore - or they completely mess up any evolution that might have taken place meanwhile - the "magic" is ruined.
Simply
stay home, choose another movie, watch Independence Day (1996) again
Anything but this!
P.S. Watching it I was constantly reminded of low budget movies from the 50's and 60's. Why? Because every cliché imaginable about aliens or relationships is featured in this film.
Lucifer (2016)
Entertaining!
Good story! Flawless acting! Highly entertaining!
The only thing that needs a bit of work is the camera-work. Delivering a line while the faces of the interlocutors are totally obscured by their passage in front of the camera is a rookie mistake. Ah, and one other thing: Why is Lucifer so obviously scared (?) of the archangel
? It makes him less cool! If these 2 things would be taken care of, it would certainly be a 9. Adding some more philosophy to it, or making the main character more devious (or a combination), would definitely bring it to a 10.
All in all, when this comes out, I'll be the first to watch it!
Scorpion (2014)
Dear Lord, have mercy!
The only aspect about this show that is surprisingly good is that it managed to get 7.2 (Jan 2015) on IMDb, an INCREDIBLY HIGH score for its quality! To me, the whole show looks like a C category work, done to boost the myth (fraud) of Walter O'Brien.
There are so many wrong things with this show, no list can be exhaustive: the script couldn't be worse, some casting choices are appalling, and the tech part is
horrible. Pretending to type on a keyboard, while saying (bad) lines faster than the average person can follow, gets old after 2 episodes.
Riley B. Smith is very credible in his role. The performances by Robert Patrick and Katharine McPhee, although at very different levels, are the only acceptable ones. The rest are just
not actors. They are stiff, with the wrong emphasis, and over-dramatic. Patrick and Eddie Kaye Thomas can play comedy, but - except McPhee, who still has troubles though - none of the others can, when the script requires it.
What it needs? BETTER script writers, BETTER camera work, BETTER cast
and for God's sake, stop saying that "IQ 197" thing. For the past 40 years IQ is not even measured like that. It's ridiculous!
The Equalizer (2014)
appalling
Built entirely on clichés and relaying on questionable morality, the movie is circular, "solving" at the end the so-called "problem" that presented itself in the beginning. The appalling evolution of the characters, portrayed by the moral: "do what you feel like", is surpassed only by their poor definition. The script is trivial and contains elements never elucidated, i.e., the role of starting and stopping (when the character remembers) the wrist watch. When it comes to the camera-work, I have to, in all fairness, say that it's the best aspect of this movie I rated with 3. However, this is eclipsed by the editing and probably by the director's choice to film wide angles, for example, when he shouldn't have had.