Reviews written by registered user
|224 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
1. Young Bobby. Pretty good description of chess. He likes chess as a shield towards a dangerous world. Unlikely that he would play 1.d4,c4 etc. It is Fischer!!! Moreover, he puts the king down. Something he would never have done. Why put the king down? 2. Teen Bobby. Pretty cool too. Some weird stuff. He moves h4 and h5 on a chessboard looking into an Informator. Why? 3. Adult Bobby. Excellent acting by Tobey Maguire. Spasskij and Lombardy are awesome as well. 4. Why is Larsen cut out both of the documentary and this movie? No mention of the 6- 0 defeat of Larsen. WHY??? 5. When Fischer takes on h2 it is not actually a big mistake. Computer says small white advantage and his NEXT move h5 is a mistake according to stockfish. There are options of going to the queen side with the king. Fischer was winning stuff like that all the time but Spasskij played it well. Taking on h2 is risky though. It is portrayed like a big Patzer mistake and falsely that he resigned after g3. 6. Nh5 in the benoni game is sort of normal 7. The sixth game of the match is a beautiful game but not that great. Weak play by Spasskij. 8. Fischer never said anything wrong before AFTER he became world champion. They are mixing that up 9. The incident with the hooker is funny but wouldn't Bobby have been scared of stds? 10. He says check when giving a check. Wtf is up with that? 11. Did he actually have a close relationship with his sister Joan? 12. Did he actually have any contact with his mother even in the mid-60s? 13. The role of Donald Byrne is a bit weak but perhaps mainly because the 3 other guys are so awesome. 14. Relation with Lombardy wildly exaggerated 15. Other than that most of the chess was very accurate. The positions on the board are correct and so on. 16. They use old notation which was changed in 1981 so it is not that easy to follow their blindfold games (although it was translated into the new notation). 17. Anyway, awesome movie. 18. The incident with the chair. Spasskij wouldn't have done that in front of the board and everything although that did in fact happen (the thing with the two dead flies). 19. The conversation with the hooker about opening preparation seems a bit more like a candidate master than a strong grandmaster.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I have bought a Hitchcock DVD collection at my local video store. This was the first movie in the collection. I must say it is quite good. However, there seems to be a bit too much dialogue as opposed to later when he really learned to tell a story with more precise dialogue. Anyway, it is far ahead of its time for sure. Very interesting movie. It looks normal, however, it has that Hitchcock touch where he creates incredible situations that only he could create. The movie reminded me a bit of "The Fugitive" and has a similar plot in a way. I look forward to watching the other movies in the collection. My favorite Hitchcock movies are Rear Window, Vertigo and Psycho.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I just saw this crap movie in the cinema tonight. What a joke! I love weird fiction and this one really lets the audience down. There are a few good scenes and dialog, maybe 5 minutes and the rest is just utter crap. Has nothing to do with imaginative fiction just an Exorcist rip-off and utterly stupid references to religion. The use of Doors is interesting although very futile, superficial, shallow and ultimately insulting since it implies that the sublime art of The Doors is somehow Satanic. I didn't care about any of the characters. Unlike Se7en and Silence of the Lambs there are no good villain for example. The police officer who plays the lead role is a shallow boring person with almost no charisma. The reference to a demon in Iraq is also a clear Exorcist rip-off and the whole thing is just so shallow and boring that I couldn't believe the director had even watching this before putting it out. Save your money and avoid this one!!!
I saw this again and it occurred to me what a disaster the whole subplot with the Queen and all that is. That story is not in Miller's original comic book and it really is quite horrible in the movie. It is quite a shame because if that had not been there it would have been an excellent movie. It is a bit like with Watchmen: Some of it is OK, and some of it is a total disaster. I would like to see a cut of 300 where there was only the good things. It is really quite a shame that a pointless subplot that has nothing to do with the battle has been cut into the movie. Anyway, that is what I wanted to say. I think it is a good movie but I would not want to watch it again because it is only like 50% of the scenes that are good.
Although this movie is no "Rounders" it does give a pretty good view of poker. The characters are interesting and the poker is pretty precise. There might have been some more about poker and less silly jokes. A few scenes could have been cut out of the movie. Really, I found the poker very interesting but didn't find the characters that impressive. Anyway, it's nice to see a movie that one can learn something about poker with. I really don't have too much to say about this movie other than that the poker was pretty good in this movie. The movie is from 2006. A lot has happened since then and it sums up poker until 2006 pretty good. I didn't find it funny or anything and I watched it because of the poker, and it really is worth watching if you want to learn about poker. Pretty good movie actually.
Like many other people I'm into Jim Jarmusch because of Down by Law. It's like Bret Easton Ellis. Who would have heard about him if not for American Psyscho? But what has Jim Jarmusch done since Down by Law? Dead Man is a terrible exploitation of William Blake understanding nothing of what Blake has done. Broken Flowers is absolute crap. Ghost Dog is pretty good, but even that does not pay enough tribute to the Hagakure. Now in this movie The Limits of Control he seems to have entered a world of Koyannisquatsi and David Lynch but nothing happens and the symbols signify nothing. If I wanted to look at some ugly guy for two hours (the main character in this movie) I would not watch a movie. I would go to the mall or something. David Lynch is brilliant at making profound imagery and symbolism (symbols) that make sense mixing dream and reality but that just totally does not work in this movie. It's quite sad actually that things have gone that wrong for Jim Jarmusch that he now makes absolutely crappy movies like The Limits of Control. If he makes another movie (I don't know if this is his newest movie actually) I will probably watch it because there has to be something about the director of Down by Law but apparently it is hidden away very deeply and very difficult for him to get it out and just be anywhere near to the brilliance and genius of Down by Law.
I'm watching this and I thought eh I'll check into IMDb and see the reviews and the ratings because I didn't get it. There's like no suspense in this movie. Sure Al Pacino is great but hey come on what is this about? It just doesn't make any sense and I'm not terribly excited about how it ends. I'm amazing Al Pacino didn't have anything better to do than stuff like this. I don't even know what to write in this review. I just wanted to tell the readers of IMDb that I'm perplexed about this movie. Write me if you have a good comment or something on it. Yeah, well, I'll watch now to see how it ends. Hope it will at least make some sense because what I have seen of it has not.
This movie really makes all the mistakes that a Rod Serling or an Alfred Hitchcock would NOT have made. I don't want to give any spoilers but the issue here in this sci-fi area is about information. Who knows what about what? And it really does not add anything to the plot here the way it is done. It does not add anything to the suspense either. It just makes us wonder: "Why are the characters pretending they don't have information of what is going on?" It would have been much more interesting if the VIEWER did not know what is going on. But this cliché about the main character not knowing who he is, identity, etc. is just not working at all in this movie. The movie has other qualities though, and it is really like a Twilight Episode. One of the weaker episodes though.
This movie starts out as a great Hitchcock thriller similar to Vertigo or something, then escalates into endlessly describing the life of the married couple. I'm writing this before the movie has ended, and maybe there's a good ending but quite honestly it is not worth it sitting through scene after scene of superfluous story-telling. Quite honestly, that is why Hitchock is such a master. Because he understands how to create suspense and never to leave in a single, indifferent moment in a movie. The movie is called "Endless Night" (A Blake quote: Some are born to sweet delight / Some are born to endless night). But just coming up with a few good things in the movie and then showing a lot of stuff that never should have been in it is not the way to make a good movie.
*This may contain spoilers*
I thought the scare at the end was really good. Good ending of the movie but the rest is really boring. I've seen all three now in the cinema, and while the first is fairly good, the second one is stupid and this one is just plain boring. People in the cinema were talking with each other and not paying attention. There are some good scares and creepy moments, but it's a bit much to wait 90 minutes for a powerful conclusion. That's just not what I think a good horror movie should be like. OK, it's quite funny and everything and they can deliver the goods. It's just why does it have to be so boring and stupid? It's like the setting is great but this movie concept just has too many flaws.
|Page 1 of 23:||          |