Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Not horror, just objectionable
The first half was an effective horror-movie, brutal and loathsome but still rewarding for the well-stomached horror-fan. The second half is a repetitive exercise in torture and degradation, which can only serve to make you sick and depressed. This can be justified if there is a strong message/motive behind, and addressing for example a social problem, but in this case there is no such motive, obviously only the filmmakers urge to wallow in his twisted human degradation fantasies. The fact that it is extremely well made only accentuates the revolting effect. One can argue that the the filmmaker in this has achieved his goal and therefore should be rewarded. However,in that respect Dr Mengele also achieved a lot of his goals. If you are horror fan like me who likes to be shocked, drenched in gore and at the same time wants to have fun watching horror movies, avoid this film. Or if you are desensitized sadist, be my guest; you'll love it.
Why is it all bad "A-films" get a much better score than they deserve? It seems people are happy as long as it has a valid subject matter, high production values and big names, behind and in front of the camera. It is a disgrace this movie has a 7.4 score, although I'm certain it will drop gradually, as movies tend to have a initial high, and subsequently decreasing, score at IMDb. I guess it has something to do with expectations. Plus the fact that people who catches a flick early, loves to hype it. Well back to this movie. For me this was an overwhelmingly unconvincing experience, in terms of acting, dialogue and plot. The dialogue is cancerous with clichés. The amplifying factor for this is the dreaded use of English with heavy eastern-European accents, not only making them prone to weak pronunciation, but also to weak language, making it sound like they are not speaking their mother tongue.
At some points, despite the serious subject matter, it all deteriorates into parody, as Liev Schreiber seemingly sustains more damage from banging his head into a tree a couple of times than from multiple gunshots to his body. The latter incident meant certain death I thought for sure, but the next day he had his arm in sling, and that was that! In a later scene, the Germans are right on their heels after an attack on their camp. However, they mysteriously choose to have a coffee break while our protagonist jews are pausing, pondering whether to cross a swamp. Besides being pompous in tone, the movies is filled with these inconsistencies, and in addition it is 2 hours and 15 minutes. I was surprised to see it was directed by Ed Swick, a prominent maker of historical war movies, when the credits rolled. All I can say on the positive side, was that it was prettily shot and the battle scenes were decent, but come on; that goes without saying. Making a good film takes more than production value.
Thanks for trying
Let me first of all say that this movie is poor, but that is not my focus. I think it is positive for the diversity in Norwegian film industry that we have room for B-movies, not just boring and excruciating social-realism. This is B-horror which if American, would be found on the lower half of the rental shelves. But that is not to say that it is worse than most of the crap released in the states. But it is however bad, both in terms of acting, but moreover in terms of bad plotting, bad dialogue and ineffective building of suspense. In addition it is a blatant ripoff of several classic hillbilly-horror movies; the initial plot of 4 four youngsters in a 70's Volkswagen picking up a terrified girl is pure copycat of "Texas chainsaw massacre".
That being said, the gore-hounds will press it to their chests, because it is undoubtedly the goriest flick ever to come out of Norway. It is not fun gore either, rather filthy "GORNO" of the most lingering and disagreeable kind. Not my cup of tee, but I'll give it an extra star for excellent gore special effects, the best I've seen from an Norwegian film undoubtedly. The director has reportedly complained about the film's R-rating; funny how directors set out to shock and appall, and then complain about the rating...
Hot Fuzz (2007)
Hot Fuzz is one of the most revered movies of the year, and especially in it's native Britain it has been the object of unparalleled praise. I for my part, find the HF-phenomena a bit strange. The reason is not that the movie is crap, it's just not that funny. I have no problem seeing what Pegg/Wright are trying to accomplish, and their target is a good one when fulfilled. However this is not the case, and HF ends up being caught in a vacuum between action, crazy comedy and splatter, instead of being a crazy action/splatter comedy. The action is OK but not mindblowing,the gore feels awkwardly misplaced, and most important; the comedy is not funny enough. I find myself slightly snickering in stead of belly-laughing. Although containing the ingredients, this movie fails to be hilarious, and a crazy-comedy short of hilarious is unfortunately a failure. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the gore-scenes are the gross-out, squirm-inducing kind, not the ludicrous, splatty, funny ones. The plot is not the most important thing of this genre, but I was surprised by the smalltown premise, after the promotion of HF as actioncomedy/buddy/police-parody, which usually are set in the city. In summary; I'm overall disappointed, both due to my own (maybe unfair)expectations of what kind of situations the movie would include, but also by the failure to deliver the gags that actually ARE in the movie.
You usually have a notion of what you are going to see when you see a Gibson-movie. Whatever you should think of him, or his agenda, he is a master of effective film-making. I think the reason so many critics hate him is that he wants to show you ALL,he doesn't like hinting. He paints with a broad brush on a very wide canvas, leaving little to the imagination, and this is considered inelegant and even vulgar by the so-called intellectual critic corps. In Braveheart, he mastered this to the full. Passion of Christ was also sharing the same well-crafted efficiency, but for many reasons this movie did not appeal to me. In Apocalypto, we are taken to a lost realm. As peaceful villagers are attacked by marauding warriors, and are led to their doom in the capitol, we are served a classic drama/action epic. First of all, the imagery,photography and costumes are fantastic, and in this, plus the fact that all speak native Maya language, Gibson accomplishes to take us away to a different world, even a dreamworld. This is however a world filled with as much horror as splendor. As mentioned, Gibson doesn't like hinting. This results in buckets of blood,as our protagonists meet their fate in the most horrible ways. As our men are taken to the city to be sacrificed, to the roar of thousands of bloodthirsty onlookers, it resembles an 80s- exploitation movie, only with a much higher budget. This is in many ways the key scene of the movie. It's awe-inspiring and grotesque at the same time. This excess is the only objection I have to the movie. If Gibson could limit himself a little bit, it would be to the benefit of the movie, and to the claim of the Mayan ancestors for that matter. There are no proof that Mayans practiced human sacrifices anywhere near the industrial level Gibson shows us, and also in a filmic sense, it's a bit too much to take. However, Gibson loves BIG drama, and there are no limits to the lengths he'll go, and in this movie he has obviously sacrificed historical accuracy to make a full-blooded, effective action.-movie. The Mayans are BAD and the villagers(who also in fact are Maya) are GOOD. The Mayans are relentless,decadent and have seemingly no regard for human life or no fear of death or pain. Raoul Trujillo is great as the imposing Mayan war chief. Rudy Youngblood in the lead is also very good. The last hour of the movie is a breathtaking action spectacle, as the first chases the latter.
If we choose to view Gibsons motive as to make a bloody, intense action-movie in a different setting, he has almost hit the jackpot. One can also argue, and seek deeper motives, and then it all becomes more problematic. If this is meant to be accurate, the depiction of the Maya can be interpreted as biased, or even racist. Is the there a profound morale that the arrival of the white man saved these "savages" from themselves? Maybe. However, I choose to place myself in the first category. I see this as Gibson himself proclaims; a brutal action movie in an exotic setting. And I am very entertained.
Breakfast on Pluto (2005)
Two masters at play
This film was perhaps the surprise of the year for me. I rented it almost accidentally, having scarcely heard about it. However I have heard of Neil Jordan, and enjoy several of his films. "the Crying Game" is thematically similar to this one, and can be compared. However, I think this better. This is one of those movies that touches you in on several different levels. It's funny, it's gripping, and also very well made from an visual point of view, providing the little extra. The BIG extra, however; comes from a man called Cillian Murphy. His performance is not only stunning, its perfect. I have seen him in a couple of films, and have noticed him mostly because his very special appearance. These sort of elfish qualities, makes him ideal for the part as Paddy Kitten.He plays the part with a softness in voice and ingenious subtlety. The scariest part is, not only is his performance perfect, he is also jaw-dropping as a broad!
The Hills Have Eyes (2006)
Finally a really horrific experience
I have just been looking at some of the comments posted under "hated it". The tendency in those comments are that they all walked out after the first hour, because they were sickened and disgusted. And OK, the scene in question is when the "horror" began, and to be honest that scene is disgusting, and horrifying. I repeat the last word; horrifying. "horror". HORROR-MOVIE GODDAMMIT!!! You are watching a horror-movie rated R, containing evil freaks and gore, which you were bound to know to begin with! My point is; I respect that you didn't stomach this movie, but instead of whining about the low moral fiber you should pay it respect for being the TRUE HORROR-MOVIE IT IS! After the scene aforementioned, the plot takes a little turn, and becomes a survival/revenge movie. Revenge is always a good foundation for some good old splattin', and that is also what we get served the second half of the movie. Still, though splattin'is fun, the final stages of the movie also had suspense. Conclusion; this is an ugly, stinking, putrid movie, but as a horror flick it works extraordinarily effectively.
I didn't understand this movie at all, save the basic theme. What the plot is concerned, i fell off during the first half hour. The fact that the creators deal with such an important subject is very commendable, namely the oil business, the relations between the west and the middle-east, the corruption of the US corporate politics and so forth. Thus this is an important film. But it is not a GOOD film. In this it joins the likes of a number of equally important films undeservedly praised and hyped by the media. I mention A History of violence, and especially Traffic, by the same producers, that was an hugely disappointing experience. The latter was however more comprehensible for the viewer. Syriana is packed with subplots and characters, and I found myself struggling trying to place them and connect the dots. Finally I gave up. Also George Clooney did an OK part (and showed dedication through gaining 20 kilos) but this was far from Oscar material for his part.
The New World (2005)
don't mistake lack of talent for genius
There's so much already said about this pretentious, self-indulgent, pompous attempt at art, that I won't elaborate too much, but will concentrate on the flaws which I can't see mentioned in previous comments. This was the most anticipated movie of the year for my part, simply because I love movies about Indians (and period pieces). On the other hand, I knew that the director was Terrence Malick, the creator of the pompous, pretentious The thin red Line. This was a movie which was very good when it was good, but oh so terrible when it was bad. Voice-over!!!! Why?? Malick; you are not unique because you apply this in your movies, there is a reason why no other directors do it!!!!! You have to let the actor ACT what he/she feels, not TELL THE AUDIENCE BY Voice-over!!The only reason I see for doing this, is that the director lacks the ability to create drama and instruct actors to express themselves convincingly to the audience, so he lets them say it out themselves: "I'm sad. " Who is he?" "who is she?" "what is love?" FOR THE LOVE OFGOD!!!!!!! I wanted so much to like this movie. The cast was good, with great native actors like Agust Schellenberg, Raol Trujillo (who are great in Black Robe) Wes Studi, Michael Greyeyes, Irene Bedard (into the West). The latter is seen for 5 seconds. Jesse Borrego, who is cast as a native, is not to be seen at all!! In addition Ben Chaplin is seen for 10 seconds, rowing a boat!! Furthermore, none of the aforementioned have any dialog!! None of the characters they play are INTRODUCED BY NAME to the audience!! None of the aforementioned, plus the rest of the cast have any PERSONALITY!! The only redeeming circumstances in the movie is the nature, and costume designs of both white and Indians. But these factors only amplify the impression of the terrible, terrible waste of resources this movie is!!
I will not even go into how slow and tedious the whole spectacle was. Or Colin Farell.(after all he is an innocent pawn, cast anachronistically as a pedophile, courting a 15 year old girl, who really was only 10 according to history)
The ultimate proof of Malicks failure comes when Pocahontas dies in the end, tragically, 22 years old, leaving a little boy!! But how did I react? I couldn't care less!! In fact I was happy!
If you want a realistic account of the fascinating drama which Malick failed to bring to screen, read "Love and Hate in Jamestown" by David Price. If you want to see a good depiction of the meeting and relationship of Indian and whites in early America, watch "Black Robe".
I hope Terrence Malick never is handed a big production again, and I hope he uses more than 20 years until his next project. Then, hopefully in a filmic sense, he will be dead and gone.
( Minor spoiler alert.)I bought this DVD after thorough scrutiny, being a total stranger to the Thai film-industry. I recently purchased it, based basically from the reviews it got here at IMDb. I had rather high expectations, especially as I am a big historical-epic-war-movie lover! I am happy to say it satisfied my expectations to the full. The structure of the movie is perhaps not conventional or optimal, starting out with a massive battle-scene,largely without any buildup, save a narrated introduction. However, the film manages to get deep into the characters as it goes along. The movie is filled with massive battle-scenes and action,as the bare-breasted villagers meet the Burmese army. The violence is of a very graphic nature,in the vein of Braveheart, including swords, hatchets,bow and arrows, guns, clubs and cannons. The climactic battle is simply breathtaking, not to mention riveting.