Reviews written by registered user

8 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
I love me some romanticized western but god, 29 April 2016

did this cross the line and then some. It looks beyond fake, staged and cheap even for its time.

The cast is ridiculous to say the least, I understand Newman was partly behind the production so he must've been some big time narcissistic douche to think he could portray Butch Cassidy. According to Hollywood all historically notable people who ever lived were handsome pretty boys. I bet when they come up with a remake which shouldn't take long, they'll try to cast DiCaprio who apparently resembles every notable character who ever lived and some other pretty eyes boy.

The release date for this along other overrated films turned out to be instances of perfect timing, apparently the 60's were perfect or something.

2 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
8.2!! Are you serious?, 14 May 2014

This is certainly a nice and moving film as it is hard to go wrong with such a heart wrenching story like the one it is loosely based upon.

Unfortunately the film is not elevated in any way, feeling somewhat forced and implausible. Being executed as predictably as possible as well as unable to shake off an aura of artificiality and hollywoodization for placing the story in the suburban United States instead of Japan does not help.

If you wish to see a better American film about a dog which is more entertaining, fun and far less predictable you should see the underrated "Marley & Me".

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Heartfelt Bond movie, 30 July 2012

It's nice to revisit this end of the millennium spectacular blockbuster made in an age when actual humor, chemistry among cast and romance in movies weren't as maligned as they are today and were actually appreciated.

After complaints of how formulaic the franchise had become and the less than impressive reception of Tomorrow never dies, the Bond franchise once again ran the risk of remaining stuck in the past and to look plain ridiculous at a time when movies like the Matrix, the Sixth Sense and the Blair Witch Project explored new ground and wowed audiences all over the world, a deeper Bond movie seemed demanded.

The fascinatingly titled "The World is not Enough" expands on the Bond formula. It's amazing to see action taking place in London for a change and see M -How dared they waste such a class act like Judi Dench in Goldeneye and Tomorrow never dies- Q and the rest of MI6 being more involved not only for the sake of it, like it could have easily been done but actually play an integral part of a convincing story which can be felt wasn't just pulled up someone's ass but actually was worked on and taken time with for it is congruent and pays great attention to detail. The film is further enhanced by exotic, beautiful locations and a mesmerizing score. It's had such an impact, and raised the bar to such heights that M has played a consistently big role in every Bond movie since.

This film requires several viewings to comprehend and appreciate. I could write the many reasons why this film is underrated but it's best when discovered personally for it is a really moving experience.

Sophie Marceau and Robert Carlyle are mesmerizing. Pierce Brosnan is effortlessly flawless and smoothly effective and is given the chance to show Bond's vulnerable side which he does perfectly and subtly. Robbie Coltrane, Goldie, Samantha Bond and Q provide great comic relief and Denise Richards is just there as eye candy and appears way late in the movie so I personally did not mind her, Pierce Brosnan seems to have guided her and prevented her from being an even bigger disaster. The writers only fault was not expanding her character or even helping poor Denise for she was given cringe inducing dialogue and by far the worst lines in the movie. I honestly believe she could have pulled it off if she had been older.

This was a risky and thought provoking bond movie not the bland Casino Royale.

5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Best in the series but too little too late, 30 July 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A statement of what hype can do - Warner Bros. owns rotten tomatoes now, coincidence?-, the overblown praise this trilogy has received before each one of its films is even released proves Batman fans have become the Justin Bieber fans of movies.

Critics now even dare throw shade at Marvel (which revived the genre after Warner Brothers almost killed it with Batman & Robin) and bestow honors at this for things that past overlooked, under-appreciated and truly risky films tried first and genuinely executed without rubbing it in people's faces (Cough!! The World is not Enough!! Cough!!) unlike this manipulative film which sadly represents all that's wrong with modern Hollywood.

Fortunately this entry marks the final nail on the coffin for this bastard and soulless incarnation of Batman which has infected Hollywood inspiring charmless reboot after the other. I am tired of having to suffer through the artificial hype Juggernaut the studio has created (which there seems to be no escape from) and how it keeps taking advantage and blatantly tries to cash in from a tragedy like Heath Ledger's death.

The DKR mostly takes off where the Dark Knight left off although it does seem to have learned a few lessons from it for it takes a little more time to establish itself and isn't a never ending climax like the former. Perhaps Messiah Chris Nolan realized how awful his first two Batman movies were and tried to amend his mistakes but it's just too little too late.

The DKR's characters are unsympathetic and do not even come close to remotely resemble believable human beings for they lack strong motivation and interact with each other with little smoothness and only because the script mandates it. Not once there is spark or chemistry amongst cast members for the characters never raise from barely being plot driven two dimensional pawns.

This loose The World is not Enough remake features another cheap, unoriginal and lazy contemporary story that conveniently keeps advancing despite plot holes the size of Texas (tough not as many or laughable as TDK) and gigantic lapses in logic, wasn't this supposed to be a realistic take on Batman? All it's achieved is suck dry and sacrifice all fun, emotional weight and striking visuals (which has made the character and the past franchise unique and unmistakable, helped it stand out from the crowd) thus being reduce to a poor man's James Bond franchise with over elaborate stories with never ending and predictable twists and turns, uninspired locations, underwhelming production design, unimaginative costume design, action and fight scenes as exciting and challenging as those found in a Mighty Power Rangers episode and top it all off a horrific musical score by the usually wonderful Hans Zimmer.

I can picture Christopher Nolan and his writers never being satisfied with a script and pulling twists out of their asses while trying to cram as much as possible up until the very last minute. It must be hard for them to have a simple and concrete vision, stick with it and trust it for they set out to please everyone when they should be relying on his cast's strengths and talent.

Atmosphere and style should not be mistaken for lack of substance. There are seemingly campy films at the surface that have amazing depth while the Dark Knight Rises is a ridiculously serious movie that never acknowledges its own fantasy for it even seems ashamed of the character 's past as well as too concerned of what people will think.

This film doesn't offer much beyond the pretentious surface, with cringe inducing dialogue, wooden and uninspired performances (yet again) from the main cast although Christian Bale was slightly more bearable and comfortable this time around; Marion Cotillard was unconvincing and dull and Joseph Gordon Levitt solidifies his status as one of Hollywood's most overrated actors of the hipster generation.

On the bright side, Anne Hathaway wasn't a complete disaster as Catwoman , she's a professional and competent actress reliant on a director's or script's vision. Hathaway isn't intuitive or creative tough and therefore can't elevate or give her own twist or pull off a role by herself like the fascinating Michelle Pfeiffer; missing is also the duality of the character and the sexual tension with Batman. Tom Hardy did as good as anyone could have done with Bane who I consider to be the best villain of this weak franchise.

I can finally rest now that this franchise is over, I may come to terms with it some day considering this wasn't as terrible as the first two but it went down in flames for the last 30 minutes and had the worst out of character ending of any comic book movie ever. For now I can only hope to pretend it never existed.

I'll stick to and keep admiring the wonderful, tour de force and definitive performances of Michael Keaton as Batman and Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman and their wonderful chemistry. Chemistry and deep dynamic character interaction which Keaton also shared with Jack Nicholson, Kim Basinger, Danny DeVito and Michael Gough's Alfred and that was always lacking in Nolan's films, (which tried to dissociate from the previous "mediocre" franchise while still hypocritically and lazily borrowing from them, from costume design to entire sequences that were executed much better in the first franchise) the chemistry we do not see in films anymore and which Hollywood seems to have forgotten all about. I guess chemistry amongst cast members must also be considered style over substance in this age.

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
4 out 10 seems generous, 29 July 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Perhaps if the main character wasn't Spider Man people would see this for what it really is, a mere insult designed to cash in and retain Spider-Man's film rights from part of Sony pictures.

I'll admit I had low expectations and that I am biased towards the original which I'm fond of. It was so disrespectful of Sony to reboot a respectable franchise after only 10 years (following Batman Begins' example) to appeal to the supposedly modern and more sophisticated, cynic hipster generation who mistake style and atmosphere for lack of substance.

In spite of all this, never would I have expected such an unprofessional and uninspired mess. I'm not sure why a reboot origin movie was needed for all the origin plot points shared with the original were done way better, more colorfully and memorably in the first one. They are rushed through and disposed of as quickly as possible here, proving how unnecessary another origin story was while helping render the rest of the film almost implausible. The 1989 Michael Keaton starred Batman movie showed superhero movie franchises beginnings could be done in creative, non cursory and unpredictable ways successfully. A stronger second half and a promising end weren't enough to save this film.

The story is delivered laughably, weakly and makes little impact (people die and no one seems to notice or care) in the Amazing Spider-Man to the point it feels like an independent, low budget, poorly cast (seriously Flash and the cashier were awful) spoof take on the story of Spider Man. Peter Parker is reduced to an immature, disrespectful, brooding, inarticulate loner and overall weak minded individual with none of the dignity, cheerful and optimistic attitude and intelligence that made the character from the first movie so unique. Curt Connors was yet another mad scientist with none of the charm of Dafoe's goblin or sympathy of Molina's Doc Ock, and Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy was cute and brave but mostly a bore. The few highlights were the always lovely Sally Field as Aunt May and Denis Leary's Captain Stacy.

Many of the original franchises' shallow complaints are still present: Garfield's crying is as cringing as Maguire's, media's corny coverage of the climax, and another cheesy scene involving New Yorkers helping Spider-Man. Was this why Sony chose to go all the way to reboot the franchise?

Do not believe the hype and the attacks on the original. This was nowhere near as colorful or fun as the 2002 movie.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Really good!, 26 October 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

So good I was actually surprised to find out this episode was the 307th of the series for it feels right out of the Simpson's Golden Age. The main plot and subplots were funny and poignant throughout.

Lisa feels demoralized after she's told she should narrow down her wide array of interests for she lacks focus, which leads her to choose Astronomy and convince Homer to buy her a telescope but is forced to start a petition to reduce the city's overwhelming light pollution after she struggles to see the universe due to it; meanwhile Bart tries to steal Fat Tony's hood ornament all while a cocky British filmmaker is shooting a documentary in Springfield Elementary about its students.

The final sequence is hilarious and a highlight of the episode. Don't believe the 7.0 rating.

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Awesome and surprising episode, 6 March 2011

Even though I still find myself enjoying the series after 20 years, believe it has maintained a degree of quality and integrity, gets unfairly over-criticized and under-acknowledged -just because it lacks Golden Age quality does not mean it's awful-, I can't deny my beloved Simpsons have been recycling story lines for years now, characters are a shadows of their former selves and seldom experience development and are sadly and blatantly exploited in search of a quick, cheap and forgettable laugh. The emotional weight that characterized the series and set it apart from the crowd has now been tossed aside.

It would seem that there is no other direction they could go that they haven't gone before but every once in a while comes an episode that breaths new life into the series. This episode features a surprising and unpredictable reversal of roles between Bart and Lisa whom we get to see the dark side of. Nelson plays an important and unusual part in it.

Not even the weaker Marge/Homer subplot is able to bring this episode down or prevent it from being one of the best of the last 10 years.

Misunderstood Gem!, 16 July 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie was far from conventional, this time Burton had more freedom to mold Batman into his own vision. He set up to explore the deepest and darkest themes found throughout its long and rich multimedia history all while managing to pay homage to its many diverse depictions and different eras.

Burton delivered what is still to this point the most polarizing and controversial interpretation of Batman's history. An uneasy, deliciously dark and humorous, visually striking and sense assaulting experience disguised as a simple straight forward, and campy blockbuster further enhanced by its amazing score, depressive blue Christmas setting, influential production design, creative costume design, rich symbolism and tour de force performances (a career defining for Michelle Pfeiffer).

Batman finds himself pitted against and emotionally challenged by 3 "villains":

- A disturbing circus freak with a tragic past, Oswald Cobblepot known as the Penguin, who was abandoned by his wealthy and influential parents and who just like Bruce had his innocence taken from him at a premature age.

He feels cheated of a promising life and represents Bruce's life gone wrong as he wishes to inflict pain and for people to suffer the same for what he went through. Unlike Bruce or Selina feels no remorse or conflict, there is no turning back for him. He is understandably pure angst and bitterness and in spite of being an eloquent and highly intelligent individual is mainly driven by his instincts, thirst for revenge, carnal and affection needs making him an easy prey for Max Schrecks' plot.

- Selina Kyle aka Catwoman, a woman who by trying to better herself ventured out of her comfort zone only to inevitably become the very thing she sought not to, failing to stand out and succeed in a tough male run world where there is no room for a shy, inexperienced, naive girl even if willing, intelligent, thoughtful, honest, hard working and creative, a world where only the fittest survive and the unethical climb while the weak languish in the background. In conclusion everything society molded her to be and all she was entitled to aspire to.

She is an innocent, girlish and immature woman predictably fond of the color pink, stuffed animals and cats who is harassed and humiliated at work. A subtle glimpse of her dormant and repressed side is shown at the beginning of the movie after her first encounter with "the Batman".

Selina discovers her boss', a truly heartless but beloved businessman depicted by the twisted media as a working man of humble upbringing and an uninterested anthropologist Max Schreck, sinister and disguised attempt at blackmailing and taking the city hostage by holding a monopoly on energy which causes her to be disposed of mercilessly by Schreck who corners her and throws her out of a high story window of a skyscraper.

She falls on her back on several inches of snow and is symbolically revived by cats and reborn as a self-confident "executive assistant" turned vigilante focused on destroying Schreks evil empire and stranglehold on the city.

All the while still enjoying her once seemingly unreachable, new fulfilling and limitless self by indulging in what she thought would be a mere diversion. She is sidetracked by Batman and his alter ego Bruce Wayne, she begins to question herself and be scared of what she has become after it appears she has met "the one" shattering her once firm and "cynic" perspective of life and fracturing her new found confidence, the delicate balance of her duality, her selfish empowerment and forcing her to consider giving up her crusade against injustice and live a normal life with Bruce, reluctantly confirming and accepting the goals of life as dictated by a two faced, hypocrite society which allows men like Max Schrek to come out on top and control the world at will. The dynamic relationship of Bruce and Selina is by far the best, most tragic, erotic romance to date in comic book genre movie.

- Max Schreck who claims to represent the city itself, and who one day plans to live through his son who will make sure his legacy lives on. He will stop at nothing and no one to accomplish it until he gains full control of the city and the political and justice authorities are his puppets.

Batman Returns is a deeper and genuine un-sugar-coated statement on marginalization, class and gender confrontation and alienation in a corrupt and hypocrite world. Despite superficial differences all that separates Batman and his foes are the side of the law they supposedly fight for which is not only blurry but undefined. All the Dark Knight rises only dared to superficially explore failing big time.

During the ending credits the main character's themes breathtakingly morph into one another, coincidence?