Reviews written by registered user

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
15 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Life (2017/I)
21 out of 38 people found the following review useful:
Nothing more than a Alien Rip off, with an absurd ending, 25 March 2017

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Last night I've seen 3 movies in theaters, Life (2017) was one of them. To my surprise, this film was made by Daniel Espinosa. And I was even more surprised that Mr. Espinosa did not try to make this movie a sci-fi drama as has been usual in Hollywood for the past few years.

So what to expect from this movie? Firstly, the technical and aesthetic aspects are very good, as it comes this habit in this type of film with this type of budget. The cinematography is very good and the camera movements are agile and very beautiful. Daniel Espinosa's direction is interesting (at least in most of the film).

In other words in the technical department the film is very good. You can have a beautiful movie visually, but a movie needs a good story and good characters if it want to be a good movie ten years (or more) from now. The problem is that the script is fragile (one example, the Earth sends a spacecraft to push the station into space fearing that the contamination hits the Earth if the station falls on the planet, after a few minutes after this scene, this information is completely forgettable by the script) and full of holes, the story is way too simple and some acting is very bad. To start with, I've never liked Ryan Reynolds, he's a bad actor and his character is annoying, I think the director got this idea and because of this, Ryan Reynolds's character is the first to die (thank God). What a annoying and uninteresting character we got here. To tell the truth the actress Olga Dihovichnaya could have done a better work with her character (Ekaterina Golovkina). Her acting was very bad. The other actors are fine, however they needed more time to work on their characters (most of the blame is because of the stupid script). Especially the character of Jake Gyllenhaal.

Some lines of dialogue said by the actors are also very stupid (example the character of Jake Gyllenhaal agrees to commit suicide to prevent "Calvin" of contaminating the planet, because according to him, it is not worth living with these 8 billion stupid humans and he wants to stay in space is better for his life - ridiculous, I know).

But the biggest problem of the film is that the film is just a poorly made copy of Alien (1979). Yes, Hollywood copies another classic movie, this time - the Ridley Scott classic sci-fi and horror movie. But the this film can not maintain the intensity, nor the pace nor the amazing construction until the very end that the film of Ridley Scott has. What's more, the movie is full of stupid moments. One of the most stupid moments was the camera moves to the first person (too see through the eyes of the creature) when "Calvin" flies inside the station. What is the purpose of this? The only thing that comes to my mind, is the director wants to do these scenes to appeal to video game fans who play Call of Duty and other FPS? Ridiculous. Yes this movie is the Alien for the new generation that likes games and consoles and the same generation that likes to see blood and violence gratuitously to satisfy the ego.

What a lousy movie we have here, the icing on the cake and the absurd and unnecessary ending. In Alien (1979), the ending was a perfect construction from start to finish of the movie, here the director Daniel Espinosa puts only this ridiculous ending to give the air of the film wants to be different from the other sci-fi movies that currently exist in the market. That is, a different ending just for the sake of being different and not according to the purpose or construction of the narrative. In other words, an absurd, unnecessary and irrelevant ending.

Do not waste your money and your time watching this absurd movie.

92 out of 166 people found the following review useful:
Sorry, there is no king here., 17 March 2017

King Kong (1933) was a perfect movie in its proposal. A simple, direct and clear message. No remakes or sequels required. This is why all sequels and remakes are always inferior in impact to the original. Filmmakers always want to add anything new and unnecessary.

In this new film, Kong leaves the territory of quality and embarks on a trip to the territory of blockbusters, in other words, special effects and jokes (just watch the retarded and unnecessary joke scene about the Skullcrawlers name with Hiddleston, Larson and John C. Reilly) overlap the story, and so the film is passable and totally forgettable in a week.

Once again, Hollywood treats scientists as idiots when the character of Corey Hawkins can not even open a can of canned food and feels intimidated by a woman. Not to mention the macho colonel, who wants an unnecessary revenge with Kong, because Kong killed his men (in a casual meeting).

And not to mention the idiotic plans that Jordan Vogt-Roberts uses to focus the eyes of the Samuel L. Jackson character with the eyes of King Kong. It seems like the director Jordan Vogt-Roberts wants to make a kind of (unnecessary) fight in the old west style. Pure waste of time, as we know that the macho colonel, is no challenge for Kong, so why waste precious screen time with these situations? Because Kong's story can be told as in the original in just 90 or 100 minutes. And the filmmarkers have to put 2 hours of film and for this they have to put unnecessary situations and scenes.

As the disposable soldier of the colonel, who gets lost from the group, just to see Kong crush a giant squid (and then Kong eats it), then after some scenes, be killed by another giant monster. What could be an interesting conflict between the characters of Tom Hiddleston and Samuel L. Jackson, but that ends up in nothing. Because people are written from a stupid one-dimensional way (like the stupid macho colonel). That is, more movie time, for less story. This is because Kong never leaves the island in this movie, Kong will only leave the island in 2020 in the movie Godzilla vs. King Kong. Yes this movie aims to create another shared universe (MCU type of crap), and in the end this compromises the quality of this film. The filmmakers have their hands tied, because they can not put their best on this film, however they have to think how this movie will work with another movie from another guy, three long years into the future.

I went into the movie hoping to see a good and fun Kong movie, and I ended up seeing a crap and bad one, because of the ambition of the studio that compromised the quality of the movie, for the money. Not to mention, even as a fun movie, this movie fails so much.

You see, the scenes with special effects, you can see that the scenes were all filmed on a green screen. And the final fight between Kong and the giant lizard is even inferior to the T-rex fights in Peter Jackson's 2005 remake. Yes, the fights and clashes between Kong and the other giants monsters were better, bigger, more epic, more brutal and vicarious than in this pathetic 2017 movie. I'm not defending the Peter Jackson movie, that film obviously had its flaws, but in the department of special effects and action scenes (this department that does not save a movie, nonetheless) is vastly superior to this Jordan Vogt- Roberts movie. Even as an action movie and blockbuster, this movie fails in a big way.

But if you were disappointed, and if you were sad that you had lost money unfairly, you can wait until 2020 to see the rest of the film in Godzilla VS King Kong.

My God, that's why commercial filmmaking is in the mud. The commercial cinema has as main target children, teenagers and young people. And this is why the quality bar is so low.

29 out of 55 people found the following review useful:
Nothing new under the sun, 21 February 2017

This movie started like any other drama, the main character has a problem, where the story of the film has a beginning, the main character and history suffer a turn and in the end of the second act, and them is the end of the story (third act of the movie itself). In other words, like any other drama, this film follows the already very used old paradigm of Syd Field for scripts. A story told a thousand times before, the same way a thousand times, only the characters change and nothing else. The same situations, the same problems.

However I must say that the director of the movie at least had the idea of the main character does not learn anything (moral lesson) at the end of the third act. This earned points to the movie for me, at least.

The characters are interesting in most of the part of this film, but only three of them take advantage of the good actors that are in the movie , the characters of Casey Affleck, Lucas Hedges and Michelle Williams. The remaining characters are irrelevant in movie story and they basically do nothing interesting (basically they are filler for this movie).

Casey Affleck is good enough but only shows potential in only one scene with Michelle Williams. There are other scenes that his character underutilized, like the scene in the police, in which Lee tries to commit suicide, this scene fails, because the construction of the character itself until then, there was no indication that this character wanted to kill itself, there is not enough tension until that moment. Michelle Williams is also underutilized in most part of the film (she is annoying, to speak the truth, but she also appears little time on the screen), except that scene with the character of Casey Affleck (In the third act of the story, Randi appears with a baby of its new husband). In which both have a talk about their past and about their separation. In this scene there is a lot of tension, and the drama of the actors is well applied. It's an emotionally amazing and perfectly executed scene.

Lucas Hedges is good enough, not amazing, but good enough for me to sympathize with him, the freezer scene is pretty good, nonetheless. It's a perfectly executed scene to watch and be admired.

But this is the problem of the film for me, taking some scenes (pretty good by the way) where the actors can show their potential, the film is the same thing seen a thousand times before, with the same situations and problems. Nothing new under the sun. If you do not see this movie, you will not miss anything new that you have already seen. It is a good movie, but no classic or masterpiece level of quality.

Super Mario 64 (1996) (VG)
The most overrated game ever, 19 January 2017

This game came out in 1996, I went to school, at the time the game magazines did not talk about anything else, pointing out the amazing graphics and how revolutionary it was.

Gaming magazines and sites never knew what would be good for the market (the mass of the population), but they know what's good for hardcore gamers (gaming companies just need to put the entire budget for graphics in boring games). Or what it is fun for the mass market, but once again, magazines and gaming sites and geek (the minority) only care about themselves.

To please the hardcore gamers (a type of audience that frequents forums, blogs or youtube channels that speak in a professioanl way about games. Which are best sold games or which games are best evaluated by "specialized press", among other aspects), you just need to do something distinct to a franchise that already exists, as hardcore gamers play games with the mentality of a jobs instead of a hobby to have fun. Due possibly to the frustrated real lives they have (many of them have no father figure due to divorces). And they need to feel special about something.

They hardcore gamers need something different, they make them feel special (in the small heads of them, they think they can change the direction of the gaming market). But still, they are just a minority. A vocal minority (which makes a lot of noise), but still a minority, nonetheless.

This is a mass market, it's a business. This is not art. The creators at Nintendo are not artists, they are programmers. They work for what the market wants. This is a market of hundreds of millions/billions, and it needs hundreds of millions/billions to be profitable and stay active and well alive.

After all I was affixed in Super Mario World on Super Nintendo, I like everyone I expected a Super Mario 64 on 2d scroll platform. But with 3d technology for the scenarios themselves. Instead I received, a boring 3d game with high camera problems (Yes in this aspect Banjo Kazooie is superior game, however Banjo Kazooie is a game of exploration of gigantic scenarios). SM64 is a 3d exploration (collecting crap) broken game, and to collect coins (filler crap). SM64 should never be the sequel to the great Super Mario World.

In other words, there is nothing, in Super Mario 64 to be a sequel to Super Mario World, irrelevant if it belongs to the same franchise. It is not the label on the box of the game that matters, but the gameplay that comes within the game. And the gameplay of SM64 is nothing to do with SMW.

SMW was an adventure and non-stop action 2D game but it had reflexes to pass the challenges. In SM64 the character (In 3D) is floating on the scene, being impossible to pass the challenge (without mistake) due to camera problems, not because of the player, but because of the broken nature of the game.

Because the games are challenge in their essence, not art. Different than the hardcore gamers go around every place of the internet to preach that games are "art". The purpose of games is to amuse, not to make you think. The music, the art style of a game can be artistic, but not the game itself.

This game was a betrayal to all Super Mario World players, who expected one thing, and came out a completely different game. And so the market responded with SM64 having smaller sales than SMW.

Irrelevant what the creator of the game said. The gaming market is in charge, it's the market that pays Nintendo and it's the market that has the last word. This game represents the decline of the biggest franchise of video games, which would last until 2006 (launch of New Super Mario DS). This game represents all the arrogance of Nintendo (in wanting to control the market in its own will) and launch a completely different game that consumers and the market want.

And for this reason they lost market for the Playstation, and in all fairness.

Elysium (2013/I)
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Technically astonishing, yet passable and quickly forgotten, 18 January 2017

I like the beginning of this movie, the sequences editing, the camera plans are very good and the mix with the sound is great.

And the satellite orbiting around the earth, and that shows the localized society as if it was a mirror is very beautiful.

But this is the problem, for this film and other modern sci-fi. Underneath this amazing technical aspect, it is the same with the same plot and story seen so many times. Just to end up giving you a moral lesson and show great special effects.

In this case, the difference between rich and poor, poor live below, on the unclean planet, and rich in the upper world and full of opportunities. The world has become chaos because of overpopulation, and of course the corrupt and bad company is also here. That put the profit above the poor, for the rich to live well and with quality. Of course, these topics and themes already seen a million times don't help at all. Since the script is a mess. Who cares about creating a good story, if the filmmakers only want to create situations to show scenes that evolve the amazing special effects. Once again the special effects are in Film industry to help the storytelling, the special effects are not here to be the main attraction of the film or any film for that matter.

The main problem is not only the story be a huge chiché, but the execution is also done poorly with way too cold characters at the mix. Besides that, I think the biggest problem with this movie is the script that does not let the actors shine.

But to tell you the truth, the actors don't even try hard, it seems they are in the movie, only to receive the paid check and nothing else. Matt Damon as tormented person, and no one is convinced. Jodie Foster is on autopilot for the entire movie. And William Fichtner is an annoyance to see, playing the traditional jerk of any movie of the this movie. The action scenes are passable and quickly forgotten.

A waste, that served only to show great technical quality (special effects, sound, etc). But for this, We do not need talent, but a great budget. To create a good movie and a good story requires talent, dedication, and hard work. And this movie has none of it. A waste of time.

Dead after 10 minutes, 9 January 2017

There are films that are destroyed in the first 10 or 15 minutes of projection, this is one of these films. Only in the first few minutes could you see that this movie was going to be bad or garbage , but let's see:

1 - Dark and shady environments in a forest full of darkness. Necessary music, heavy and melancholic to create suspense. Music created for this movie, cheerful and to create rhythm.

2 - A guy with white skin and a menacing look chases a young man through the forest. He kills him with a knife. Filmmmakers do not have balls to show blood or blows. The body of the kid disappears in smoke (is this some joke?).

3 - Movie changes quickly for a group of kids playing at Beach and surfing.There are no developments, except that kids have muscles. Girls between the ages of 18 and 21 are half naked and come back to the party with the boys.

4 - A kid in the middle of a sexual act with a girl in the sea, is surprised by an entity or the same guy with white skin (chiché), the scene is accompanied with the sound of a joyful music, improper to create suspense or tension (do filmmakers really know what they're doing with this movie). I think the entity was communicating to the boy of his destiny as savior or saving messiah of that world.The entity leaves the kid with marks on the body. Again chiché.

5 - The kid has family problems, especially with his father. Again chiché and old. Development goes faster than a moon rocket. Without development, how I can understand these characters, or what they are, or what they think.

6 - This movie is dead after 10 minutes. Nothing on the content, emotional or technical level (special effects) will save this disaster. Waste of time, unless they want to see kids with pretty faces between 18 and 21 years old. This is typical, teenager movie, painted as if it was a serious movie.

Furious 7 (2015)
5 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Movie for a select (but growing) group of people, 1 January 2017

I never understood why this franchise always made so much money and why so many people like it. Unless you like to see half naked women sponging on wet cars, cars with modified engines used in street races (and of course it's all done in a team of outlaw guys, the so-called "family", against other teams with people with similar desires) and to escape the police (police haters, they should inflate the scores here in IMDb), and to illicit traffic drugs and money, this type of film is not for you.

I have a theory of mine because this series remains strong in the box office and each film gets better box office than the previous film of this franchise. The secret lies in the breakdown of our society. When this franchise began in 2001, our society was morally not decadent as it is today, nor so violent. In the last 16 years our society has grown worse and the values ​​of the old days began to disappear and our society and the moviegoers in general began to identify more and more ,each time, with the "characters" of this type of film. This is the only explanation, which I see, because every movie this franchise has billed every time the previous movie.

Not anything, in this movie at the level of content or structure that is worth as a film, whether purely as fun / entertaining or for possible logical/ make you think. Not a single quality exists in this film (or in this franchise, but actually beyond the seventh film, I only saw the second film in this series (which I consider absolute crap).

Anything. Plot is not interesting, shallow characters like a plate, unless you like what they do. Characters with generic lines and say cool one liner to impress the younger ones. Bureaucratic action scenes - two guys jump with a sport car at high speed between two skyscrapers. The damage is minimal, almost non-existent. Ridiculous ending. Chiché story and action scenes without suspense, tension or in a interesting way visually. At least.

A waste of time, at least for me.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
What is the purpose of this film?, 1 January 2017

Oh my....I thought the destruction in Man of Steel was gratuitous, meaningless and excessive, wait until you see this movie. The meaningless destruction of this film, makes the destruction of Man of Steel, look like a child's play in a park.

Because taking away large-scale destruction and special effects (and I admit, the special effects in this movie are very good), this does not offer anything interesting, innovative, or at least something good and basic at least.

The story is cliché, generic and predictable -check

The actors do not know what they are doing (lost in the middle of the script), performances are forced and hollow-witches -check

More chiché elements and characters that an old clothes - check (The Asian girl, who lost her parents in a monster attack in the past, with the help of the white guy, finally gets her revenge, the white character has to show that he is capable of doing the job done, even if all things are against him (the teen spirit -never give Up, if you try hard, you can have it), The tough black guy, but with a good heart and a good sense of duty. The stupid Nerd character that has to explain everything, etc, etc...

Ron Perlman is here and he is annoying.

The plot is predictable, the action scenes are confusing, the story and characters are chiché, the music goes unnoticed, the only interesting thing is the special effects and the action scenes. Which for me are not worth much. Special effects are in Film industry to help the storytelling, the special effects are not here to be the main attraction of the film or any film for that matter. The movie serves as a showcase for showcasing good special effects. The action scenes are good, but confusing.

I do not recommend this movie, waste of time.

Deadpool (2016)
22 out of 41 people found the following review useful:
Being a different Super hero Movie does not mean it's good Movie overall, 31 December 2016

Where will I get a hundred words to describe this "movie"?

The story of this movie is basically a revenge story in a superhero movie, cliché. The reason for the success of this film is the type of character (which most Male audience in the age range between 16 and 25, will enjoy) coupled with spontaneous humor and the jokes with the fourth wall. Of course, the character may be a snort of fresh air for the sub genre super heroes (I do not know there was a sub-genre so-called Super hero/ comic movie genre), but for the movies in general, this here is nothing new to see.

Do fans of this kind of movies feel down, when we talk about superhero movies and why do they have to separate them from the "other" types of movies? Just because they do not to offend sensitivities? Or they do not want the audience to consider them a "inferior movie", so many questions, no answer.

Of course here we have all the ingredients that anyone in this range will like. Meaningless violence, even more so with super heroes. Seriously, how to create tension in a film of this type, where the main character has regeneration and if he is cut into pieces, it will regenerate. The action scenes (the most basic element of this type of film) completely lose their impact and tension. I like scenes of action and violence, but the filmmakers have to show the effects of violence on the bodies of characters and its consequences in characters' lives.. Creating violence just to show that it is "cool" only creates more violent people. Even focusing solely on this aspect of the film, the film is too stupid. With senseless action scenes. This film, even its most primary purpose, can not perform with quality.

In addition to the humorous, mindless action scenes, generic plot, the main character (fun but limited), what does this movie have to offer?

Scenes of nudity, spare me. Do not waste your time with this tripe.

Inception (2010)
3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Didactic, but nonetheless a good movie., 30 December 2016

Inception has a problem that I cannot bear: the constant that someone comes to explain the laws and how that world works. The creation of the character of Ellen Page (Ariadne) was for the sole purpose of explaining that to moviegoers. Not that it's bad, but at certain moments it seems like the movie becomes more class at school, to know how that universe works, instead of the characters in this movie live the adventure for themselves. In this aspect the film is didactic. And the space for the imagination is limited. In this aspect everything in this film is chewed, everything explained, where are the possibilities? I do not want someone to explain the universe, I want to see the characters live and react in this universe.

Yes the ending leaves open the question whether that is a dream or reality, but it is a cheap gimmick instead of letting them our imaginations fly. If at the end of the movie the experience of the characters was a dream, so it was waste of two and a half hour, at least the Matrix shows the characters in the real world, and that it was not a dream inside a dream. The tension and time invested would not be a waste of time

Not that it spoils the experience of the film, but it disturbs in some parts, mainly in the middle of the film, when the group is preparing for the assault. The concept is good, but it should be presented in a simpler way. Clearly Nolan was very ambitious in the concept of this film. But Nolan is quite integral in the proposal of his films, and he tries to put unknown concepts to the general public in such a cohesive way, even with the problem of trying to explain everything and other problems of pace are easily forgiven. Nolan tries to do his best in each of his films as if his movie was his last, as if his life depends on it. A great honesty on the part of Nolan, and this I can and I want to enjoy. Nolan is such an honest guy and scores points with me. It's the difference between the lousy movie director and an excellent director. The bad elements of Inception are not enough to spoil its qualities. The ambitious ideas of the filmmaker and the great sequences in parallel assembly that characterize his works.

Not that the idea of Inception is innovative, this idea has been copied many times in other works (Paprika, Synecdoche New York and The Matrix are the most practical and common examples). But it's the way Nolan puts these ideas in the big budget blockbuster. Let's be honest here. Smaller or lower budget films are not seen by the general public due to the absence of of large production values (a great soundtrack, great locations for filming or great special effects, etc). See these ideas or concepts in a great Hollywood blockbuster made with such quality and care, it is amazing. And these ideas are embedded in the drama of the film in such a cohesive and exemplary way; it is applauding Nolan's professional integrity. This is why Nolan movies are so well received, he tries to put in these Hollywood blockbusters something more, something common in indie or smaller films, but with the financial aspect of the great studios to provide a better technical quality.

Obviously there is quality on this movie; the large parallel sequences are exemplary. The parallel between the Van sequences, the hotel with the Joseph Gordon-Levitt (when character is awake in the elevator), the peak at the military base in the snow and the desolate city of Cobb and Mal is almost perfectly made with an all- encompassing soundtrack. Of course the sequences of action are lousy . And many dialogues are very weak. Two weaknesses in Nolan's movies.Bad things come with the good things. I suspect that the bad action scenes of Inception and Dark Knight were the reason why Nolan turned DKR into an action movie instead of trying to tell a good story, Nolan's ego should have been hurt by the criticism as he directs his action scenes in these two films. Particularly Inception and the action sequence in the snow with Tom Hardy. Too bad, sorry.

But the performances are amazing, particularly Marion Cotillard as Mal. There are many layers in the various characters which Nolan conducts with mastery and the way they are inserted into the film is almost perfectly. Particularly in the initial sequence (which I thought would be a scene to showcase special effects, and Nolan proved me wrong). Or in the scene between Ariadne and Cobb, when Cobb tries to explain how his wife dies, and then discovered new layers of the character to reveal that in fact, he did have to do with the death of his wife. Of course this will be important to the outcome of the film. It is this ability to put the scenes and the flashbacks in certain key moments of the plot that Nolan shows much quality, and one of his long lists of virtues.

Inception is a movie like any movie; it has its flaws, but also its virtues. But, for me the qualities overlap the defects, and in the end the movie is well worth watching. But is its legendary statute being worthy? If Inception was released in the 1980's would it have the same impact in that decade, as it had in 2010? Currently the commercial movies in Hollywood are in crisis. We live in an era of remakes, superhero movies and franchise fatigue without the studios or directors making an effort to improve with originality or at least with a little more original concepts. Inception's credit could be lower if today's Hollywood was not in such a decadent state. But nonetheless, Inception is still a good movie.

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