Reviews written by registered user
|29 reviews in total|
I really like the second Mad Max movie, it's pretty interesting and the
atmosphere is unique, I am a fan of that movie. Mad Max Road Fury, it's
just Mad Max 2 on the highway chase scene, but augmented. If it were
just this, Road Fury would just be a passable and forgettable action
movie. But director George Miller had the sad idea of transforming a
series of action films with male focus, in a propagandist feminist
product. Not that I have anything against feminists, but it's wrong for
you to turn something that your fans like and turn into something
Any defense that this movie may have, falls to the ground. The defenders of this film generally claim that the film no longer makes any political comment to the feminist side, and the film goes on to value that both sexes are equal at the beginning of the third act, since Mad and Furious (and the other women) work together to get saved from the pursuit of Immortan Joe. It would be true, but the way it is done, it's too simple and execution is not good enough (considering also the size of stupid things, which happens near the end of this movie, in which I'll speak closer to the end of the text). Miller just put it in the film, to save face, if Miller had the courage and the quality, he would have developed it from the beginning of the film itself, to culminate in a quality ending, but Miller had other interests, such interests to win awards and recognition , instead of doing something of quality. With this, Miller may have won some awards from the academy, after all when the car chase scenes begin and that awful song begins, you begin to visualize the wind heads in the academy awards jumping off the couch and starting dancing and jumping like crazy , and they begin to rave how the world is evil and the fault lies with men (the academy has ceased to be relevant since the late 1950s when it began to take political positions).
Stupid, I know. If you do not belong to the rebel age group (16 years-26 years old) and you're not delighted with bad and second- rate music, then Road Fury is just a mediocre action movie with 3 scenes of car chases. Passable and forgettable. Not to mention Miller had the sad idea of leaving the third act of the film, with the characters coming back the same way they did in the first and second acts. Amateur.
I do not forget the lousy acting of the film, with the exception of Charlize Theron, no one knows how to act. Especially the women of Immortan Joe who have most quickly stepped off the walkways of a Victoria's Secret event (e.g. Rosie Huntington-Whiteley) and from acting, these ladies do not know anything, for sure. Or the 60-70 (with a body with only 130lb) years-old ladies coming back with Max and Furious in the third act, who begin to beat men in their 30s and 40s with 310lb of muscle easily. Or jumping from truck to truck, or from vehicle to vehicle like rabbits, defying the laws of physics. Even as an action movie this movie is pathetic.
Stupid movie, no doubt.
When he went to Hollywood, Alfred Hitchcock made the movie Rebecca,
which cost just over $ 1 million, and had a good box office run. Alfred
Hitchcock just wanted to sell a ticket for the people to enjoy a good
movie in a good section. After Rebecca, Mr. & Mrs. Smith also had
success with the public, however it was with Strangers on a Train, Dial
M for Murder, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Vertigo and obviously Rear
Window that Hitchcock had its biggest hits in his Hollywood career
until the mid-50's.
With that Alfred Hitchcock gained a lot of strength within Hollywood, and he got a big budget for this movie, North by Northwest. North by Northwest was another commercial project that Alfred Hitchcock embraced in focus in the espionage. North by Northwest was successful at the box office, but it was not on the same wavelength as his previous projects, which I mentioned here, especially Rear Window, and the film did little more than double its own budget. So Alfred Hitchcock returned to Psycho on a more modest budget.
North by Northwest, it's a good movie. It has a good suspense, the direction is very good by Alfred Hitchcock, and the performances are solid, especially Eva Marie Saint, who is perfect here. The great sin of this movie, for me, are the characters of this movie. Considering the important ideas and techniques that Alfred Hitchcock developed that could fill some books. I always expected more from this project. The problem with this film is how some of these characters were written, in this department I particularly blame Ernest Lehman. Ernest Lehman, wrote the characters in an amateur way, in which these same characters do not look anything like humans when confronted with the same situations that appear in the film. Particularly the scene with the mother of the main character, when she confronts one of the "supposed" hijackers in an elevator. From this moment, I completely lost the notion of a film with a serious focus.
And to be honest, the characters surround the comedy tone many times and in many situations, particularly in some situations with the main character at a mid-train station. From that moment, I completely lost interest in this film, and I just went to look at the movie just to pass the time. And waiting for the movie to end. For a film that wanted to be serious, and this was its initial proposal with the public, the movie was loses much coherence as a film. It was a disappointment, for me.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I'm not a hater of comic book-based movies, and it is difficult,
considering 2/5 of the movies that appear in movie theaters are based
on comic book, if you want to see a movie with action and effects, in
the end you always end up with one or another of this type of movie.
Blame Hollywood and the mentality of wanting to get the milk from the
cow in greater quantity in the shortest possible time.
And this movie fails on almost every level, first, the movie begins with a set piece when Thor confronts a fire demon, before this, begins a monologue of this demon on Ragnarok. Honestly, who was the amateur puts such a big exposition before an action scene. And in the midst of these two things, Thor begins to make jokes about being attached to chains. Honestly the editing of this movie is horrible.
And that goes for the whole movie. Another example, Odin ends up dying at the end of the first act, and soon afterwards appears an action scene with Hela. The public still barely chewed Odin's death scene - scene loses all emotional impact - a set piece appears which should have an emotional impact - the destruction of Thor's hammer - turns out to have no impact at all. Worse, both scenes lost their impact and ended up canceling each other out.
The editing is so horrible, the pace is so fast that not only the emotional scenes lose their emotional focus, the action scenes are flawed and the suspense scenes do not work and the whole movie is gone down the drain, in which the movie can not be chewed and the movie looks like a Mcdonald's meal. Just a factory product. In addition, the film addresses the destruction of a civilization and a race - in this case Asgard - of such a simplistic manners, and in such a hurried way. This film needs (at least) 3 hours for development and make an satisfactory establish for the final battle (considering how many subplots this movie has), instead this is a 2 hours film of second-rate jokes.
A movie to fill your eyes, but nothing is left in the mind and because of this movie is easily forgotten after the credits pass. Even the special effects are horrendous. The Hulk continues to be a digital doll and being made by a computer - what's the point of putting the Hulk in the film, but as a way to call more fanboys and sell more tickets, if the Hulk were not in the movie, this movie would make a smaller box-office and less money would went into Disney's account. Not to mention the big wolf, like the hulk, is a computer-made digital doll. The effects that should have been the decoy of the film are amateurs and lousy. Everything in this film fails. In other words, this movie as blockbuster fails to show grandiose special effects and action scenes, the movie fails at all levels. Look, I hate Avatar, but James Cameron knows how to make a great visual spectacle with great action scenes, a beautiful but empty movie. Thor 3 is rubbish at all levels, especially in its proposal (special effects and action scenes). And this for me this is the biggest sin of this movie, because this movie failed in all its objectives.
The original Planet of the Apes was a great movie, with great acting,
but it was its end that was in everyone's memory. It was something not
expected by the audience that saw the movie for the first time.
War for the Planet of the Apes, is a well-produced film with good production values, which shows well where the budget went. The direction is good, but not spectacular. Cinematography is attractive and competent, but nothing too much. The acting is good, but like the other departments, it's no big deal. The ending is good, but nothing much to be remembered, unlike as it was in the original. This is the big problem with this movie. It is well executed, but it lacked a bit of daring, something out of the ordinary, something that stays in memory of the people who have just seen this movie. What is common in modern movies, the new films leaves no room for imagination, everything here is explained, as if it were an equation, sometimes movies directors need to go beyond that, to get better results and be reminded. War for the Planet of the Apes is a film to be seen from time to time, however the lack of something greater prevents him from being seen more often. It's the typical movie, when I've seen something better, but I want to see something just to pass the time without being offended by the movie. For this type of thinking, War for the Planet of the Apes is the ideal to be seen.
Films reflect the society we live in. With Avatar, James Cameron had a
plan. Create multi-sequels and he could profit inside, and outside the
doors of the movie theaters. When IMDb still had the forum open, I had
said that James Cameron had a lot of endless sequels to be able to
release in the next few years.
Avatar fans called me, crazy and last August, Cameron announced 4 sequels to Avatar. Oh, Disney has plans to open parks with Avatar as its theme. I was right. With Avatar, Cameron wants to be the new Lucas. What does this have to do with Valerian? It's very simple, Valerian, you could call Valeria: The other Avatar, or how I'm Going to Try a New Franchise, with Endless sequels. The strategy is the same. With the end of the series Taken, EuropaCorp had as a new franchise to replace and create endless sequels, based on a French comic. The same strategy Cameron is doing with Avatar, different source material. Same limited thinking. Instead of creating one movie, thinking first about the quality of the scripts and the story, you want to tell, but no, the goal is to create sequels to appeal to the public as if people were addicted to drugs so that they do not stop giving them the money. Without stopping to think about the quality of the film. The result is a forgettable movie, which everyone forgets, because there is no quality, and the film is forgotten.
Here, it's the same story of fairy tales, with a handsome boy, a beautiful girl, who in the end get together. The guy, who wants to destroy a planet, race or universe, and the improvised hero has to stop the evil guy. Same holes in the script, forced situations, idiotic humor, forced romance. All this wrapped by a special effects gift wrap, which in a couple of years, get old.
That to begin with, the stories of these movies have never been adult-quality stories, just for kids or adults who refuse to grow up. But we have the good side, Valerian and the City of Thousand Planets was a flop at the box office. Let's hope the same goes for the Avatar sequels. And the movies directors begin to think of one film at a time, first in script and story and special effects as an aid to tell the story and not as the sole and most important focus of the film itself, just to feed the directors' ego.
I saw it for the first time, it was in 1996. It was the version
released in 1982, I think it was that year, so in this review, I'll
talk about this version made that year, because it was the first
version that I saw. So to write a review, I will report the first
I saw it for the first time and I was amazed at the visual department of the movie. A harmonious blend, with an exemplary cinematography. Incidentally, I was not the only one, because Blade Runner influenced countless people. It's a unique case where a quality of the film stands out more, which marks the film forever and the general public gets this impression. Blade Runner, and above all, a visual experience with little or no element of drama. It's a visual experience, and if people want to take advantage, they should leave that aspect aside. This is the highest quality of the film, the ability to enter the audience in a cohesive way in that universe and live a visual experience. It's like most sci-fi movies of the 80's, a movie with strong male influences. That is, you will get here, scenes of violence and some nudity to the mix. But Ridley Scott, controlled himself and did not let the train out of the line. Yes, you also have here the evil corporation, but it was done in a more discreet way possible. no exaggeration, of course This is the big difference between a mediocre director and a good director, having a good self-control. Putting things in your movie at random is too banal and mediocre.
The characters were well written, though Scott could not take much advantage of the great actors he had. Ridley Scott always had the problem of not being able to take 100% of the juice of the actors and put human emotions in his works, even in dramas (e.g. G.I Jane). But in this film, Rutger Hauer managed to put a lot of juice himself, especially in the third act, in the confrontation with Rick Deckard, which left the scenes excellent and striking like a great character. In the end, the film does not need much drama element, because there is something bigger here. An exploration, a discovery, that goes beyond the dramatic element. I think Ridley Scott got this great virtue. You get to get interested in the movie, even though it has very little character depth. This is because Scott, is primarily a visual director. There was not in the early 80's, director with better imprint for the visual department. And this for me, is a mark of success. You have difficulty in a job, however find other ways to overcome this same job or task. It is a high quality and a proof of great capacity. As the great director that Scott is, he finds it difficult to achieve characters' depths and achieve human emotions. He was able to create an experience almost 100% depth only with a single department, in this case the visual experiment. But let's be realistic, cinema is primarily a visual art. And like a visual work, Blade Runner is perfect at what it set out to do.
In addition to the timeless visual aspect of the film, Scott was able to insert an exemplary sound aspect that further helps the viewers to be inserted into the film in an exemplary and cohesive way. The soundtrack is almost perfect for this kind of movie, strong and simple. But very well built. The dialogue is also well written in this film. In spite of many clichés and typical of the 80's, it ends up disturbing the experience a little, but it does not end with the experience of the film, but it hampers a bit in the final balance of the film. This is the proposal of this film, and if the film itself is consistent with its proposal, why not consider the film, a good movie. In the end, if you can overcome, the lack of dramatic element and depth of the characters, and the typical characteristics of the male productions. You will find here a great experience to live. Even for the present day, a unique experience in its own kind.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
The original Blade Runner was a film primarily about visuals, it was
not surprising that in the early 1980s, Ridley Scott had no rival in
the visual department. Blade Runner was mostly a visual movie, with
little or no character development. It was a rich film about culture
and visual aesthetics. The film was pioneer enough to influence several
generations of filmmakers, but also about TV series, anime, among
others about a futuristic look. In other words, the greatest strength
of that film was to insert people in that visual. It is impressive,
that Blade Runner influenced several generations, but Blade Runner
2049, does not influence anything. Nothing in the visual department
captures the spectator's imagination. Denis Villeneuve fails roundly in
this department, everything in 2049 is copied and recycled from other
people's works. Here there is no imagination, but purely a copy. Blade
Runner influenced, 2049 did not influence anything or anyone. I'll just
say one example. The director of the film created a young Sean Young,
using visual effects. Ironically, this has already happened in
Terminator Salvation with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Another unnecessary
sequel to a futuristic film with strong sci-fi elements made in the
That brings up the question, who had the sad idea of creating a sequel to Blade Runner if you can not create something visually interesting and if the movie itself was a box office fiasco in 1982. The answer is simple, it's about the money. Nowadays in Hollywood, the studios are desperate to create franchises, which can attract people as if they were drug addicts, to go to the movies regularly. Warner Bros. already tried in 2015 with Mad Max Road Fury, and now tries to do with Blade Runner in 2017. It's all about money. Instead of trying to create something new, Hollywood studios try to create franchises, based on pre-existing films, because it's so much faster, easier and there's no financial risk. This is because movie budgets are constantly growing. And of course Blade Runner in its releases for home entertainment, whether on VHS, DVD or Blu Ray, has always had solid sales. Blade Runner was a hit on TV as well. Like The Shawshank Redemption or Fight Club, films such as Blade Runner were a box office fiasco, but hits in other media. People kept talking about these movies, even after they were released in theaters. You can not catch a lightning bolt twice in a row. This is because 2049 brings nothing new for people to talk about. It's a passable, forgettable film just for making money.
This is why, Denis Villeneuve not only fails to create an interesting visual experience. As a film, Blade Runner 2049 crashes in all other departments. Not only that, but Blade Runner never needed a sequel. The story to tell was all told in the first film. Blade Runner never needed a sequel to expand the story, just as movies like Chinatown, L.A Confidential, or Casablanca don't need a sequel. In a sense, this film is almost a remake of the first, done in an amateur way in the sense of modern blockbusters. The film begins with an unnecessary setup between the characters Ryan Gosling and Dave Bautista. From that moment on, Denis Villeneuve began to put the typical gestures and mannerisms of modern movie scripts. I say of course, there has to be a tree of life or the "bad" corporation of evil, or there has to be a revolution/revolt against the system (the similarity that existed with The Matrix). That is one of the biggest mistakes in the script of this film, is to transform a male film with a strong focus on sci-fi (sci-fi is not a genre that the female audience is interested) with useless dramatic elements. You know the same mistake that Denis Villeneuve did last year with Arrival, he had the audacity to do with the sequel of Blade Runner. Let's be clear, if I want a strong dramatic film, I see Schindler's List. If I want to see a male sci- fi, I see Aliens, Terminator or Blade Runner. Do not try to mix the two things Denis Villeneuve. The movie loses its tone. Not to mention, the silly lines of dialogue (and what you expected from the guy - Michael Green - who wrote Green Lantern) as "More Human than Humans", stupid I know. Despite that, the original film leaves room for the imagination about that universe and its characters. This new film leaves no room for imagination, everything here is explained, as if it were an equation - at the end of the second act a character reveals to the character "Joe/K" that he was not the chosen one (as in many other sci-fi films) and the end itself is only a generic twist and totally out of context (as in Arrival) with a character that appeared only one scene (but do not worry about, the obligatory third movie is already being planned) in the original Sean Young's character was quite a while before the end of the movie. In contrast the film has totally useless scenes that only serve to increase unnecessarily the extension of the film itself.
I'm not going to write anything else, about this useless movie, that comment on the final battle between the characters of Ryan Gosling and Sylvia Hoeks. She also knows Kung-fu and says stupid one- liners. Trash lines of dialogue, we have here. To talk about the character of Sylvia Hoeks that does not reach the feet of Roy Batty. While in the original, the scene of the rain had a sense, because the character of Rutger Hauer wanted to live, this is why the scene is soon iconic. In this new movie there is one fight scene, just to look "badass". Once again, Hollywood had feminized a great and good villain into a woman to appeal to the female audience (say hello to Ghostbusters 2016). Pathetic.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
What a bad movie, we have here.
Everything about this movie sounds false, the cinematography is completely saturated, which at the beginning of the film, all the action sequences look like false and consequently all the excitement and adrenaline goes down the drain.
I say sewers. Sorry. After all, the main character at the beginning of the movie will stop at the sewers to go to see his girlfriend. Yes, that's where this movie belongs.
In other words, an annoying and boring action movie, we have here. Because of that, the film changes from set piece to set piece, yet the scenes are poorly structured, the scenes are saturated, with the pace to be slow as a turtle, which makes the scenes that should be fun to see, in empty action scenes without any impact, example each punch that a character gives to another character does not have any impact, so does not have emotion or excitement.
Not only that, as the characters have such exaggerated action scenes, these action scenes make the action sequences of the superheroes films tiny in comparison. Remember, they are not beings with superpowers, but simple humans. The feeling of danger or death ends up completely disappearing. And in the end, we end up not caring about the fate of the characters which are in the movie itself. Or better, the characters who had nothing interesting to connect with the audience since the beginning of the film. The characters are generics and poorly executed and written.
If an action movie, can not produce good sequences of action, for what purpose this movie exists, anyway?
This movie also does not convince anyone as a spy movie because the film is not serious enough and as a comedy movie, the elements of comedy are too bad to laugh, that is, the film still fails because the movie itself has no definite tone, so, is this a action movie? a comedy or a traditional spy movie? Apparently nobody knows, not even the filmmakers themselves.
Not to mention, the acting sucks too. Halle berry, should have stopped acting since the last 10 years. Julianne Moore, why are you here? You also do not convince anyone in an action movie. Stay in your dramas. I do not remember, the acting of the other actors. This movie so passable and generic. A film to avoid totally, to speak the truth.
And Tom Cruise is one of them.
Let's be honest here. Tom Cruise has never been a good actor, he just got where he is now due to contacts, his agency and especially physical aspect, to attract women and girls. He is a real drip. Whose only good performances is the good-looking hero who said good one-liners (Mission Impossible - a franchise that Hollywood created on purpose only to increase his ego, in which he is the only relevant character there), or the patriarch service, scenes of Tropic Thunder, are the perfect example what he does well, a guy who likes to be the boss and abuse women and employees.
Now with this pathetic movie, someone wants to convince me that Cruise can play Barry Seal, a guy who gets out in front of the government, a Latino drug cartel, drug barons, CIA, FBI or more than a thousand and one things yet to be made or discovered by man. Hell no. If someone at Hollywood want to make a convincing Barry Seal, bring someone with the caliber of Josh Brolin. That would give this project even more credit. And who had the sad idea to make Cruise the narrator of this film. I hate this one-liner, I'm the only guy, who always delivers. I do not even remember half the movie. The way the film is so bad structurally.
But Tom Cruise is not the only flaw in this project (this project was born crooked at birth). The movie itself was never taken seriously. What do you expect from a movie coming out after the summer season? A serious film about a serious subject, with a good script and a good acting? No way.
The movie is full of useless sex jokes typical of larger-budget films from Hollywodd, the Tom Cruise scene having sex with his wife in the cockpit of the plane is ridiculous or Tom Cruise's character constantly showing the "butt"- It's deplorable, I know. Or male jokes like Tom Cruise facing 100 or more Hispanics with a baseball bat. Incompetent scene.
The direction of the film is flawed, the pace is horrendous, there are some scenes too long, or some too short. The acting is too fake, especially on the part of Jayma Mays (the most unbelievable justice solicitor, I have ever seen) and Sarah Wright (the windy head, annoying, generic woman of Barry Seal).
Holes in the script (no one has remembered the corpse of the useless brother of the wife of Barry Seal, the police in this film is really useless and unprepared, by the way).
Not to forget how this film treats the people of Latin America, whose only humans that appear in the film, are drug dealers, murderers or pornography lovers. Or the people of Mena, that this film represents as useless morons from the countryside.
What a useless and terrible movie we have here. Someone burns this movie as fast as possible. I would not recommend it to anyone.
I recently saw Logan Lucky in theaters, and to tell you the truth I was
quite pleased to see this movie. It is a very colorful film, with a
very good and nice cinematography and also a very direct film in what
it is proposed. It is a heist movie, it does not try to invent the
wheel, but It's a nice movie because of the experience of the director,
in this genre. But at the end of the day it could have been so much
better. Clearly a waste.
Much better, nowadays, compared to the extravaganza of Hollywood, where often the biggest and most exaggerated, it is never the best.
It's a lot of fun, to see a lot of actors doing a really good job, especially Daniel Craig, Channing Tatum and Adam Driver, they're all great. The actors Hilary Swank, Seth MacFarlane and Sebastian Stan were underutilized. I think it's the director's personal signature, having a great casting of famous actors in his movies. It's just annoying to see pretty good actors like Hilary Swank and Sebastian Stan reduced, little more than a simple cameo. And for what reason the character of Hilary Swank at the end of the film, has to be the romantic couple of Adam Driver's character at his bar when everyone is drinking a drink together.
Her character is doing an investigation into the robbery, and one of the suspects was the character of Adam Driver, and in the end of the movie she's going to have a drink with the suspect, what? Because everyone is drinking a drink in a romantic couple, and the Adam Driver's character also needed a woman to drink. What?
Some scenes are unnecessary written in the film, just to put the movie with 2 hours on the market.
In addition to the unnecessary characters and actors, this film still makes two beautiful sins. First, why the Logan brothers and Daniel Craig's character brothers start a fight when the robbery is ending and the security is investigating the suspected appearance of smoke in the area, are the writers and director only setting a conflict, just to come out into nothing in the next couple of scenes, just to put the movie with (or close to) the unnecessary 2 hours mark, which is the rule of the market, in the duration of films. When you do not have a story to tell, you do not try to create unnecessary scenes, characters or conflicts, just to create them for nothing. Do not waste time on unnecessary things. There are many great movies in the past with less than 2 hours, more time does not always mean more quality.
The second sin of this film is the jokes involving Wikipedia and Game of Thrones, yes, I know, the Game of Thrones show is quite a popular series, but the way these jokes are inserted in the film, I feel that these scenes are even out of context . Just one complaint from me.
Still with these these problems. I wish I had liked this movie better. There is clear good work done by the director in many areas of the film. Especially for cinematography, and for being a movie that goes right to the point. Impossible is to deny problems and some wrong decisions. But there is no denying, there is a great loss of good actors in this film and some stupid decisions in the movie script.
At the end of the day, it's a nice movie, but the poor execution by the director and the poor script just leaves the movie as a weekend fun, only to be seen once, and nothing more. Clearly a poor waste of film.
|Page 1 of 3:||  |