Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Good start with a couple of issues
I had problems watching Fargo the first 30 minutes, being a fan of the original motion picture. It's so weird to see the Fargo theme without
its characters. Luckily, this show draws you in pretty quickly.
I'm personally not a fan of Lester Nygaart's character until now. I guess this is not just Martin Freeman, but mostly writing and direction.
I thought it was almost unbearable to watch him being bullied by his wife. It just doesn't seem like a couple who could have been married for so long. Why is she so mean, at the same time accepting her marriage? Even divorced couples aren't that hateful. There is no love at all which isn't very plausible. I also didn't like the scene where Lester is desperately trying to sell insurances to a couple. It felt like a bad rip off from the original movie with William H Macy as a frustrated car salesman. At least that character was played with frustration under the surface, whereas Martin Freeman was trying too hard, "playing" to much instead of "being".
Luckily the writers dared to write an original storyline (unlike the dreadful From Dusk Till Dawn series), and the inclusion of Billy Bob Thorton was a great move. That guy cracks me up and is a great "replacement" for the original movie's bad guys.
I'm curious what the next episodes will bring but generally I really likes the first episodes, albeit with a couple of weak scenes and directional mistakes.
I enjoyed the first Sherlock Holmes a lot. The mystery, the dynamic between Watson and Sherlock and the camera work was brilliant.
This sequel disappointed me. Unnecessary ultra-slow motion effects, an overly eccentric Sherlock, messy plot, superhero action ('Sherlock vision' is kinda ridiculous) and lack of investigation ruined this movie for me. It feels as if the movie has been created for the sake of showing off. Even the 'bad guy' doesn't get the chance of showing his acting abilities - and the man can definitely act!
It seems Guy Richie couldn't handle the success of the first movie. I hope for the third installment (if there will be any), he'll focus on story, characters and dialog instead of fancy effects and locations.
Cloud Atlas (2012)
I guess this story is so complex, it belongs to a book - not a movie. I've been staring at great visuals. The storyline is...something. But it all feels insignificant. Just before I start to care about the character, I'm thrown into another era with the same characters dressed as someone else. I just makes me...not care. They seem to transcend death anyway so why bother?
Everything is presented at a level of perfection and in so much quantities. Epic is an understatement. What's left for the viewer to imagine?
I cannot escape the fact the animators are a team of designers with a mouse. They're not auteurs. They're not feeling anything as they animate. Great graphics. So what? The greatest animators put a ton of subtlety and personal feeling into their work. The world of Cloud Atlas just feels sterile.
The Fountain (2006)
weird, yet intriguing
Wow. This was hard to watch. As the narrative progresses, the storyline starts to make sense, but as a viewer you are always one step behind. Continuously trying to find a meaning for the scene you just watched. The strange thing is that, once you let go of that urge, it starts making more sense. Yes, I didn't get at least 30% of the movie, but that didn't matter to me so much.
Some people might find this movie pretentious. I'd say 'niche' for now. What I liked is that I deeply cared for the protagonists. There are real emotions on screen here, the acting is terrific. It must have been a hard part to play since the movie is so abstract, so much full of symbolism. I didn't found the movie easy to watch, but in the end I could appreciate exactly that.
Dark City (1998)
Jennifer Connelly has a mustache in this movie
This movie was nice to watch, but Jennifer Connelly has a mustache clearly visible in several shots, especially when she is singing (with a band that doesn't sync with the sound, especially the drummer). That distracted me. Couldn't she spend more time in front of the mirror next time?
I didn't like the slow ending with too much revealing special effects (I rather didn't see the total shots of the city in space, that ruined the 'reality' for me.
Also a bit far fetched to see a dying alien species going through all the trouble of experimenting with us. Couldn't they find a better solution? Since they are so sophisticated, couldn't they understand this wasn't gonna work a bit sooner?
But all in all great to watch. Great visuals.
Lifeless. Wants too be too smart for its own good
Can't believe the high reviews as I think it's the worst Nolan productions to date. Means: it's a good/average movie, but not great.
The whole movie is just too stylistic, the romance is cold and uninteresting, the characters are one dimensional, and the whole dream thing is just too stylistic. The movie wants to be too intelligent for its own good. I preferred how dreams where presented in "Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind": blurry, not cohesive stories and unpredictable.
Inception used dreamworlds as a cheap way of adding car chases, shoot outs in snow. The whole dream-in-dream thing is nice but doesn't add anything to the story.
The romance thingie is just annoying to watch. I just don't care. But I should.
Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004)
Nice, but the ending is boring
Some great moments, but the ending is really boring. Tarantino wants to show us and explain too much at the end which leaves a "so-so" aftertaste. Also, I think both movies are more "style over substance", which isn't bad per se, but because of the lack of cohesion I didn't feel much for the characters.
Highlights: The "buried alive scene" + "girls fight in the trailer". Very well done.
Personally I would like to see "Kill Bill 0". How did those guys got together in the first place? Why did they hated Beatrix so much? Just because she broke Bill's heart? That I don't think is enough. Kill Bill 0 could explain this, and show off some cool "assassin missions".
Death Proof (2007)
Tarantino failed this time
* Spoilers *
First of all, I liked all previous Tarantino movies (except his part in Four Rooms). I think Tarantino really failed to deliver this time.
The dialogues are not funny and really don't add anything to the story. It's just some girl talk which was very boring to watch. It felt like it went on and on and on, and it really made me NOT to sympathise with the characters in any way.
First Tarantino introduces some chicks. The introduction is very long (yada-yada in a bar, including a bad performance of Mr. Tarantino himself) and afterwards they all get killed by Mr. Russell (great performance!). It helped introducing the bad guy as a complex character.
But then we have to sit through ANOTHER introduction of four chicks, this time a very boring introduction. What's the deal with the lengthy scene at the convienence store? And when they are eating? It lasts forever! So boring! Weak dialogue!
And what's with the switch to black&white effect, the cut off parts? It's a modern movie with some "Final Cut Pro video effects"...not a Grind House movie, so stop making it look like one!
In the end we get what we hoped for. A good car chase with some great stunts. The ending was annoying.
Some people may say: "it's the unique Tarantino style!"...I say: "its annoying and he tries to be cool but fails".
Now Mr. Tarantino, get back to your old skool work. I miss it. I know you can do it!
Staged scenes and reality
For me, the Borat "shorts" were usually very funny. The way he approaches people that do not realise he's not from Kazachstan, is very nice.
However this film about Borat really fails to be funny. Most of the time his character relies on sex, while the shorts often contain very politic elements (e.g animal protection group, government election, etc).
My problem is that the makers of this movie staged several scenes, and want you to believe it is real. I have no problems with staged scenes that carry the story: it's clearly fiction! But the "drivers lesson" scene and the "student in a van" scene to name a few, made me think: "hey, do the makers really want to cheat me? Do they think the public is dumb?".
How big the nonsense is; as a maker you should not underestimate the public, don't cheat them! Some great scenes include the rodeo anthem, the Pamela scene and the nude-in-a-hotel scene (a scene where 'sex' is also functional; it's terribly embarrassing to see how people respond).
Behind Enemy Lines (2001)
I've seen a documentary where an agency is helping film producers to deliver them army material such as boats, tanks, weapons, whatever you need to make the movie. In return the army wants the filmmaker to portrait the US Army as heroes and warriors, turn it into propaganda. If the filmmaker denies, you're on your own. Now of course every army on the planet does not want to be criticized, but in the US it has gone too far.
With this movie it's just the same. Someone already mentioned bad acting, and illogical events and unrealistic army tactics. This movie is just 'another US army movie' that annoys the hell out of a lot of Europeans. It's also very boring to watch, as if a movie with a lot of guns would make it spectacular.
The "bad guys" in this movie are ruthless and kill their own men when necessary. A cheap way to let the viewer symphasize with the US army, and not the baddies. It's a disgrace and an insult to Bosnia because the movie turns them into stereotype bad guys, while the truth is much, much more subtle.