102 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Crash (I) (2004)
10/10
A depiction of selfishness and altruism, or the eternal fight between Good and Evil
9 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
OK, this movie covers the issue of racism and also about the American society, but there's something deeper in here.

You can see both mechanisms of survival in the human being: the instinct of survival of the individual (egoism) and the instinct of survival of the species (altruism). They both are present in every human being, and they are "transfered" from one human being to another in a "contagious" manner. When somebody is under the control of selfishness, he is virtually a hero for himself, and a killer for everybody else. There you have Cameron, a non-violent Buddhist man whose life you get to find caught under selfishness, with no fear to be killed by a gun, maybe even wishing to be shot as a sign of compassion for himself, who's willing to stop his suffering after other people "transfered" so many negative emotions to him that now that instinct is taking his life under control. And you can find that apparently hateful policeman, John Ryan, who abused a woman in the first minutes of the movie, saving later her life after a car accident, in this case, under the control of altruism, and acting as a hero, not for him, but for that woman. It's the perpetual fight of Good and Evil, depicted in a precise and understandable way. The policeman's father has a painful disease, and he transfers all his anger to his son day after day, who feels each day a little more helpless about a former compassionate person he truly loves. When we get to know that fact, we suddenly see him under a completely different point of view. The movie seems to tell us, "you see? it's just a matter of knowledge", and we even understand his madness: as spectators, we don't catch his anger any more. Fear, anger, desire, attachment. You can see all negative emotions which, according to Buddhism, cause suffering to humans, which in turn makes our ego grow and veils our minds. Other movies, like Star Wars, show that "force", and also how easy it is to fall into "the dark side", but no movie showed before, without metaphors, and with so much detail, how human nature works.

Suddenly, in the middle of madness, a combination of coincidences makes a miracle happen: a gun doesn't kill a little girl. That's a drop of Good which turns upside down a whole ocean of Evil, and shows that altruism, illusion, positive emotions... Good, in a nutshell, is our way to go, and also the strongest tool for survival provided by nature.

And this latter "miracle", and other scenes in the movie, like the one where Jean Cabot is angry and doesn't know why, and one minute later falls down the stairway, make me see this movie even in a deeper way. The Celestine Prophecy comes to my mind, with not just instincts involved, but the universal energy (something like "qi" from Eastern philosophies) flowing among humans in the form of positive and negative energy, and a superior ego controlling each of our lives in every detail as a master puppeteer. Within this framework, that miracle wasn't just a coincidence: it was one part of a kaleidoscopic reality where universal energy forces coincidences to happen. In other words, the little girl, with her innocence and true love, made that possible through a change in what we know as reality. This concept is very close to Buddhist karma.

Finally, this movie can also be interpreted from a scientific point of view in the form of the theory postulated by Richard Dawkins in his book "The Selfish Gene".

In any case, it serves as a hard criticism of the actual selfishness present in the American capitalist society, "preached" by Ayn Rand in her bestseller books, which have got to be almost as popular as the Bible, a line of thought that is spreading from the USA together with psychoanalysis to other countries like France and Argentina as a cancer in society. There are older movies which cover this issue in a metaphorical or allegorical way. One of my favorite ones is Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), remade in 1978.

Crash is a great movie, worthy of the Oscars it got. Watch out, there are two movies with this name in 2004.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Finally George did it!
8 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This film is the best animation film ever. Now I understand what George Lucas would like Star Wars be like. He needed really good actors, and although he found people as good as Harrison Ford, he just needed more. So here comes it: Animation characters, with perfect performances. Slight nuances in their faces perfectly calculated. Now you really understand the effect of the force on everything. How it interacts between people, and how it's possible to fall into the dark side. You also see how big Yoda is, and also his pupil... Well, I won't say anything else, but I had to say at least several things about this film because I'm ashamed that it's not receiving what it deserves. 10 out of 10 for me. And I'm speaking from my heart.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Fantastic Four (I) (2005)
7/10
Very good film recreation of a comic !
30 July 2005
I knew what I was going to see when I went to the theater several weeks ago. And it didn't disappoint me at all. Unlike Shyamalan's Unbreakable, this film assumes that it's just a comic and everything happens like it does in them. The spirit of the comic was very well captured, the special effects are pretty good, and the film as a whole is entertaining. The ending is perfect for a sequel: It lets you waiting for the next one. I'm sure there will be Fantastic Four II, III, IV and even more.

I'm not a comic fan, but I liked this movie. More than Batman Begins (2005) although less than Superman.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
This is just a collage from other movies.
30 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
What's this? You don't need to look very closer to find out that there's nothing in this movie of its own. Everything is borrowed from other ones. Although they say it's based on a real fact, the plot and the screenplay are almost carbon copies of The Shining: The family moves to a big house for a long time, the father gets slowly mad and tries to kill his family, there is a previous story of another family who had the same fate in the house, and there is also an ax, although not in the same scenes as in Kubrick's film. You can even find the "Day 1", etc. labels before the scenes.

When the boy goes out from his room at late night to the toilet I found an almost identical scene to the one in The Sixth Sense... Well, I think you get the point.

Only the suddenly appearing ghosts and the father ax scene with his stepson scared me. The rest is very soft and doesn't maintain stress the way it should (mainly because you get to think you are watching The Shining instead of The Amityville Horror, without Kubrick, of course).

And it's very predictable, too, as they tell you what will happen again and again. Avoid this film, if you can :-)
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Not bad average horror movie.
30 July 2005
I went today to see this film without any expectations and I liked it. All I can say is that it's worth the time spent to watch it. Of course, everything in this movie is average, but not bad. The claustrophobic atmosphere of the house and people hiding the truth until the end are similar elements to the ones in Amenábar's The Others. And the ending was really unexpected for me.

There's not much more for me to say about this movie, except remarking that it's worth to spend the evening on it.

P.D.: After watching this movie I won't forget to pour some brick dust out of my room to keep the evil out :-) Just joking.
8 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Yogen (2004)
4/10
Horror... or horrible movie?
30 July 2005
I saw this was a horror movie which seemed to be different, I watched the trailer and I liked it, so I went today to see the whole thing. And this is what I found: The acting is so bad, the timing is so slow, the ideas behind the plot are so poor... and maybe Japanese movies use to be slow, but for me it's the worst movie I have seen this year. It doesn't scare at all. At some points you can see that the director wanted to remark a detail with the only purpose of scaring you, but fails, at least for me. Only the ending scenes are dynamic and catch your eye, but that's not enough. The rest is dull. And there's too much Japanese writing for an European viewer, I think.

Ah, and just one detail: they used the same computer effect to make disappear the ghostly newspapers and also... the title credits... weird, isn't it?
2 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
House of Wax (2005)
8/10
Very scary movie !!
30 July 2005
This is a hardcore horror movie. There's gore here, there and everywhere. There are almost unidimensional characters... But I like it. Once you have seen the first gore scene, you're distressed for the whole rest of the time. The music is at times perfect for the scene, raising the anguish you feel to the top. I had a bad time while expecting and finally watching the gore scenes, but in the relaxing moments I felt better. Something like what you feel when you leave a roller-coaster. Ah, and the final scenes are pretty original. I recommend you not to miss it, but if you don't stand realistic and explicit gore, then you'd better avoid it.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Insomnia (2002)
8/10
Finally I could see a good thriller
25 October 2002
Some days ago Woody Allen came to Spain to receive the prestigious Príncipe de Asturias Award, and he had time to express his personal opinion about Hollywood today. His recent film Hollywood Ending is a clear critic of what Hollywood has become. I have to say that I agree with him. Films are more and more expensive, but the results are worse and worse. It seems like there are no good writers yet, and films like The Red Dragon (which I saw today in its Spanish première) are -in my modest opinion, of course- a demonstration on how empty of ideas a film can be. But Insomnia is an exception among dozens of low quality films. It has a really good screenplay, with very good original ideas, and, also, the printed result is great. Al Pacino is splendid (does he overact a bit or is it just my imagination? Maybe it's only my imagination). Robin Williams is correct, he does his role well (it's his second bad guy role in just a few months) and the rest of the cast are also quite good. The opening scene is simply captivating. And the edition of the whole film is wonderful. It's a pleasure to see the first minutes of Pacino's scenes, full of short shots perfectly combined with plenty of subtle details. I enjoyed the whole film since it began until it ended. Nice story, perfect screenplay, solid acting, good music, wonderful cinematography and editing and good directing. A really good film. One of the best this year. 8-9 out of 10.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
First Spanish film... or not?
26 September 2002
Recent research done by Agustín Sánchez Vidal seems to prove that Salida de misa de doce del Pilar de Zaragoza (1897) isn't the first Spanish film ever made, but this one, which was shot on 20 June 1897 in La Coruña, Galicia. Other researchers, like Ion Letamendi and Jean-Claude Seguin, set on 12 June 1897 the date of the first Spanish filming, when Antonio Salinas and Eduardo de Lucas used a recently-adquired Lumière camera to make some shots of the old Plaza Vieja (now Plaza de la Virgen Blanca), in Álava, Guipúzcoa, Basque Country.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Bad, but not so bad as they say.
17 April 2002
Listen to this: I have bought this movie on DVD. I saw this film on the third bottom position on the IMDb, and I thought: OK, I have to buy this trash and judge it by myself. I saw the original DVD at Amazon.com, and I just bought it.

My conclusions after watching this film 4 consecutive times is:

1) It's bad (this is not new, I guess).

2) There are lots of worse films, so this film shouldn't be at the bottom 100, of course. Take a look at Cantando a la vida (1968), for example. It's at least as bad as TGIGB.

3) The 'huge' continuity error in which one guy is supposed to be teleported into the scene simply doesn't appear. There is one scene where he comes along and sits with a beer in his hand, so there is no continuity error at all. In fact, I haven't seen many continuity errors in the whole movie. Please tell me where they are, to look closer at them.

4) The music isn't so bad. Compare it with Manos' soundtrack, for example (Yes, I have bought the Manos DVD, too). I even like the main theme, it has a nice rythm, and the girls aren't Michael Jackson, but in any case you must think that this is a film made in the late sixties. People didn't dance like today. Take a look at Travolta in Saturday Night Fever. Do you think that's dancing...? It's like saying that the Beatles didn't have any appeal because they didn't use synthesizers or electronic drums.

5) I have read in one of the comments that this film should be dedicated to the other girl, who really wears the gold boots. Well, I disagree. The title refers to the boots themselves. The girl who wears them is the main dancer. The rest of them wear silver boots. And, indeed, the EAT waitress finally puts the gold boots on towards the end of the film.

6) The fact that a film is shown in MST3k isn't a reason by itself to consider that film a pile of trash. I'm sure that many of the people who have written comments at the IMDb about TGITGB even haven't watched it, at least without Joel & the Bots.

7) I have no relation at all with this movie :-) It's just that I think it's not so bad as people say. I would have liked it to be much worse, so I wouldn't have spent my money on a DVD containing a film which isn't good nor absolutely horrible, either.

8) My rating: 3-4 out of 10.
16 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Some similarities...
17 April 2002
In this comment, I will point out some similarities I have found in this movie:

  • Don't you find Han Solo with his waist-hanging gun a bit similar to a western hero?


  • Don't you find the cantina a bit similar to a saloon?


  • Don't you find jedis a bit similar to samurais?


  • Don't you find Vader's helmet quite similar to the nazi's?


  • Don't you find the rebels' helmets quite similar to the rangers'?


  • Don't you find the soundtrack QUITE similar to Gustav Holst's Symphony of the Planets?


Just think about them. Just for fun.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
The worst 'movie' I have ever watched.
17 April 2002
I bought this movie on DVD. Well, not exactly: I bought the MST3k version, and I must complain about one thing: the absence of the uncut version in the same DVD. I would have liked to see the whole thing without Joel & the Bots to have a better idea of how horrible it really is. I even don't know if it's possible to find the original Manos, anyway.

Nevertheless, I have no doubt that this film is the worst one I have ever had the 'pleasure' to watch.

But I have to point something important: this film is an amateur film, although it was released in a theater. It's uncommon to see an amateur film get into a cinema theater. Maybe that's the reason why it's so bad. It's like a third division soccer team playing at the first division, it's like my local basketball team playing at the NBA. It's a matter of mathematics that it will go right to the bottom. There must be lots of amateur movies even worse than Manos, but they will never be shown at a theater, so they will never be known and rated. Manos is an exception, and MST3k has a lot to do with the film's immense popularity.

In a few words, I must admit that this is the worst film I have ever watched, but I also must admit that it's just an exceptional amateur movie which had a lot of luck to be picked by Joel & the Bots.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Number 1 at the top 250 list...?
13 January 2002
I still can't believe that this film is at the very first position at the IMDb top movies list. This film has very good special effects, but it has (of course in my opinion) several weak points. Firstly, the music, which is a bit boring and very similar to Titanic's soundtrack at times. Secondly, there's a lot of stuff like "Oh, this is the son of...", or "I remember when I was at this or that place, which was marvelous and blah blah blah...". This kind of lines in the script (something you don't know a priori but you have to accept although you haven't seen it with your own eyes) often gets me angry. Thirdly, this kind of movie can only fully satisfy people who like this kind of stories, and, unfortunately, I am not one of them. In any case, this movie MUSTN'T be above The godfather, Schindler's List, and even Star Wars. I can't believe that more than 30,000 people have voted an average of +9 points over 10. It's simply incredible. I am sure that this rating will go down a lot in the future. This ISN'T the best film of all time... let's be serious about this.

My rating is 7-8 out of 10, of course trying to be objective, as I don't like this kind of stories, as I said before.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Mr. Kubrick, please come back
27 September 2001
A.I. is a good film. It's long but it's not boring. Haley Joel Osment is simply incredible, doing the best android performance of all time. I wish he will get this time the Oscar he missed with The Sixth Sense.

But some parts in A.I. are a bit too long for my taste. I'm a big fan of Stanley Kubrick and I can say with no doubt that this film has very little from Stanley and very much from Spielberg. Kubrick wanted Spielberg to direct this film for him. Well, I'm sure that it would have been a wonderful masterpiece if Kubrick would have been in the team (and with us, too). He likes total control over his films, as he used to state, so I can't imagine him letting Spielberg to be in charge. What I really think is that he possibly would have let Spielberg be a sort of assistant director although they would have appeared as producer and director, respectively, in the credits. In my opinion, they would have discussed a lot (due to their strong personalities), and I even imagine the film having serious problems during filming. At the end, it would have been a blood-forged film, something as wild as Casablanca is. But it's not. The fact is that Spielberg is in charge, and what we have is another E.T.-like film, something to make you drop your tears, but without the originality, sharpness and power of Kubrick. Kubrick's power goes beyond the limits of the screen and reaches our minds forever. His images, color and use of music are unique, and that's something we probably we won't see again in our lives. Spielberg is a genius director, but he's not the master. Kubrick is the master of cinema. It's a shame he's not with us any more.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Others (2001)
8/10
Amenábar is a great director
11 September 2001
Warning: Spoilers
This is one of the best films of the year. Psychological horror at its best. No makeup or special effects are needed. The only shame is that I already knew the ending because there is a very similar one yet. But I love it despite of it. Amenábar is a great director (and also a great composer...!). There is very good acting and a solid plot. The ending scene is pure art. It reminds me Citizen Kane's final scene.

I can't say anything else. I don't want to be a spoiler.

7 or 8 out of 10.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
Any real aspect in this film is pure coincidence...
9 September 2001
After telling his own life in his first film, Aprendiendo a morir (1962), El Cordobés made his first real performance. In Chantaje a un torero (1963) he is no longer Manuel Benítez, but Juan Medina, a fiction character. As he himself states, he's not a good actor and doesn't like to act, and that's something evident in this film. Directed by a good director, Rafael Gil, and with several good actors in the cast, Chantaje a un torero is a bad film. It's a bad film because it was made to be shown in a dictatorship's time. Reality is passed through a filter and the result is nothing but annoying. To be more explicit, I'll explain myself: Rich people are 'the good people', the prison priest is almost a saint, beloved and respected by everybody, the prison director looks like a wonderful person, the dialogue is full of 'remarkable' quotes ("What happens if you happen to be guilty? Then I'll pay for my fault like a man")... I think you get the point.

This film was mainly made to show El Cordobés's abilities at bullfighting. The fact is that he only appears doing his thing for a few minutes. So I can't even recommend this film to the bullfighter's fans.

3 or 4 out of 10.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Unbreakable (2000)
5/10
Unbreakable broke my hope on Shyamalan
1 September 2001
It's been several months since I saw this film. Shyamalan's first work was really impressive to me. I even compared him with Stanley Kubrick. But now I must take that back. It was just an illusion. The Sixth Sense by itself is a masterpiece, but this second work from M.N.S. is horrible. This film is something like trying to make a work of art from a pile of trash. I never liked comics very much, I must confess, but this is too much for me. How can a comic be mixed with reality without stating (as Superman, Batman, etc. do) that it's just a comic, not reality? This film does a sort of trying to make us believe that comics are something real, in the same mood that Stargate tries to make us believe that there was a civilization from outer space in the Egyptians' time. This second premise is of course much more consistent and it's well developed.

Technically, the film has no flaws. The cinematography is quite good, the music is acceptable (although not good), and the acting is correct (not good, either). But the idea behind the plot is simply impossible. In my opinion it's something unbelievable under any circumstances. And this second cameo from Shyamalan really annoyed me. Does he think he's Hitchcock...?

By the way, Mr. Shyamalan, what will be your next work? Trying to make us believe that Little Red Riding Hood was real...?

4 or 5 out of 10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Einstein's nightmare: the time roundabout...
31 August 2001
Warning: Spoilers
This is one of those films that you just watch once and desist to watch it again. I must confess something: I never liked very much Tim Burton's cinema, and this time it wasn't an exception. The worst thing I find in this film is the whole plot. It's so strange that I'm sure that even Tim can't give a proper explanation.

From now on: WARNING, SPOILERS AHEAD.

I always heard that time travels are mathematically possible if we follow Einstein's theory. I also saw films like Back to the Future where a change in the past affected the future. But I never saw a film where a change in the present could affect the past. What happens in this film is so weird that it needs a powerful explanation to make it acceptable. As powerful as a second movie, and maybe that's just what Tim was thinking.

Here: END OF SPOILERS.

Behind the makeup, Helena Bonham Carter looks more like Michael Jackson than like an ape girl, Mark Wahlberg's character is plain and insipid, and the film as a whole is quite boring. I have seen much worse films this year, but this one is bad.

5 or 6 out of 10.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
A film that gets better with each viewing
25 August 2001
My appreciation of this film has been getting better and better each time I have watched it. The first time I sat to see Bienvenido Mister Marshall was many years ago. I was a child, and I remember that I liked it. But I didn't notice that it wasn't another funny film. Through repeated viewings, I have found more and more details and a solid structure that makes of this film one of the greatest ones I have ever seen. The personality of the Major is amazing. He's a complex person despite his envelope of bewildered, and -I guess- that's why he's the Major. But he's also wonderfully ingenuous, and so are the rest of the people of Villar del Río. That's why you root for the entire cast. And that's why you keep this film in your heart. It reminds you the innocence we lost and lets you by the end with deep melancholy.

Technically, this film is almost perfect. Good cast, superb performances, perfect music, and a dialogue that seems to be a 70-minute-long quote, where every single word can be remembered. To mention one of the many good moments of this "long quote", I will remember the one when the general delegate (José Franco) tells the Major (José Isbert) that he has to make a speech from the balcony to the Americans. The Major asks "And what shall I say?", and then the delegate replies that he can speak about several things including the industry. He asks again "What industry?", and the delegate replies "Well, just say anything, they don't speak Spanish so they won't understand". And, finally, the Major states: "Oh, I think I'm getting it..."

If you take a look at the best Spanish films of all time, you'll notice that 3 of the top 5 films are directed by Luis García Berlanga. That's not a coincidence. Berlanga is pure genius.

My rating is 9-10 out of 10.
17 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Still too far from real virtual actors
24 August 2001
This film has made me change the way I see the difference between real and virtual actors. So far CGI has been used in cinema mostly for things like spaceships, monsters and the like. It was also used for the main characters in films like Toy Story, Antz, A Bug's Life, Shrek... and now Final Fantasy. But this time, and paradoxically, although the level of perfection has been dramatically increased, it doesn't work. Why? Well, it's quite simple in my opinion. Animation films are entertaining when we know that they are animation films. They are something different from reality, and all the imperfections we find in them don't count. All the holes we could find are filled with our imagination, and we receive every real-like moment willingly. But, when the level of perfection of an animation film crosses the line between animation and reality, then we change our scale of values, and we judge the film by comparing it with non-animation films. Then is when we notice (at least I did) that there is still an abyss between a real and a virtual actor. There are subtle and microscopic elements which are missed in an animation. We don't notice them until we see the result of letting them out of the scene as this film does.

As a technical achievement, I raise my thumbs up, but as an entertaining movie, I really can't. The plot seems to be extracted from a B series Sci-Fi flick, the characters are half-dimensional, and the result is (of course in my opinion) something quite boring.

We'll still have to wait for some more time, but there's something true: they are in the right direction, and that keeps my hope alive.

My rating: 5-6 out of 10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Monty Python and the Holy Grail 'alla espagnola'
13 August 2001
First of all I'll make a suggestion: This film should be only for Spanish viewers. If you're not Spanish, then you'll probably think it's trash. But it's not. It's very funny. It's a film released in 1983, and it has lots of references to political aspects of Spain in the 80's. In fact it's just another forward critic of Spain (both past and actual), in the same mood of many other Spanish films of the decade. As in Airplane! (1980), nobody is safe from satire. The acid comments and the past-present mixture reminds me Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975). It's almost the same kind of film, but with Spanish characters and references.

I really love Lola Flores as the Queen Isabel I. She's not a great actress, but she's tremendously charismatic. José Luis López Vázquez and Jaime Morey are also splendid.

My rating: 6 or 7 out of 10.
8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
eXistenZ (1999)
6/10
This film should be anything but predictable...!
10 August 2001
This film is too predictable. After the first 10 minutes have passed, you think 'oh, dear... I know everything yet...'. And you're not wrong. Total Recall was a wonderful movie, The Matrix was an entertaining movie with a yet used idea... but this one... This one simply doesn't work, despite the special effects and the obvious erotic symbolism behind the bio-port.

5-6 out of 10.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
What's this...?
27 July 2001
I can't believe that Jurassic Park 3 has the same name of the original Spielberg's film. This is nothing but a series of CGI effects (not the best ones you will see these days by the way) and several actors doing what they told them to do but with no spirit at all. The feeling is the same as the one you would get if they had had troubles during filming and had had to finish the film because they were paid to do so. And what about the script...? It's simply a collection of nonsense. Almost every scene is a carbon copy of Jurassic Park's. I couldn't give credit to my eyes when Alan accepted (again) to go to the island for money. Incredible but true. The music is like they had the Jurassic Park sountrack CD and used it. There's nothing new, just the same themes for each scene. And what's the relationship between Alan Grant and Ellie Satler? Are they married? Are the kids his sons? It seems like they aren't married, but, where is her husband? They don't say a single word about that in the whole film. It seems like they don't know what will be best in Jurassic Park 4. Yes, that's something really evident in many scenes. And it's also evident that Jeff Goldblum didn't accept to do this horrible film (or perhaps asked for a lot of money) and thus he wasn't here. That explains that scene where Eric Kirby tells Alan Grant that he also read Ian Malcolm's book, and that he thinks he's too clever by half. That line (those aren't the exact words anyway) doesn't make sense at all with what we saw in JP and JP2, and it sounds like a sentence for Goldblum's future in JP4.

My only hope is not to see more Jurassic Parks... at least in this horrible line. But I'm afraid my expectations will be in vain. "Jurassic" + "Park" are a couple of words which are as attractive as, let's say, "Coca" + "Cola", and they don't need a good film anymore, just those two words in the title.

Please don't go to see this film, don't give them more money to do such horrible things. It's the only way to make them understand.

4-5 out of 10.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Shrek (2001)
8/10
Great entertainment
19 July 2001
This is one of the most entertaining films I have seen this year, if not the most. The landscapes, scenarios and characters are wonderful. The plot is a bit (more than a bit) predictable, but all the other aspects are excellent and the result is a good film. The renderings are at times even better than A Bug's Life's. Some shots really look like they are real. Of course there's a lot to do yet with CG animation. One example is the full-body animations of the characters. The donkey moves pretty well (although not perfectly), but the rest of the characters aren't natural at all. The close-ups are simply unbelievable, anyway.

I recommend you watch this film. It's funny and entertaining, and the computer graphics are fantastic.

8 out of 10.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Evolution (2001)
7/10
Good funny film.
13 July 2001
I enjoyed this film. The special effects are quite good, and the actors do good performances: David Duchovny is ok (as always), Orlando Jones is very very funny (I like this man) and Dan Aykroyd is the funniest one for me. Julianne Moore is ok, too (she already did Jurassic Park 2 and has some experience on films of this kind).

The script is well done, too. I could see that the writers had some science knowledge and didn't include senseless elements as in many expensive movies of today. I appreciate that very much, much more than the special effects. Back To The Future (1985) is a good example of what I mean.

As a whole, I didn't get bored at any moment and I laughed many times. Don't miss it. 7 out of 10 for me.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.