facorread Reviews

Noroi (2005)

What did I just see?

[10/10 · 4 July 2016]

I imagined the found footage genre was a dead horse already. How wrong I was; this production managed to get my eyes wide open for hours. A story this complex with so rich and relatable characters is a very rare gem among horror films and mockumentaries.

After the incredible atmosphere, the suspenseful details, the excellent acting, and the appropriate dosage of music, I'd go so far to say that the final act of the film was by far the scariest thing I have ever seen in my life, if it wasn't immediately upped by the post-credits scene. I've never been so frightened in, like, ever.

If you are into jumpscares and gore fests, go away.

Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)

Eco-friendly Star Wars: Successfully recycles both previous trilogies

[7/10 · 19 December 2015]

Rehashing Star Wars:

•Bigger badder Death Star absorbs stars and uses their energy to destroy planets

•The even more "old piece of garbage" Millennium Falcon

•Droid carries secret but vital information that changes the fate of the galaxy

•Orphan in a desert planet

•Main villain killing one hero, just in time for the others to see

•Main character falling to death in a chasm in the Death Star

•Main villain venting (EpII). This time Ren vents anger on computers, to remain politically correct.

•Same ending as EpIV: Group of starfighters assaults a heavily guarded trench on the surface of Starkiller Base to hit its vulnerable spot just seconds before it can destroy the Resistance's base. It even echoes the second Death Star and the ending of Episode I by having a starfighter enter the vulnerable point and attacking from the inside.

•An infant villain aspiring to be just like Darth Vader, even wearing a costume with a helmet, just out of spite this time

•Said infant villain channeling Hayden Christensen's Darth Vader, culminating with Anakin's loud line "Traitor!"

•Kamino, in the form of an incomplete map to find Luke

•Torture scene from EpV

•Cantina scene (EpIV, EpII). Maz Kanata is reminiscent of Dexter Jettster and his droid WA7, with just a twist of Yoda.

•A hero hanging from the wall of a chasm (EpI)

WTF Moments:

•Incredible coincidence: Rey, Finn, and BB-8 run away from a First Order airstrike, towards a ship that is promptly and efficiently destroyed by a TIE Fighter's blast. They are forced to run towards a very, very, very old Millennium Falcon and the TIE Fighters become suddenly too incompetent to destroy it. The Falcon is perfectly functional of course, despite having been abandoned for many years. Rey is not just a starving scavenger; she is also the perfect pilot for the Millennium Falcon, defeating trained fighters and pulling incredible stunts the first time she pilots it. Solo and Chewbacca inexplicably find them, just in time to find Luke Skywalker!

•A woman that has no idea of what the force is and is too afraid to find out, and according to Joda's standards would be too old to even begin training, is suddenly able to use Jedi mind tricks and is now on the quest to become the best Jedi badass of the galaxy.

•The most powerful Sith Lord of the whole galaxy is able to stop energy blasts mid air, kill with the force, read people's minds, and detect subtle tremors in the force like the presence of his non-force-user father from millions of miles away, and is a lightsaber warrior with years of training and experience is somehow the same incompetent guy that is later unable to sense that his father is in the same building, and is later unable to instantly win a lightsaber duel with a guy that had never used a lightsaber before, and then is not only unable to instantly win a lightsaber duel with a woman that had never used a lightsaber before but he is also defeated.

•Luke goes into hiding but gives a map with his exact location. Reconstruction is unnecessary, as the small portion contains the names of the star systems. And if it does not, then its position in a complete galactic map can be determined by the sizes of the portion's stars or their spatial configuration.

•Once again, the Death Star was destroyed by shots from one single one- manned starfighter.

•Finn, an unimportant sanitation stormtrooper among millions of stormtroopers, knows just enough about the First Order in order to destroy its most powerful weapon.

•Han Solo, the greatest and most beloved hero of the Star Wars universe dies without a fight, but with a whimper and is then just discarded like a piece of trash.

•Now you can go into hyperspace and pass through shields and hulls. This technological advancement is standing right there with Star Trek's superblood and interplanetary teleportation.

Sad, just sad things from this movie:

•Zero mystery. I bet the makers tried the concept of having the reveal of Ren as Han and Leia's son to a later part of the movie as a Big Twist, but they realized it wouldn't work and now it comes across as a non-twist. Also, Han's death was totally predictable, and the moment of the end titles was totally predictable.

•No villains. Zero complexity. Zero character development. Zero motivation. Forgettable. Who cares about Snoke and Ren?

•Star Wars Battlefront, a video game without a plot, feels a lot more like Star Wars than this film.

•I can't believe that this film has absolutely zero original ideas. At least the prequels had original ideas despite the fact that everybody knew where were they heading. Oh wait, I was able to find an original idea, that you can go into hyperspace and pass through shields and hulls. Which is a terrible idea.

•For this movie's worth of originality, creativity, and action, it might as well have been made by Michael Bay on CGI and digital medium. At least he would bring more explosions to it.

•This film played it safe with the designs for new creatures, vehicles, technologies, worlds, costumes. The OT and PT had a lot of creative, inventive, versatile and totally incredible designs.

•Suddenly the prequel trilogy doesn't look that bad

•Leia was so busy with the resistance that she couldn't make the time to accompany the party that went to see her brother Luke

•The next Death Star will surely destroy the entire galaxy

•Leia could have been replaced by another character. She was totally inconsequential.

At least this film passes the Bechdel test with two named women.

I think I prefer to dwell in the past. I'll stick to the Old Trilogy.

Supergirl: Pilot (2015) Season 1, Episode 1

Weak beginning

[5/10 · 27 October 2015]

You can tell that these guys really worked hard in engineering this episode and the series' story. Kara is a well done character: the most powerful woman in the world has insecurities, everyday problems, aspirations, motivation, and conflict. I bet there's women everywhere that can relate to this character. A reasonable dose of visual effects, given the constrained TV budget. A reasonable villain setup and a promising cast.

The feminist agenda and the woman empowerment agenda are intertwined and spread all around, fact that may disgust you or entice you depending on what your stance towards feminism is.

But one thing I believe everybody can agree on is that these explicit agendas failed to address a very important character: Cal Grant, played by Calista Flockhart, as the founder of media conglomerate CatCo, the most powerful woman in National City, and the heroine's boss. If this series really wanted to empower women, then this would have been the ideal character to do so. She would have shown leadership, maturity, natural authority, teamwork, advocacy, even activism, and so on. Instead you get a brat that whines that her private elevator doesn't work and she had to use the general elevator and so she had to endure the torturing smell of cheap cologne that her subordinates have to use because they can't afford to live as chic as her. Seriously, WTF. Her treatment of Kara would not necessarily qualify as anti-feminist, but I put it here because it's plain-old corporate slavery that takes away Kara's dignity as a woman and as a human being. Where is your feminism now? I know writers need a conflictive character every now and then, but there are way many more feminist ways to achieve that. How would this kind of woman earn this position in a feminist universe?

The other stupid thing to see in a feminist episode is a bunch of characters struggling to find yet another way to talk about girl power. I think this is a disservice to feminists. Feminism is not about making quips that equality is a good thing; it's an effort to build a world with equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women; a feminist episode would show how cool that world would be instead of having characters say it out of nowhere.

Case in point 1: Nobody aboard the airplane mentioned the fact that this was a woman instead of Superman. It was a perfect scene in every way. Until the moment it was completely ruined by a woman proclaiming "Can you believe it? A female hero! ...It's nice for my daughter to have someone like that to look up to!" What? So this is a feminist universe that somehow has absolutely no female heroes and no female role models, and then has just gotten the first female hero and role model ever in the form of an alien woman because it's absolutely impossible to find female heroes or female role models in the entire human species? Where is your feminism now?

Case in point 2: Kara argues with their boss about the use of the name "Supergirl" instead of "Superwoman," with the subtext that "girl" in our sexist, collective conscience is a derogatory word towards women. If this episode was consistent with its feminism, nobody would care; that conversation wouldn't even exist. But then again, you have a brat and a slave.

Case in point 3: There were no sexist, derogatory, or otherwise anti-feminist remarks by men in this episode. So why are women making quips about girl power? Do these writers think that real-world feminists' hard work is aimed to find validation of their opinions?

Case in point 4: Somehow the writers concluded that Kal giving Kara the reasonable piece of advice of becoming a hero would be tantamount to curtailing her freedom of choice. Because of that they decided that Kal "wisely" asked James Olsen (of all people) to move to National City to covertly influence over Kara's thinking in order to have her freely choose to become a hero. Is this how feminism works in this series? by puppetry? This explicitly stated motivation to bring James Olsen to this series is unnecessary. Both the actor and the character are great, but the latter should have a different name and he doesn't even need to have a motivation: he just works at CatCo, period. If the writers need occasional doses of wisdom and experience for Kara as a hero, then have her visit Kal. How difficult is that?

A corny, oddly-paced, and disconnected pilot end up ruining your day. I use the benefit of the doubt and hope the cast will do their best to polish their performances, their chemistry, and the overall relationships among the characters during the next couple episodes. And for God's sake, change Cat's character traits!

For now, I'd say they took their shot at a great first impression and they missed.

3096 Tage (2013)

Potentially the best drama - Ruined by amateur edition

[5/10 · 2 January 2015]

I came to this film without any assumptions, nothing more than the hope to be told (more like summarized) the incredible story of what this lady had to go through.

Characters were well developed by the the writing staff as well as the actors. The actors with English as a second language had some trouble with their characterizations, they looked a bit stiff/expositive at some times.

The real problem with this film was the editing. Lack of expertise was palpable in the way this film was cut. It lacked both cohesion and continuity. It looked like a photo reel at times. The notable exceptions were: the fantastic transition marking 4 years of captivity, and the transition to freedom. They were really well done, very professional. Then how come the rest of the editing is so amateurish?

The first minutes of film were rushed: Lady calls for help. Cut to little girl with her father in a bar. Cut to sleeping girl. Cut to angry mom, cut to walk to school, ... All in a few moments. It absolutely looked as a collection of takes of different girls in different situations.

There are several continuity errors distracting the viewer. The producers, director, and editors should have reviewed the edition with more detail. There were also some pointless decisions in the editing room, such as the first slow-motion scene, which had no purpose in being slow, and the focus on some window while dancing. No context, no purpose.

Although the writing was good, there are situations and lines of dialogue going sideways and getting lost. Vegetarianism, media bias, a drunk father, a joke, an establishing shot of a house with dimming lights which absolutely confuses and/or enrages.

The victim writing a secret list of received abuses, while calling them out, presumably for the viewer to hear, but at the same knowing that her captor is probably listening, is something which should have been written with more thought.

Original music for this film was rather scarce. I think it was well composed but original music should also have been put in important scenes of the film. These scenes were hurt because of that silence.

The rest of reviews for this film address other problems I agree with.

I think a director's cut is in order. After addressing these problems the film would be awesome. Also, this film's staff is in debt to this lady and her family; they should have been more careful with the editing and music, out of respect and sensibility, just as they were careful at writing, acting, producing. By the way, the sets were terrific, claustrophobic, overwhelming.

Lucy (I) (2014)

This is a complete myth! The fun part is: What if it was true?

[10/10 · 24 November 2014]

This film has greatly polarized critics for its use of controversial concepts. I am a scientist and of course this movie gives me mixed feelings about its science. But I'm sure about one thing, that this is fiction. I am able to watch a fiction movie, am I not?

Some people review this film negatively for its scientific value, ignoring the fact that this isn't a documentary. What are these guys comparing this film against? There is no comparison against real-world science here. If somebody makes a film about black holes, I expect it to be faithful to the latest research about black holes. If somebody makes a film about the Sun, I expect it to be faithful to what we know about the Sun. In contrast, a film about aliens can stretch our suspension of disbelief a lot more, because we know no real aliens to compare it about. And my my, how wide a range of alien species has been spawned by the film industry in all its years! The main concept in this film is equally flexible because it has been proved a myth years ago. Everybody knows that, director/writer Besson knows that. These negative reviewers miss the entertainment value of this film because of something they were expecting (harmony to actual science) that was never there since the film's inception.

So yes, some other people review this film for its entertainment value, because we want to enjoy this "What if this myth was true" scenario. And we are truly entertained. I loved how Scarlett Johansson developed her character very well even when there was inherently not much to begin with: an innocent girl with not further background than dating some guy for a week and living in a shared apartment. Scarlett's charisma, weakness, strength, and acting spill all over the place, even during the most flat scenes of the film, even during the most VFX-packed scenes of the film. Morgan Freeman is... well, Morgan Freeman. Fantastic actor except for the fact that he's been typecast into the wise guy role for like, 20 years. I like the ethnic diversity in such a small cast. Not that they are trying to showcase it anyway, but it's a nice touch.

The action pack is very good, the mafia pack is entertaining, and the renditions of Inception, Léon: The Professional, and 2001: A Space Odyssey are all cherished. Once again, the central myth is developed in a very fun way. I believe this film has risked a lot in its development, but for us who want to be entertained and have our imaginations opened, this film delivers very vividly.

Taken 2 (2012)

More of the same

[10/10 · 17 October 2014]

I just wanted to have 90 more minutes of Liam Neeson kicking some faces. I got what I wanted and then some.

So this film not only offers the tension, the action, the hand-to-hand combat you have come to expect from this guy, it also offers a fantastic car chase with an unlikely driver, in a very nice location, at a great pace, with a fun outcome as well.

Of course many of the moments of this movie are outrageous and ridiculous, like having somebody throw grenades around the city, with apparently nobody getting killed, even nobody notifying the police; gratuitous hand-to-hand combat in some very public places, with violent outcomes, and apparently the authorities are very incompetent. This film also deserves like five Bad Timing Awards, but I guess I was able to get along with all of that for the sake of entertainment.

I understand all of those negative reviews out there; they were expecting some things from this film and it didn't deliver. In all honesty, I had a lot of fun watching this.

The family had a very nice turn of events during the film; I take it as a subtle commentary on the industry out there, in which every relationship has to die. Even though that plot was secondary to the purpose of the film, I found it very fun to watch, too.

I'd wish more people to feel entertained by this movie as I feel.

Her (2013)

Sigh... An exploration of what, again?

[1/10 · 6 October 2014]

It's really painful to be writing this review right now. I got to understand the rationale, the intent, and the really good effort in putting together the story, the photography, the screenplay, the art direction, the acting. I really wanted to like this film, but I have a big problem with the execution of this concept.

To me, this film comes out as another example of how underrated are actual, human, meaningful relationships in Hollywood. So much that we are offered a virtual relationship instead, as the main focus here. Each actor gave a terrific performance, but I would just have loved to see the lead characters to be physically present, together and interacting in the meaningful way that was shown to us in voice only. I guess that doesn't scan with focus groups and test audiences.

So the two stars hold this meaningful, intimate relationship that is not physically happening, it might as well be a movie about a man and a woman courting by phone while on different continents.

This film probably pretends to be an exploration of human nature, and relationships in a connected world, but I think I would me much more obliged by one of: a monologue, a Woody Allen film, or a film about a meaningful relationship. Or better yet, an actual meaningful relationship. So I will stick to my marriage and leave this film alone.

Does every marriage have to end in divorce in Hollywood? Does every relationship need to be broken when represented in film? Audiences get what they want, apparently. Sorry for the loose commentary.

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2013)

Waste of time

[1/10 · 1 October 2014]

Walter Mitty has been explicitly written to appeal to 40-year old losers around the world. How can anybody relate to this irrelevant guy is beyond me. He has a love interest that nobody cares about, a job going the way of the dodo, and a purported "adventure" nobody cares about either.

This film is filled with irrelevant fantasy segments while devoid of any motivation or character development. The central character is forced into absurd problems that would never happen in today's world, and is also written to make decisions that contradict his personality, with absolutely no motivation.

The reason for this guy to be irrelevant is that, provided this film was properly written, he would have taken his retirement package and quietly gone home to cry himself to sleep. He would never spend his money in this absurd adventure of his when he is on the verge of unemployment.

The whole skateboard plot is trash; even though a guy with this personality could somehow be an expert skater after 40, the whole ride in the middle of the film is not only boring, but also unwarranted; he could just get into the car and avoid skating altogether.

Films based on the assumption that moviegoers are idiots should be stopped. Don't waste your time on this thing.

Edge of Tomorrow (2014)

Refreshing, intelligent, exciting, engaging, great twist

[10/10 · 27 September 2014]

People should avoid every possibility of an spoiler and just go ahead and watch this movie. This is a well written story, it's very surprising it is a product of rewrites in the middle of filming. The main plot device is managed in a complex form that does not come to be overwhelming, it is very well thought and it really builds an engaging story. Even though such plot device generally leads to poor characters, the truth in this movie is that characters are very well developed and you even come to appreciate the secondary characters as well; I cannot describe how so without spoiling the movie to you. The twist at the end may look like a plot hole but I decided to suspend disbelief about it and just enjoy the infinite possibilities that the twist actually spawns without showing. Great scenery, excellent photography, very nice VFX, and boatloads of action makes this movie a must-see. Trust my word for it.

Chef (2014)

The following expectations are a prerequisite to this movie

[10/10 · 7 September 2014]

This film reminds me of the works of poet William Wordsworth, who started the Romantic Age using a particular style, based on simple vocabulary, inspired on everyday life events, and intended to bring poetry to the reach of all people.

As a prerequisite to this movie, you should convince yourself of the following:

This is not a summer blockbuster. This is not Iron Man 4/The Avengers whatever. This does not have a huge budget. This is an independent film, with a simple plot, no twists (no spoilers), simple premise, simple characters, honest feel-good intent. A wonderful cast collaborating in this movie out of personal friendship, giving very good performances, playing characters that are developed just mildly. I'm gonna watch this movie just to entertain myself and get reminded of the values of American people, without expecting anything else.

If you are able to get this to heart, you will have a fantastic time watching this film.

Divergent (2014)

Faction systems should not be on film

[1/10 · 26 August 2014]

A faction system makes this film look like an role-playing game. People in it are one-dimensional, boring, and all undeveloped. The film focuses on Dauntless faction, whose members are presumably the only ones in the society who are capable to handle weapons, engage in combat, jump, board moving trains, and do other irrelevant stunts. Dramatic music is the cue to the viewer that this faction is the cool posse to aspire to, and the other factions don't matter.

In this scenario, the title "Divergent" leaves no space to spoilers: Girl doesn't know what faction to choose, but obviously she will not choose the same faction as her parents. Her aptitude tests are inconclusive, she applies to Cool Faction Dauntless, she competes for a position in it, and guess what? she earns a position. You know that even before she makes her first appearance on screen. Here is the big non-spoiler: after a while, the "Divergence" causes something that shakes the foundation of society and the very factions system.

What is this film trying to achieve? It's not a visual experience, not a dramatic experience, not a political statement, not a comedy, not a sports film, not a sci-fi film, not a film for young adults, and definitely not an action film. Some people could be easily fooled by this film trying to be all of that, but the end result is a predictable, boring film, devoid of any credibility or chemistry.

The film tries to explore personal identity through a system of factions. Nice try. It ends up conveying the message that if you like sports and combat, then you should not go to university, because they are mutually exclusive. If you are generous and caring for people, then you are a coward and cannot be part of the armed forces because these are mutually exclusive. Even if that was true in real life, the film is also an indication that factions do not need each other to survive. These premises are so stupid that producers are tacitly shamed into leaving the faction system unused and irrelevant.

The film also tries to explore the value of choices, but guess what: the central character makes random choices without any motivation and without assuming any consequence of her actions. It's apparent that the premise "Faction before blood" isn't part of the culture in the film, to the point that people wimps for their families after they chose to leave them out of free will.

The most dangerous message in this film is: individualism is a threat to peace.

Europa Report (2013)

Astro-boredom

[1/10 · 11 October 2013]

Any decent sci-fi film combines good science, writing, direction, visuals, and acting. This movie had none of that.

The science in this film was absurd and implausible; the first manned mission after the Moon is Europa, not Mars. Why Europa? Nobody knows. And most presumably no probes or robots were sent to Europa in advance. Everything that was portrayed by astronauts in the film has already been done by current, actual robots in Mars; so why the need to send people to Europa? It looks so weak as a PR move by a corporation. The whole Hydrazine premise is so ridiculous. There was absolutely no justification for so many space walks in such weak suits: fixing batteries and fuses, correcting icing problems in fuel lines... When the time comes for a real-life manned mission to get beyond the Asteroid Belt, you bet that mission will have thousands of safeguards and protection against common things that happen in space like radiation, solar storms, asteroids, battery failures, and icing. The writers probably ignored such basic planning for the sake of dramatic effect, as if a corporation would risk lives with sloppy mission design in this kind of PR move. The only possible exception for this scientific mess is the artificial gravity, which is produced by the fool-proof rotating module that we have seen in other films, and even then who cares? They got the Jupiter-Europa gravity all wrong.

The writing was terrible: the retrospective to the launch events was absolutely unnecessary. Precious time that would have been best invested in character development. Nobody cares about your characters, their intentions, motivation, relationships, deaths, nothing. They enunciate their motives for giving up their lives, but you can be sure they don't feel like saving the day; they might as well let the mission fail. Real-world astronaut training is not Kamikaze training. Real-world astronauts are naturally afraid to die, just as everyone else; in such vein they are trained not to attempt stupid stunts like going after the light or walking without tethers. The writing is so poor that you could switch the characters in their roles, you could change the whole premise to an expedition to the Arctic, like The Thing, or something like The Abyss with little change. No tension, no climax, no suspense.

The whole documentary format was also unnecessary; it had no purpose; it doesn't even look as a direction or art device; I am pretty sure it happened at the editing room: they first tried the basic sequential cut, and then they tried to rearrange the scenes without adding or removing anything, and found it more interesting; anyways the film makes the same sense: none.

There is a reason I don't spend two hours of my time watching security footage: because it's boring. But then there I am, watching security footage of a bunch of people I couldn't care less about doing some implausible things for the sake of dramatic effect. Gratuitous close-ups of nostrils and teeth. I feel ripped off. I think every take on Jupiter, Europa, and the creature were also represented from the point of view of the fixed cameras, so the visuals there are super-boring. The creature had more tentacles than animation frames in this film. Terrible lighting. There are three exceptions to this visual nonsense: the solar storm is pretty good, the ship sets are decent, and the theatrical release poster looks way better than the film's Europa footage. Unimpressive film.

Finally, the acting; I'd really like to say that the good actors had poor material to work with, and that their talents were wasted. But I strongly believe they were so bored with the premise and script that they didn't even care about their performances. Killing Copley off so early was a terrible move, but who cares anyway? Keeping him to the end does not help things.

This film is a fantastic example of how not to make sci-fi. Please take notes.

The Dark Knight (2008)

A great movie, but not as realistic as the makers intended.

[10/10 · 6 July 2011]

This movie has a great plot and good acting, the characters are fantastic and the action sequences are impressive. Subtle plot points may be missed easily, so you have to watch the movie again to get the full plot. However, realism is another story; although the makers intended to make a movie as realistic as possible, they compromised many elements for the sake of making a good movie. The following lines are my rant about realism.

The Joker presumably uses only gasoline because it is cheap. Well how about tracking gasoline distribution and theft to catch him instead of making the complicated act we saw in the movie? That would have reduced the movie to five minutes.

How comes every floor of a hospital was rigged with gasoline in minutes with nobody noticing?

How comes two ferries were rigged with gasoline in their machine rooms with nobody noticing? Don't they undergo regular cleaning and maintenance?

How comes Gordon knew the origin of the shots to the Mayor beforehand so he and the Police Dept. could fake his death?

How comes a mob bank has access from the roof with no security at all?

How comes a school bus can get into a bank and then get out with no scratches, with no other drivers or the police noticing?

How comes a military vehicle originally designed to build bridges has an emergency exit in the form of a motorcycle? Why not just using a common motorcycle, some guns and a harpoon, or continue using the tumbler all along?

How about having Batman shoot the Joker's truck, or get into it long earlier in the movie?

Batman has a rule: he does not kill. So did Batman really need to crash into a mall or a cinema to reach the Joker's truck? How about all the cars he blew up to make way? He did not seem to care about people getting killed in these scenarios; he did not even try to save Harvey's life but probably this one was not an option.

What's realistic about all the tricks Batman does in his motorcycle? I would be worried about his cape getting entangled in the wheels.

How comes the security for the mob is so tight, but the Joker walks into one of their meetings with such grace, ease, and with explosives?

It seems the mob had to hire the Joker to find Lao and protect their bank money, and then at least the Chechen paid him his half to kill Batman. It seems the Joker did the Lao job for free.

Here is a weak plot point, more of a coincidence: Melvin White, living in a place over the parade venue, is the same guy that prepared the ammunition for the shooting the previous night, or at least one of the four possible fingerprint matches; and that very place was used to hold the hostage policemen. It was a big plot compromise although the result was very good in terms of suspense.

Collateral (2004)

Captivated by the story and the photography

[9/10 · 6 July 2011]

This is an impressive movie that took some risks and succeeded with them. In the technical aspect, the digital photography gave me a strange feeling of being part of the movie, a feeling that I don't get with 3D, IMAX or other formats.

The story is very complete, no plot holes in it, but it has many subtle points that may be missed; the viewer has to pay attention to every detail. The problem is that these details build a house of cards in the minds of the audience: one missed point and the whole plot losses all sense, to the point of being ridiculous.

The other problem of the movie is that although the end is very poetic and well done, with great photography and acting, it feels a bit empty; there is no police or FBI to take over from there. The ending could have been improved with just 20 seconds of footage of the authorities asking questions in a crime scene.

In conclusion, this movie is great but it requires effort from the audience to be properly understood. Watch it if you like to think.

The Wind that Shakes the Barley (2006)

Good film

[8/10 · 7 January 2011]

This film portrays in a simple manner the grief of war, the absurdity of siblings killing each other for the sake of ideals. The scenery and acting were very good and it has been good to watch a good argument that does not need to get complicated to take the point across.

The only thing I disliked about this movie is the negative portrayal of the British characters, consisting mainly of rude soldiers; I am not sure whether all Britons looked at the Irish with contempt at that time, because I have little knowledge of European history, but that was the sensation I got from this story.

I recommend this movie to people which are interested in a simple argument which delivers, good character development and nice Irish visuals.

The Prestige (2006)

Worth watching closely

[10/10 · 18 October 2010]

This movie is not for everybody; it is an exquisite mix of flashbacks and developments, more complex than Memento, but some viewers will find it confusing, complicated, or will see plot holes over the first half of the movie. The jumps in the time line are not an obstacle to character development, but help them as back stories; I got acquainted to the characters in The Prestige and actually cared about their struggles, their successes, and the deaths. Acting was very good overall, the environment was good and I felt in the 19th century. This is a recommended movie for intelligent people, ready to accept the twists and the moments of confusion in the midst of the story.

Koyaanisqatsi (1982)

A masterpiece.

[10/10 · 29 April 2009]

I found the full Koyaanisqatsi film on Youtube's Movies section. After reading about it in IMDb, I decided to give it a try.

The film is quite impressive. There is no plot in the traditional sense, no actors, only wonderful scenarios which put together can be interpreted in many ways, just as Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey." To me, this is a timeless film reflecting the way civilization has transformed man into a hurried individual who has dropped the taste of life in favor of efficiency. It gave me a fractal sensation about the earth, as an image of our very bodies.

I recommend this film to anyone looking for something to silently think while watching; its music and photography are worth admiring.