9khjxz Reviews

Brideshead Revisited (2008)

Less than a re-make: a pale imitation

[5/10 · 14 June 2011]

Doing re-makes may be attractive to the uncreative directors who can't come up with an idea of their own; but doing re-makes may also be a tricky business: You always have an original measure against. Now doing re-makes of Jeremy Irons is brave indeed. I only now saw the film and was left with the feeling that some people don't really know where they get into. It would be more prudent to imitate comic books or second-rate performances by third-class actors. The problem with doing a remake of Brideshead Revisited on screen is that the original is darn good. Attempting a remake would demand a whole battery of Emma Thompsons and most of all a better direction and writing.

Lovely Julia, by the way! One day, all women will look like that!

Troy (2004)

The best Trojan film, yet.

[10/10 · 21 July 2008]

Recent Hollywood epics are usually not as good as older versions. This film is an exception. Unusually good for the era of comic book superheroes.

All the cast is superb. Main, secondary and even large scenes were very good. A prime king Priam, an excellent Hector... Historical details seem correct at first sight. Looks like homework was done, this time. KUDOS for the whole team! This is important. As in so many things in life, details make the difference.

I am a fan of Brad Pitt, because he's a good movie barometer. There are good actors that participate is bad movies. Brad Pitt doesn't. I guess that's just not his style.

Kingdom of Heaven (2005)

Almost art.. but still details away.

[7/10 · 21 July 2008]

This is a fine movie to watch. This could almost be an epic.. but unfortunately, Hollywood insists on spoiling otherwise excellent artistic production with the most crude incompetence on historical data.

Medieval history, as all recorded history is incomplete. We know some things.. we are not quite sure of others.. and there are many things we actually do not know. 800 years old history is obscure enough for unknown details to be romanticized. But there are also things we do know and this film has no respect for those. Filling the gaps with creativity is OK.. disregarding historical facts and then sell the film for a quality product is not OK. In this respect, this film is a fraud.

Filming on historical issues and using real historical characters bears a responsibility that Hollywood, even Ridley Scott, is unworthy of. Any similarity of the argument of this film with historical truth is not mere coincidence.. it's sheer fraud.

The argument could be free of historical names and characters. That would be a good option for a director uncommited to historical detail. Then, any story could be told.. as fiction, of course. But to use historical characters in a film that crudely ignores historical confirmed facts is a particularly mean sort of incompetence: the sort that results from low intellectual standards. Art is, or should be, associated with high intellectual standards. Ridley Scott, and Hollywood in general, proved once again that they are not artists. They are very good artisans. There is a difference.

Pushing Daisies (2007–2009)

Every now and then.. the magic

[10/10 · 7 April 2008]

I don't watch television anymore. My eyes and my ears aren't garbage bins.

I did came across this and this is good! From time to time, there comes something genuine, a work of art standing out of the endless monochromatic rows of imitations.

The plot is «surréaliste», which is good since the argument all this is a bit «fantastic» (the movie style). It does not pretend to be formally a reproduction of «real life»; it's romantic, it's colourful, the scenarios are fantastic (the adjective), the cars are fantastic too and not everyone is perfect: A character misses an eye.. others miss a leg... It brings out the child in any one of us (it's like Mr. bean, like the telebubbies for grown-ups, a cross-breed between the avengers and Sesame Street), almost naive, definitely philosophical.

Yes, the dudes who make this are creating, not just manufacturing. This is art, for a change.

The 4 Musketeers (2005)

Overworked re-write that keeps in the spirit of the book.

[9/10 · 20 August 2006]

Much better than Hollywood versions. Excellent timing. No time wasted on accessory adventures or hiper-detailed beginnings and clumsy and too keep with budget. This film spends viewer time on what's important. Sign of the times, perhaps, lots of «kung fu» and «buffy the vampire slayer».. Some people like to re-invent the wheel.. but the book is all adventure anyway and we can't blame Dumas for not having thought of everything, can we?! The taste of the 21st century spectator is as much reflected in this film as that of the 19th reader is satisfied in the book. To the dread of the purist, this movie may in fact remain true to the original; certainly not in «form», but in «logic». All in all a good movie and among best of the several (though not all) of «Les Trois Mousquetaires» that I have seen so far. The «garde robe» is exquisite and it's historic accuracy (or at least the look of it) marks the different to Hollywood amateurism in these more serious aspects of show-business. If they colored the story, these people at least new what they were filming about. Last, but not least, the cast: Awesome babes! I mean.. I'd buy that soul if I could afford it. :-)

Rui Duarte

The Wages of Fear (1953)

«You and I aren't paid to work, we're paid to be afraid», sic.

[10/10 · 19 May 2006]

A film with something to say: «You and I aren't paid to work, we're paid to be afraid», sic. It may not look like much but's that's probably more than a couple of years of Hollywood ( especially, since they ran out of «inspiration» and can only «re-make» versions of cartoon super-heroes). A story of men with a job to do, a confrontation of two opposite ways to look at WORK and at life, a film with characters that don't show-up in theatres anymore. It's a stark movie. The extreme risks involved, the urgency of the situation, the the extreme monotony of the Latin-American summer, the extreme characters all produce a over-contrasted image of todays' (even today, yes, and ever more) world.

Enemy at the Gates (2001)

Artistically mediocre and with many historical incorrections.

[7/10 · 19 May 2006]

A powerful story, realistic content, the usual stereotypes, bad screenplay with many historical incorrections, an audience biased adaptation of the story undermining any artistic ambitions. Romanticised and even with the usual car pursuit and sex scene (even if totally neutral for the stories' sake) this story is clearly a consumer product. I think they must be part of some «secret» American checklist. Are «cars and girls» a central element in the Stalingrad battle? Artistically (and art must make a statement) what is point of broculae in a movie about a «chef»? And what might it's relevance be in a war movie? Artistically nil as the screenplay and the realization might be it's a nice entertaining film on a subject where it would take far worse a work to make a boring movie.

P.S. In every movies American have to crash a car and strip a woman. How creative.

Ocean's Twelve (2004)

An American blend

[5/10 · 10 May 2005]

Someone saw «Jackie Brown», «Touchez pas au Grisby» and all the «James Bond» series, liked it all and thought he could 'americanilly' better. Nahhh... The film has too many flashbacks, too many gadgets and Clooney, as usual, is not convincing. It is way too 'artless' for my taste and that story 'short-circuit' at the end, when the we are all told the film did't, after, tell us the whole story is totally so low! What a loss of time! Can't the author unspool a storyline (stress on the LINE)? The film doesn't tell the story (assuming there is a story to be told). All in all a one time only viewable movie. Saved by the Pitt and the Damon.

Blow-Up (1966)

Blow-up on a way of life.

[10/10 · 17 July 2004]

Blow-up is not only a movie about a blow-up of a negative. There is a thriller story in there but that's just a distraction. This movie is in fact a portrait of a certain «way of life».

Hammings' character is hideous, self-deceiving and bored to death. Other than looking for his identity or for some distraction in an antiquity shop or in a trendy party or concert, he is quite aware of the emptiness of the very social structure he (and others like him) is at the centre of. Though concient of the fraud he really is he assumes and abuses of his leadership position. Yet, his disregard towards people and the admiration he gets from them shows his awareness of the fraudulent nature of the London Swinging Sixties.

That «intellectual emptiness» and emphasis on visual and social symbolism is PRECISELY the point. Miss not the painters' line on the sense of his pictures or the mimes' unexistent tennis ball.

Gentlemen, whenever you watch a movie, remember it is someone else's' movie and someone else's' message it conveys. If you want one of your own you will have yet to make one. If the form appeals to you enough to make you want to copy it, that alone justifies its success.

Rui Miranda Duarte

P.S. As so many things in life, when you take a (particular) movie for something it is not, deception inevitably follows.

Good Bye Lenin! (2003)

Beyond what's real: What is important!

[10/10 · 7 October 2003]

I love this movie. It treats the subject of reality manipulation in a fresh and touching way: The author even uses real images and speeches to illustrate the exact opposite of what really happened. Confrontation between words and images, between reality distortion and the big and small hypocrisies we all indulge ourselves lead the intelligent (or any average) homo sapiens to a questioning of our own interpretation of often taken for granted social facts.

The form chosen: A powerful narrative between the delightfully nostalgic (or Ostalgic) and the joyfully deep. A sensitive yet comic drama, a witty outlook on human nature yet based on the ingenuity of a young man's determination to ignore, within a shell, the waves of a bigger sea. Reality, as incurred by the characters is tragic, in it's essence. Yet, this is not just a tragic moaning movie. It is very pleasant to see and hear. Photography, montage and narrative to image montage are superb! Music is majestic!

Bravo! Magnifico!

Rui Duarte

The Matrix (1999)

So, how real is it? Think again.

[10/10 · 16 May 2003]

A movie that has got it all. If You are looking kicks and bangs You won't be disappointed. If You think that special effects rank science-fiction You have to top rate this one. But there is more to this movie than stylish gymnastic, hi-speed action, creative hi-tech and a god plot. This is a good one. The Matrix is not just about a future of man made paradise through technology. This is about our reality. This is a film about our perception of our «state of the art human civilization» reality, about the substance of personal satisfaction in mass consumption, about the futility of our very notion of success, about the rewards of social inclusion against the it's taxation on our will, resistance and submission. Further from confronting us with the fear of loss of our self-control, self-purpose and self-respect, this film confronts us with very real and present questions about our consciousness of what we are and want to be; our awareness of our role in the lubrication of this very society we live in, and it's utility; We all know we are part of a whole, or is it a hole? Or the whole we want? This film takes us beyond the now traditional «machines rule the world» theme. It's not just the «just what You think You're doing Dave?» sort of question, it's about what baby are You feeding. The man versus machine argument is here magisterially treated and suggests an even more metaphoric insight on our present world. A world that we have already created. So, if You still think The Matrix is just a movie... Think again!

Farewell, Friend (1968)

Superb

[10/10 · 15 April 2003]

This movie is definately one of my favorite movies in it's kind. The interaction between respectable and morally strong characters is an ode to chivalry and the honor code amongst thieves and policemen. It treats themes like duty, guilt, word, manipulation and trust like few films have done and, unfortunately, none that I can recall since the death of the 'policial' in the late seventies. The sequence is delicious, down to the essential, living nothing out and thus leading the spectator into a masterful plot right and wrong without accessory eye catching and spectacular scenes that are often needed in lesser specimens of the genre in order to keep the audience awake. No such scenes are present or needed. The argument is sand honest to the spectator; An important asset in a genre that too often achieve suspense through the deception of the audience. No, this is not miss Marble... A note of congratulations for the music is in order A film to watch and savor every minute, not just to see.

Full Metal Jacket (1987)

How the bell sounds

[10/10 · 14 November 2002]

If this movie was about war, it might be seen as mediocre. That's perhaps why there are so many people deceived with the development of the story.

Full Metal Jacket is about the way the human soul reacts to warfare; The way we prepare men for it, the way we look at it, not only the way we suffer it but also the way we 'see' it. The films character 'Joker' is like the playing card with the same name: It changes 'ad hoc'. More than the anti-war person that he happens to be, 'Joker' is the distant observer of a phenomenon he doesn't regard as his own but one that he is progressively part of. This dynamic process, from the absent recruit to the compassionate executer of a girl warrior happens through the eyes of a camera, the scenario being the very 'ink' that paints blood black. That may be the main reason for the sequence of the second part of the film. Kubrik spares the spectator to an excessive exposure to the 'horrors' of war concentrating, rather, on the relationship of a conscious human, 'Joker', with the 'facts of war' as he becomes progressively familiar with them (that's why Joker is a journalist, not a nurse). Far from an unrealistic and static picture of war, the second part of the film is relatively stripped of action of men suffering war in order to expose war as an external phenomenon, through Joker's pictures. That's how Joker sees it in the begining of the second part. We have here a picture not of war itself, but the 'ways in war' of the type of warrior that went through the first part of the film and, eventually, survived and the critical observation made by Joker of their deeds. Note that if 'Joker' was pro-war character the film could be quite the same except for the feeling expressed by Joker himself regarding the killing of the Vietcong girl. Full Metal Jacket starts with a critical analysis of the distortion of human values by army training or, as one might see it, 'restraining' of the human being and ends with a reflection on the necessity and the inevitability of that distortion through the rendition of Joker's character.

The here is not 'Form whom the bell tolls', not even a remark (amongst many) that it does. Full Metal Jacket, a type of ammunition itself, is a look into the sound of the bell.

All in all, a masterpiece.

Spider-Man (2002)

For whom the bell tolls

[30 August 2002]

This film has the great advantage of telling moralistic story. The always do the good even if You don't know why sort of approach. Be a good scout. It may be seen as a attack on alienation and a cry for the social activism, in any form. This is as actual today as when the argument was created. The film, itself, deceives. The dialogues are well executed but very poor. Not much more could have been done for them. Some scenes are obviously too short. Some characters, mediocre. I won't comment on the green goblin. A film way behind the cartoons I used to watch when I was a kid. My gavourite superhero deserves better. And he will get it. Such poor performance will certainly attract competitors trying to make a statement...

Spider-Man (2002)

For whom the bell tolls

[30 August 2002]

This film has the great advantage of telling moralistic story. The always do the good even if You don't know why sort of approach. Be a good scout. It may be seen as a attack on alienation and a cry for the social activism, in any form. This is as actual today as when the argument was created. The film, itself, deceives. The dialogues are well executed but very poor. Not much more could have been done for them. Some scenes are obviously too short. Some characters, mediocre. I won't comment on the green goblin. A film way behind the cartoons I used to watch when I was a kid. My favourite superhero deserves better. And he will get it. Such poor performance will certainly attract competitors trying to make a statement...