20 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Great advance for its time.
17 September 2007
This was the 1st animated color movie of Europe. I remember I saw it in the movies about 20-25 years ago (it was a re-release, of course). The movie was full of adventures and it had a great animation, with a bit of action, a bit of sense of humor and a bit of drama and tenderness. It was a nice experience to watch this movie, even if it may appear kind of dated, cause it shows a good story starred by a brave guy, and shows additional values (even if most of them were inspired by the dictatorship of the time). A good recommendation for kids of all ages. Watch it, especially with its original Spanish sound, and then tell me how you feel.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Another Totò's smash comedy.
1 March 2006
This comedy shows how people shouldn't hurry to make serious things, (like getting married, for instance). In this movie, the "odyssey" of a rich-becoming man to find a wife who "helps" him to inherit a fortune is showed with great efficiency. The lots of problems that appear in an apparently simple task like searching for a wife to become rich shows this is not as easy as it may seem, and you can see there that money doesn't always bring happiness, until it's come.

By the way, I must say that I saw this movie on TV when I was in Italy last month, otherwise I think I couldn't have seen it. But that's the best way to watch a movie like this: Totò's comicity is better in O. V.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Totò at his best.
17 February 2006
I saw this movie last week on TV, while being in Italy for a family matter. I enjoyed every single minute of that ancient but truly good and effective "Italian style" comedy. Totò steals every scene and some times he doesn't really need to do a thing to become funny. His face, expressions and speech can do most of the half of the movie. Of course the other actors also played correctly their parts and there was no real hole because of the script or the performances. I must admit that some comic situations can be a little forced and somehow previsible, but none of them were absolutely unnecessary. Totò also made very good movies along his career, but not all were as remarkable as this.

I said I was in Italy when I saw and that's not for free: if you can, try to see (and hear) Totò's movies in the original version, that's MUCH better.
8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Munich (2005)
S. Spielberg at his worst.
16 February 2006
I saw this movie about 1 week ago, expecting to find a sort of chant or hymn to human values, an excellent screen development and a story really well told in order to keep audience's attention at every single moment. However I found just the opposite: unconnected and senseless scenes, boring argument and lots of explicit violence that sometimes changed my boredom to a disagreeable taste. I found this movie really chaotic and tasteless. Sometimes it really reminds me "Schindler's List", with lots of tasteless violent scenes, some scenes of documentary or similar, many stories being told at the same time (I know in real life many things usually happen simultaneously but trying to tell different stories at the same time makes the audiences loose all points and able to follow none of them). Steven Spielberg did lots of better movies and I hope he finds again his way in the future, with a movie that can really capt the attention of the audiences "from the first 10 minutes", as he said sometimes.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Birds (1963)
Really disappointing stuff for a really disappointing movie
10 January 2006
I must confess I always wanted to watch this movie because I saw other classics of Sir Alfred Hitchcock, until I actually saw it. Really, the movie shows what a movie shouldn't ever have: extremely poor special effects and VERY sappy dialogs and situations. The plot seems to make ABSOLUTELY no sense at all: no-one knows why birds attack, if they finish attacking somehow (even at least because they're bored and/or tired). They join, they attack and they just go away no-one knowing REALLY why. Some things are good, however: the camera is quite well used in almost all scenes, and the soundtrack is really good sometimes, but both the script and the production have got a lot of flaws and lacks, something that Sir Alfred Hitchcock should not allow.
8 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Possibly the last good western worth watching.
23 November 2005
I saw this movie a long time ago, however I still remember some details. It was a bucolic chant to the nature, even the human nature, and to the Indians' traditional way of living (not always understood). This film doesn't try to transform points of view (like most 1990s movies tried to do later), but only tries to give each one's position (though I still consider that many white men of the US army aren't correctly depicted). The scene in which John Dunbar tries to feed "White Socks" (the wolf), and finally makes it is by far my fave. The way he earned Indians' respect made me feel great. But when he fell prisoner of his own army and caged just like a wild beast, I must confess I felt quite disappointed. Anyway, the whole result is wonderful and, if you user, haven't watched this yet, don't waste the chance.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Powerful and unusual thriller with chilling depiction of classic horror.
23 November 2005
This is one of my favorite movies from the 1990s and all times. I had received very good reviews, so I went to watch it by myself (it's not the first time that a below average movie is unfairly overrated, and the opposite thing as well): I was far away from being disappointed. The beginning appears to show just another ordinary story, but that's just one of the cheating things from the movie (another one is the ending, but of course I can't reveal it). It's got all the ingredients for a perfect combination between drama, horror and thriller. I remember the fears of the boy (perfectly performed by Haley Joel Osment, who, by the way, was a few years older than his character Cole as well as the desperation of his mother, who can't understand what's happening to him (even when he tells her what happens), and just can't believe he contacts spirits (she things he's only victim of school abuse). I also remember the restless psychiatrist, trying to help the boy as well as he tries to save his marriage, but it's only at the end when he realizes what ACTUALLY happens. The great interaction between both characters, trying to help each other, is priceless. The dramatic story of Cole's grandma and his contacts with her spirit, which are only believed by his mother at the end, when he reveals a special thing. Well, just watch it.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Forrest Gump (1994)
Greatly overrated mix-up
22 November 2005
I must confess that the 2 first times I saw this movie (its theatrical release and its 1st television issue), I loved, even adored, this movie. But then, looking back more calmly, I started thinking: what does this movie really have? A mix of historical situations (in chronological order, of course), a lot of songs (especially from the 1960s & 1970s), an incredibly lucky idiot whose strange quote "life is like a chocolate box" entered cinematic pop culture and, behind it all, an irresponsible depiction of points of view (typicall from the 1990s). This movie was actually the perfect excuse to play a ton of oldies (remixed and remastered to fit the strange 1990s likes), use innovative technology (especially digital) to place this boy everywhere and revisit recent history. (Almost) nothing more, and nothing less.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Others (2001)
Amenábar at his best.
18 November 2005
This is really a great masterpiece where a Spanish director shows there can be quality out of the Dream Factory that Hollywood actually is (I don't only say that because we share nationality). This movie shows how really great movies should be, and it has a hard to confuse classic taste. The way things are treated, the lack of explicits, and especially the lack of blood and/or gore makes this movie become a real classic since the first theatrical release. It's obvious that Mr. Amenábar just drank from the best sources (especially Hitchcock). Since "Poltergeist" I didn't see less killings in a whole movie, and, however, it's still chilling. Take example of these, you new filmmakers.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Poltergeist (1982)
Terrific movie with a terrifying story behind.
16 May 2005
I can still remember when I first saw this movie (when it came out on TV, because I was too young to see it in its theatrical release), and I felt really impressed by both the special effects (even effective today to be honest) and the awesome and above average work of the children. I still feel especially fascinated by the unsurmountable work of the late Heather O'Rourke (as the sweetest little Carol Anne, the real hard core of the plot, in my modest opinion). When I read that most special effects were added in post-production, and that actually the actors interacted almost always with the typical blue screens and/or (nearly) empty sets, that made my admiration increase even more.

On the other hand, thinking about all the story that lies beneath made me feel very sad; there were too many disgraces: Oliver Robins was about to die actually in the infamous clown doll attack, a member of the crew died during the shooting (I'm not too sure of that), Dominique Dunne was murdered a few months after its release, when she was just beginning (tho I guess that a jealous guy has actually no relationship with a movie, even a horror movie), and finally the beautiful "human doll" that was Heather O'Rourke also died during the filming of the 3rd shot. Too many tragedies that shouldn't really affect a movie quality and the position of the audiences about that but, who can really maintain it?

Now, because of that, I feel sad every time I see the whole movie or just a scene or trailer. However, I can't really help watching it every time it's programmed on a TV channel. It's very hard to repeat such a unique piece like this, especially because there will NEVER be another Carol Anne like Heather O'Rourke. Rest in peace they all and let's feel really blessed for having been able to share that delightful experience at least once in a lifetime.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
First Blood (1982)
Great human drama beneath an ordinary action movie.
14 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
WARNING: Possible spoilers herein.

I first saw "First Blood" (aka "Acorralado" in Spain) when it came on TV (I was too young to watch it on cinema when it came released), with the idea that this was a senseless action & crime film: I was really wrong. That idea fits better to its sequels (especially R3). Here I found the story of so many anonymous war veterans who came out of Vietnam disaster ignored (or even hated) by their own country. The real story of people going mad after the violence in enemy field and hate and scorn in own. In fact, finding that hard strong man who fought on his own against so many men well armed and prepared, breaking down and crying in the final scenes with the Colonel Trautman, telling him the bitterness and pain of having lost all of his friends in the war and feeling insulted and offended by the people he fought for (calling him "child murderer" and other worse things) makes this movie worth watching once and once again. So don't only look at the combative & violent surface of this movie ('cause it won't probably tell U a thing) & take a look at what lies underneath. Then you'll also find it great.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Moll Flanders (1996)
Tasteless sort of boredom.
4 November 2004
I watched this movie when it came to TV, trying to catch the interest that it may have. But actually I found a 20th century mentality wrong placed in the 18th century, too many stereotypes to consider this film really good, vulgarity used as a sample of good acting and moral used always to define hypocritical and obscure people. The fight against the moral of the time was a very used argument in the 1990s movies to destroy (or at least distort seriously) the History (watch also some other movies of that genre made in those times and you'll know what I mean). Definitely, don't expect a good movie from this version (especially if you have read the novel or seen the 1960s version): it's got no relationship at all.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Simpsons (1989– )
The best TV show ever.
4 November 2004
I really love this series. I enjoy both new and old chapters (I couldn't count how many times I've seen some of them). It's fresh, it's ironic, it's both comical and (sometimes) dramatical. The characters that come and go (celebrities or not) give some fresh blood to the show and that avoids the show to age and go dated. The relationship between all the characters are very well studied. There's nothing too much or too less. It's true that sometimes the show can seem dated and that it doesn't really age well; but that can be perfectly solved... watching the next episode. OK, sometimes I prefer the old episodes because the ideas and sketches were more original than nowadays, but there are still very good ideas that can be exploited.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Quite slow sometimes, but very powerful.
3 August 2004
Burt Lancaster's performance is simply flawless, he deserved an Oscar this time too. The human history of a merciless prisoner convicted to life imprisonment, then to death penalty (after stabbing the guardian that didn't let him see his mother -who traveled many miles to see him and whose strength saved him at the last moment of death), then again to life imprisonment after his second killing. The mercy and (why not?) love that he feels for the little bird fallen on that stormy night made him change and become more human. He became a real authority in birds.

About the supporting actors, they all were efficient, especially Karl Malden (great as the "bad guy" or the guy against the star), Telly Savalas (with hair!!) and Neville Brand (the guardian who taught Robert to be more human, to say things like "good morning", "please" and "thank you", instead of so many commands. All good.

Well, about the "quite slow", I maintain it: the dialogues sometimes are long and the quiet situations are very quite sometimes. That's the only real flaw of the film (if we have to find someone).
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Brilliant and powerful.
3 August 2004
I´ve recently seen this movie (once again, I can't remember how many times I saw it) and it feels great every time. There's a detail each time that makes it so good even today. This movie shouldn't only be remembered by the love scene of Lancaster-Kerr on the beach: it has much more attractiveness. The whole cast is very efficient (and especially Clift). The scene where Clift plays "Silence" after the killing of "Spaghetti" (greatly performed by Sinatra) with tears in his eyes remains as one of the most powerfull ones in the movie. The love affair is also truly effective and it "burns" even out of the screen, and the passionate fight performed by M. Clift and E. Borgnine (also very good as the "bad guy") shines in all its splendor in the screen. That film simply couldn't be better done, even if it was shot in color and a multichannel sound system of the time (4-track Stereo, 70 mm-6 Track, etc.). Brilliant.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
On the Beach (1959)
Terrific movie, excellent cast & some irregularities.
22 March 2004
I saw this movie some months ago, & in Original Version!! I had the luck of hearing the cast with their own voices, something that's not always possible 4 me. I remained especially impressed by the brilliant performances of the young couple: Anthony Perkins (hard 2 overtake) & effective Donna Anderson (I haven't seen very much of her). The story is awesome (but it should B regarded much more as a warning than as a real story): the world (& Humanity) has been the great victim of the last (surely the last) world war.

Many people say at this point that the plot pays no attention 2 who & what started it all: it doesn't really matter, the result would B the same & the main starter is anyway Mankind, that has destroyed itself. Some may say this is a very sad film. Of course, I partially agree: it's a serious warning 'bout a serious matter, & 4 being effective it must B as chilling & moving as possible. The main problem that I find is the "connection" between the general (nuclear threat come true) & particular (love affair of the starring couple), paying the script very much more attention 2 this than 2 that. I think it's, perhaps, 4 demonstrating the real "last choice" of a woman like Moira (Ava Gardner), single in mid-age & alcoholic, & the widower Lieutenant (Gregory Peck). The last thing I'd like 2 say at this point is an answer 2 the critics that this movie received Bcause of its endin': it's not as sad & tragic as it seems: like a warnin', the final message ("There is still time, brother") is 4 us, the audience. We R STILL in TIME 2 avoid it, BROTHER.
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Part funny, part moving, entirely original.
1 March 2004
I saw this movie on its first release in 1.982 (when I was 6) and a lot of times since then (the last one, last weekend on TV), and my feelings didn't change at all: it's a pleasure for me to watch this movie. It can be childish, as some users may say, but it was essentially made for children (when I first saw it I was a kid), and, like some user said, for good-hearted people (that's a thing that can't grow old).

First, I found it funny for some special moments (the first meetings between the alien and all -one by one- of the family members, when ET got drunk and caused an identical effect on Elliot, and the following scene in his classroom -kiss included-) that are simply great. Especially good was the boy who lay down to make Elliot arrive to the girl's lips, and the ride on the streets in the Halloween day, how he confused a fake "Yoda" with his "home".

Moving, because of ET's "humanity" (when he saw Elliot's finger wounded he immediately cured it and he made a sacrifice trying to save Elliot's life),

his powers (especially when he made Elliot's bicycle and later all the boys' lift and fly), his feelings (his desperation for finding himself lost in a distant planet and not finding an answer to his calls, that made him sad almost till death), and the final farewell, the final top to the movie.

Original, because it shows an alien in a different point of view. Most of the "aliens" films before (e. g., "Alien") and even after (e. g. "Independence Day" and/or "Mars Attacks") show evil aliens that try to invade the Earth and/or exterminate Manhood. This alien is good, has his feelings, and a great heart inside.

Like ET (the character), ET (the movie) has got a great heart. Watch it.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Good, but extremely overrated.
20 February 2004
I must confess that when I first saw this film in theater, and the followin' few times I saw it on TV, I became a passionate defender of it and so I tried 2 tell everybody who asked me Y I liked it. But, in time, I became disappointed: the film is good, compared with the trash we're accustomed 2 watch these days (& almost all last decade), but it doesn't deserve the consideration of an "All-Time Classic", because it isn't. It's a subjective story told from a personal & subjective point of view (Steven Spielberg is Jew), & it tries 2 emphasize the violent side of it, but payin' few attention 2 anything else. Some scenes R disconnected from the rest of the plot, it contains nudity & sex scenes that don't fit 2 the tale (sexual relationships among Mr. & Ms. Schindler, between Amon Göth & her lover) & make the movie become rather vulgar instead of true classic. It's got sometimes the taste of a documentary, but the connection between the general scenes & the fictional (particular) ones is not very well made. The violent scenes (especially shootin') R too explicit (there's no need 2 place a camera & stop it above a dead body bleedin' 4 showin' us the crimes that were committed). The idea of shootin' the film in B&W, I think it's actually because that was very "in" those years & it only took a good excuse 2 do it. If Spielberg really wanted 2 make a rigor approach 2 the matter the same way it was told by those media, he would have also made the film with analog Mono sound, & with less explicit violence. Definitely, watch it if U want, but don't expect a timeless classic.
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Funny enough. Worth a watch... or two.
18 February 2004
I've seen this movie twice or 3 times on TV, and the situation created in it is really funny: 2 men, 1 old & 1 young decide to rubber a Tobacconist in the quarter of Vallecas (Madrid). But the owner of the establishment (a mature woman) turns out to be much braver than both of them together. Inside the tobacconist´s we can also find the owner's niece (played by a very young Maribel Verdú, a bit ugly with the irons on her teeth). The young man & her, step by step, end up falling in love with each other, and the first reaction, aggressive, defending and very tense, becomes very friendly, and they all together face the Police that came there called by the tobacconist's owner.

In just a few words, this is the case of "the chaser chased" but with a funny and good ending for them all.

Finally, I have to say that it's very entertaining and not as tough or politically incorrect as other titles by this director. If you have some spare time & don't know how to use it, take a look at this.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Psycho (1960)
Probably, the greatest movie ever because of 2 people especially...
18 February 2004
...and these people are the director (Alfred Hitchcock, whose work is simply matchless-everything can be copied, but the quality-) and, particularly, the leading actor (Anthony Perkins), absolutely insurmountable. It's a real pity (I'd rather say a shame) that he didn't earn either an Oscar nomination, because his work was perfect. That's my point of view: without Mr. Hitchcock, "Psycho" wouldn't have been the same; but without Tony Perkins, it simply wouldn't have been at all.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.

Recently Viewed