804 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
3/10
Visually grand, with excellent CGI and sound effects, but lacks effective plot and performance-capable characters.
9 November 2019
1391/5000 Visually grand, with excellent CGI and sound effects, but lacks effective plot and performance-capable characters.

This movie is the sequel to the 2012 movie, once again centered on the figure of Spiderman. Here, young Peter Parker is very torn between Gwen's love and the fear that her action as a punisher might endanger her. Then comes a new super villain (well, the whole story about him really didn't convince me, especially when he hates Spider-Man), and it all happens too fast from there.

As in the first movie, the characters are superficial and the plot is undeveloped. The cast can't shine, because they didn't give you material for it. To some extent, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are saved for their good romantic match. The fast pace of the film and the way events run over allow no developments or delays. The film is clearly focused on the use and abuse of CGI and quality visual and sound features. Undoubtedly, they are remarkable, but they do not justify the film, which is full of dramatic and psychologically profound moments that the plot then completely wastes to the detriment of the action, CGI and show-off, which is really worth seeing. .

Of all the movies about Spider-Man, I think this must be the worst, or one of the worst.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Visually grand, with great CGI and sound effects, great soundtrack and costumes ... but there's a lot of work to do in everything else.
8 November 2019
Following in the wake of the ream of comic heroe movies that DC and Marvel have been promoting, this film is just one more, and addresses, as it has been done before in the cinema, the iconic figure of Spider-Man, a one of the most remarkable and famous cartoon heroes ever. He has originated, at least, one trilogy (around 2000) and has now been recycled to make a few more movies, and a few million dollars in profits.

This movie, like many others, tells how teenager Peter Parker became Spider-Man, with all the moral and psychological conflicts associated with such a radical transformation. However, we have seen this so many times that it was difficult to show anything substantially better without changing the character's story, which would be sacrilegious. So the movie just shows what we already know, selects a powerful villain from the long list of enemies the character has accumulated over decades of comics, and gives us the decisive confrontation between them.

Andrew Garfield is a decent Peter Parker, but I confess he hasn't always convinced me. He has some annoying face movements, but he does what he needs to do. Emma Stone looked a lot better to me, but this wasn't the movie for her to shine. So she just made a good romantic match, having a good chemistry with Garfield. Rhys Ifans is equally good as a villain. Martin Sheen and Denis Leary also did well.

The film is directed by Marc Webb, who seems to have done a decent job. The problem is that he didn't bet as much as he should on creating a good story and developing characters and the work of the actors. The concern was, from the beginning, CGI and visual and sound effects. And, in fact, on this issue, the movie is excellent. It's a visual show from start to finish, with sweeping New York views, great costumes and photography and immense camera movement, which gives a feeling of speed and agility to Spider-Man, who flies and jumps like never before. Soundtrack is also excellent, as epic as you'd expect in such a movie.

I think the movie loses a little compared to other movies with other characters. It is not a movie that stays in memory, or can be said to be grand or excellent. Good dialogues are missing, a handful of more complex and developed characters, a more interesting and less trite story. It's a good and entertaining movie, has good production values, good actors and is visually spectacular, but that's basically it.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Quality entertainment in a movie that almost makes us forget it's a remake.
8 November 2019
In this movie, which is a remake of the famous Alfred Hitchcock movie "Dial M for Murder," we see the cold, hard, calculating way a New York businessman tries to get his wife's lover to kill her in order to stay. with her money. Being a remake, there are obvious similarities between both films, but it is not a copy. There are new and different things about this movie, and the way everything is approached is, to say the least, credible.

Its director, Andrew Davis, did an average job. The cast is led by Michael Douglas in the role of cold and hard Steven Taylor, a high finance millionaire. The actor is good in rational roles that require a calm posture, and Douglas does not disappoint us, giving us an excellent performance here. The same is true of Gwynneth Paltrow, who played Steven's wife Emily Taylor. She is the typical object wife, whom her husband will exhibit at society parties, treating her coldly in intimacy, and who comes to find a lover, a character expertly played by Viggo Mortenson. David Suchet, who made a resounding success in his role as Poirot, reincarnates a policeman, bringing the inspector in charge of the case to life. The whole cast did a good job, but I clearly highlight Douglas and Paltrow's excellent performances.

In short, it is a quality movie that can sometimes make us forget that it is a remake and is fully accepted by us. Without any noteworthy technical details or phenomenal interpretations on the part of the cast, it is a film worthy of the story it tells and the quality entertainment it brings us.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Sentinel (2006)
4/10
Another movie in which the security of the American president is threatened and one man tries to save the day.
3 November 2019
This is another movie that revolves around the President of the United States of America and any threats to his safety or integrity. The Americans see the presidential figure as a symbol of their prestige and their capacity for affirmation towards the rest of the countries. In a way, they regard their president's figure as some European countries do with their kings, except that the latter are not eligible.

In this movie, there is a hidden plot to assassinate the president, which involves an element infiltrating presidential security. But the only person who really realized this - Secret Service veteran Pete Garrison - is quickly incriminated, compromised and discredited. In fact, what no one knows is that the only thing he's guilty of is having an affair with the First Lady, which he determinedly tries to protect when they try to incriminate him and put him out of play. From here, Garrison will try everything to at the same time save the president and clear his honor by exposing the truth.

The cast features a series of well-known names, starting with Michael Douglas, who played the lead role, although he never shows any enthusiasm or taste for what he is doing. Worse, just the scenes where he has to make romantic match with Kim Basinger. Rarely have I seen a couple with such a lack of empathy, especially considering that they are supposed to have an extramarital affair. Their sex must be bureaucratic, to say the least. Well, Basinger herself doesn't seem to know exactly what she's doing in this movie. Kiefer Sutherland meets the minimums, while Eva Longoria is simply a walking pair of breasts.

Well, I confess that the movie didn't convince me much. There are a number of other movies with similar assumptions that do much more and better. Anyway, it's not an entirely bad movie. The biggest problem with the movie, in my view, is the latent predictability and the director's inability to give the movie something that truly makes us adhere to the story. It's a movie we see for a while without really feeling what is happening. And yes, there is some subliminal Americanist propaganda surrounding the whole "president cult" the film reveals.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Stepmom (1998)
4/10
A movie that works best on TV, but it has been forgotten over time.
3 November 2019
This one-hundred-percent family movie is about divorce and how families rebuild later. Essentially, it's a movie about losses, and how they are surmountable. Directed by Chris Columbus and dedicated by him to his late mother, who had died of cancer the previous year, the film also deals with cancer and death. To some extent, it may even have been a way for the director to deal with grief.

The script is simple: After divorcing Jackie, Luke decides to date photographer Isabel. But she is not welcomed by his ex-wife, who declares war on her, nor by the two children they have had, and who definitely don't want her around, seeing her as their mother's illegitimate substitute in their father's life. Isabel, a woman who never wanted to be a mother, tries to deal with children in the best way but makes mistakes and is heavily reprimanded. But everything changes when Jackie is diagnosed with cancer. The disease forces everyone to review how they relate and ultimately drives Jackie closer to Isabel.

At cast level, the two lead actresses take the film back on their own: Julia Roberts is a good actress and is in good shape here, and Susan Sarandon also does a good job, although her character is obnoxious and cynical most of the time. The end makes us feel that she has received back the bad karma she has planted. Ed Harris does what he needs to do, but his character only exists because he really had to exist, and hardly appears in most of the movie. It's a female movie. Children, of course, have a good participation as well, but they just do childish things, with the exception of Jena Malone, who is old enough to give us something else - and she can do it.

Personally, I found this movie decent enough for the TV as it reminds me of movies that are made from scratch for the small screen. There is no cinematic sense in the way everything was conceived. I've never seen him in the movie theater but I think it would go a long way ... it's a wrong-thinking movie with great actors that seem to me to be underused most of the time. Perhaps that is why it has been forgotten and, more than twenty years after its release, almost no one remembers it.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8MM (1999)
3/10
The definitive proof that Joel Schumacher should never have been a film director.
3 November 2019
In this film, a private investigator, Tom Welles, is hired to investigate a mysterious and disturbing film in which a young woman is sexually abused and killed, found among the personal possessions of a recently killed millionaire. This investigation leads one to delve into the world of the porn industry in search of the greatest horrors that the most distorted minds can imagine.

I confess I don't like Joel Schumacher. He has already shown himself to be a bad director with films like "Batman and Robin". Here, unfortunately, he is no better. He can take a movie with quality assumptions and empty it of content. The characters are simple, poorly constructed, the movie starts well and promises a lot but eventually develops poorly as the main character becomes an avenger, thirsty to do justice in his own hands. At this level, it is a disappointing film, as it never truly explores the shadowy world where it descends. The ending of the movie is particularly bad and predictable, something ridiculous when compared to the mysterious and appealing way the movie started.

As for the actors, let us begin by saying that none shone, as they were hindered by the poor characters they had and by a terrible director, unable to demand quality from them. Nicholas Cage is one of those talented actors who never came to be what he promised to be. Joaquin Phoenix (I still remember him as Roman emperor in "Gladiator") was quite capable in his role, and the character is perhaps the most enjoyable of the film as we sympathize with him. The rest of the cast deserves no mention ... although there are a few more familiar names in the movie, they just couldn't stand out.

The film is very visual, and all the associated technical features have been widely valued. Intense cinematography, with clever use of colors (hot or cold depending on the emotions you want to convey to the public), costumes and scenarios made with some of the brothels and porn studios looking truly real. The sound effects were also decent and the soundtrack plays its part.

This movie, in general, never delivers what it promises. In fact, we depart with a very high expectation, waiting for a lot of mystery and a pleasant plunge into the shadows of humanity, which never happens. The film gradually deconstructs these expectations and becomes a simplistic, basic cardboard thriller with hollow characters and a story increasingly like an adult comic strip. Thank you, Mr. Schumacher, for destroying another movie that could have been good. Please retire as soon as possible and live quiet and happy, but far away from any camera.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Unstoppable (2010)
8/10
A competent, engaging and well-built action movie.
2 November 2019
This film, based very lightly on an incident that actually happened, chronicles how a large freight train rode uncontrollably at breakneck speed for tens of kilometers without a driver, and attempts to stop it before it derailed and caused casualties or damage. incalculable.

Directed by Tony Scott (who seems to have a crush on trains, this being his second movie involving one, a year after he directed and released "Taking of Pelham 123") is a very competent action movie, which pleased me and arrested until the end. It's a well-built movie, with strong assumptions and a positive development, where all the tension is slowly built and increasing as attempts to stop the train fail one after the other. The film is good at its efforts to convince us of the danger that that runaway train poses, especially to innocent people who live or are in the immediate vicinity of the railway line. We really cheer for them, and for the brave railmen who, on the ground, try to put a stop to that train.

Denzel Washington is, as usual, a good protagonist, even though he has to share the spotlight with Chris Pine, who is also a capable actor with camera presence. Both are very good when they play together, and the dialogues between them are some of the deepest and most reflective moments in the movie. If one embodies the action scenes, the other is the "wise old man" in the movie. Rosario Dawson is a good addition to the cast, with a good job and a nice presence. The rest of the cast, however, does not stand out or merit note. They do what they should do without standing out.

Technically, the film bets heavily on photography and a mode of filming that accentuates the speed of what is being filmed. So the train always seems much faster than it probably will. There is little footage with the still camera, which was a conscious, smart bet from Scott. Sound effects help a lot, and were used competently.

In short, this is a competent action movie that can arrest us from the start. It's not brilliant, but it does engage the audience and give them two hours of quality entertainment. It promises no more than that, and that is what it gives us.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Deja Vu (2006)
6/10
An absolutely average thriller, where central idea fails to be credible.
2 November 2019
When a bomb destroys a passenger ferry in New Orleans, killing hundreds of people, investigator Doug Carlin is recruited to a special investigative unit, which aims to uncover the perpetrator using video surveillance footage four days before the attack. But Carlin soon realizes that, after all, they are using a "wormhole" that allows them to watch, live, what happened in the past, within that restricted area where the attack took place.

Well, what we have here is an original idea. We have seen a series of films, mostly pure sci-fi, that explore the idea of "wormholes" linking the present with the past and allowing time travel. What we have here goes a little further, with professional surveillance machinery that overcomes building walls and ravages people's privacy most easily (which, if one day is true, is at least a terrifying prospect). Although the film's central idea is imaginative and has little credibility, the movie plays well with that and the possibilities, positive and negative, of altering the past: paradoxes, alter egos, we have it all. Nevertheless, I did not always feel convinced. As I said, there are credibility flaws. The biggest problem this entails is that this is the only differentiator of this movie... without this issue of time travel and "wormholes", the movie is a trite thriller like so many others.

Tony Scott, whom I didn't know until this movie, seems to have done a decent job. I liked the work of Denzel Washington, who is an extremely capable actor, even when he has no material at his height and experiences a boring and banal character, as in this case. Val Kilmer has a faded and discreet character that is not well suited for the actor, and Jim Caviezel also received bad material and a weak character. Paula Patton is the victim, serving only to die or appear half-naked in scenes designed to attract male audiences.

From a technical point of view, it is a regular movie that brings no surprises. A trite photograph without great artistic elements, a discreet soundtrack and unremarkable visual elements. Special effects, with all the explosions, chases and action scenes, are the most striking technical element of the movie.

This is an absolutely average thriller, which only stands out due to a conceptual originality of the script, which was not always presented and developed as effectively as it should.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Apocalypto (2006)
9/10
I wasn't a fan, but I recognize that it's a great movie.
24 October 2019
I just saw this movie and, honestly, I'm not sure what to think. It didn't particularly captivate me, but I recognize the quality of what I just saw.

The film addresses the theme of the end of Mayan civilization, and is effective in the way it does. The film takes realism and historical credibility seriously, and that was a plus. The use of an Amerindian-sounding language - which I do not know if exists or was created for the film - fits that gamble. It is not a movie for all tastes - and I am the living proof of it, as I did not particularly like it - nor for any audience, as it exhibits a lot of tribal nudity, violent murder, blood and violence. It had to be, if they wanted to show the Maya as they really were: a cruel people, who appeased their gods through the systematic and violent killing of entire populations of neighboring tribes.

Mel Gibson is a good actor and, with time and accumulated experience, has become a good director. In this movie, he used everything he learned and, in fact, offers us an exceptional spectacle. I don't know if it will be worth talking about the actors, because no known name appears on the poster (the bet on realism has reached that point). Rudy Youngblood is the name of the actor who plays the main character, Jaguar's Paw, but we don't see this movie for the quality of the cast. Cinematography is amazing, it makes excellent use of the colors (the truly green woods, the colorful body paintings and tattoos), keeps up a good pace even in pursuit and high tension scenes. The soundtrack is equally excellent and uses very well the sounds we are used to associating with the South American tribal universe.

Do I really need to say that this movie should absolutely not be seen by children or impressionable people? I don't think so, do you? Although I don't feel much about this movie, it is definitely a great movie and deserves to be seen at least once in a lifetime.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Cujo (1983)
2/10
It's not a movie I pay to see again.
23 October 2019
This movie is basically about a dog that gets rabies after being bitten by a bat and then unleashes a murderous rage. Of course, there is a mother who protects her child from the furry monster's fury, which is an attempt to mess with our deepest feelings of empathy. It didn't work very well with me.

Inspired by a Stephen King book, which is probably better than the movie, the movie is histrionic and exaggerated from start to finish. Rabies disease is serious, but I never knew of any case that even resembles what the movie shows. That really was a problem for me, because I didn't believe in the movie. Then the whole plot is so predictable and basic that it didn't get me involved, nor did it get me stuck in the movie, wanting to see it all the way through.

I think Dee Wallace did a great job and is the actress who most contributes to the movie not being a complete fiasco. Far from merely screaming and running away or protecting her son, the actress was able to bring her character to life and show real dread.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
5/10
The weakest of Spiderman trilogy movies.
11 October 2019
This movie is the end of the Spiderman trilogy, and the follow-up to the previous two films. Of all three, it is undoubtedly the weakest and the most fragile.

The script brings together, in a movie, four action figures from the Spider-Man universe: himself, the Green Goblin, the Sandman, and the Venom. The movie shows the birth and clash of the four, and perhaps that's why it all seems a bit forced and cliché, especially in the end. The development of the characters did not have the care and attention to detail we have seen in the previous two films, and the script looks more like an outline than a finished product. I didn't like to see Spider-Man go through a phase of malice, but I understand the reasons and realized by doing some research that comics really give us this story associated with the birth of Venom. So what we saw in this movie has a strong foundation in the original comic books, something I don't despise.

Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst kept up the good work on their respective characters. Dunst, I dare say, even improved her performance from film to film. Topher Grace was an exclusive addition to this movie but seems like a serious and capable actor, but has received little and bad material. Thomas Haden Church did an excellent job as a Sandman. JK Simmons and James Franco kept up well. Bryce Dallas Howard was more unlucky ... her character is basically just a pretty face for Spider-Man to save.

Technically, it is the most visual film of the three in this trilogy. Bet everything on impactful CGI. Powerful to the point of clearly being false. Does the movie lose any credibility with this? Well, just because we know well that all we are seeing is done through a computer, green screen and other features. It has great special effects and sound, a range of good camera angles and action scenes to suit every taste.

The movie is not brilliant. In fact, as a movie, it is the worst of the trilogy and it is a pity that the director did not give the script the same relevance as he did to the special effects. But Spiderman will definitely be back in the movies soon ...
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
7/10
A brutally human and fallible Spider-Man that not everyone will easily swallow.
9 October 2019
This movie is the predictable sequel to the 2002 Spider-Man movie. In this movie, we continue to follow the life of young Peter Parker and his difficulties to reconcile two distinct lives: the masked avenger and the ordinary common guy. The movie is good, has an interesting story and shows a much more human, insecure and teenage Spider-Man than in other films of this superhero, which can be seen as a breath of fresh air in the character.

I understand those who say they didn't like the way the main character was thought of in this trilogy. It is something that somehow breaks with the stylized and artificial image of the superhero. It makes perfect sense, though: Peter Parker may have superpowers, but he's still a teenager, a young adult, whatever you want to call it. The action and fighting scenes between heroes and villains are there and the villain is, as in the first movie, the fruit of an accident during a scientific experiment that failed due to his own ego. There is a certain notion of karma here: the villain was not born villain nor is it necessarily and entirely bad, but it is the result of the bad choices he made earlier. His personality, as a villain, is the same as before, but his defects are enhanced and amplified by the powers he has acquired.

Problems or defects? Yes, they exist. For starters, the movie wastes more time in unnecessary and accessory scenes than its predecessor. I felt that at times the movie is too long, and that slows the pace a bit. I also found the whole plot strongly predictable. Half an hour before things happened I was mentally anticipating them.

Tobey Maguire, you still seem quite satisfactory to me as Spider-Man. He knows how to be a hero without leaving out his more human side. Kirsten Dunst and James Franco were also able to keep up with the work done on the first film and, if they didn't get better, they didn't get worse either. Alfred Molina, who gave life to the villain, Dr. Octopus, surprised me by not expecting to see this actor playing this kind of character.

Technically, the movie didn't surprise me. I think it has improved a lot in terms of visual effects and CGI when compared to the first movie, and there are some really well filmed scenes. But that is essentially it. The soundtrack is regular, but I'm not even able to hear that "Spiderman" song without immediately thinking about "Spider Pig" and Homer Simpson. It's stronger than me!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spider-Man (2002)
7/10
Good, but not extraordinary.
6 October 2019
This movie basically shows the emergence of Spiderman: the way Peter Parker, a teenager, changes his life after being bitten by a genetically modified spider. He becomes a hero, able to do justice and protect the weak. But on the other side of the barricade comes the Green Goblin, a villain that only he can stop.

I'm not a fan of comics-based movies, but I must admit that this movie has its quality. It shows a hero who, after all, is still a teenager with doubts and learning. The script seems to me well done, presenting a story reasonably capable of capturing the interest of those who do not even like this genre of movies very much.

The actors seem to me to have made a positive effort. I liked Tobey Maguire, he was quite human in a character who risked being just a red suit that jumps from building to building. Willem Dafoe was a pretty good villain, and even before turning, he knew how to give his character an amoral touch. Kirsten Dunst, an actress I don't even appreciate widely, did a job well done. James Franco didn't surprise me, but there's no room for much more than he did either. J.K. Simmons was a surprise to bring us a profoundly annoying character, but it brings great touches of humor to the movie.

Technically, the movie is not surprising, nor is it even brilliant. You bet heavily on CGI, as you'd expect, but it doesn't bring us anything that truly impresses us. Photography is regular, with many action scenes designed to capture the public but become tiring over time. The soundtrack is good, but not particularly good either.

In short, it is a summer movie, designed to attract large masses of crowds and crowded box offices, with a foreseeable sequel soon ahead. It's good, it's certainly better than other cartoon movies, but it's not extraordinary.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A fun and light romantic comedy, with some script and cast flaws but a huge ammount of humor and music.
22 September 2019
John Clark is a quiet, overworked lawyer with a stagnant marriage. Passing through a small dance school, she decides to come in and experiment, getting in touch with young Paulina, a professional Latin dancer who works there, along with the school's owner, Miss Mitzi. But it gets complicated as Clark's wife becomes more suspicious of her husband's routines.

This romantic comedy has charm and knows to be interesting but is based on a somewhat predictable script that constantly suggests the romantic interest between Clark and Paulina ... the sexual tension between the two characters is palpable but such a thing never really happens. It's just a gimmick to keep the audience alert until the end. Gere is a nice actor who really looks good on characters like what he did here. Jennifer Lopez is extraordinarily beautiful but extremely serious, and her performance here is somewhat hampered by her lack of joy, playfulness and strength of character. It even seems that the actress was making the movie unwillingly. Much better was the rendering of Susan Sarandon or Anita Gillette. A word of appreciation, too, to Stanley Tucci and Lisa Ann Walter, to whom we owe most of the film's comic moments.

With a good photo, well-made costumes (highlighting the dance costumes) and good scenery, the film excelled by the soundtrack, which is truly interesting, appealing, fun and eclectic.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pretty Woman (1990)
7/10
A good romantic comedy that seems to me to have been undermined by some prejudice against the oldest profession in the world.
22 September 2019
Vivan is a street prostitute. We know almost nothing of her life, nor the reasons why she has taken the path of prostitution, but she is notoriously beautiful and stands out among the other girls who, along with her, wait for anyone who wants them. By chance, his path intersects with that of Edward Lewis, a millionaire who made a fortune buying and dismantling failed companies. We are not sure why he decides to hire her, it seems like a decision made at the moment ... but the fact is that he changes her life in a way that reminds me of "Breakfast at Tiffany's" ...

This romantic comedy departs from rather unrealistic assumptions. Even millionaires who hire prostitutes do not usually go to the streets to look for or relate to them. On the other hand, a street prostitute would never look as clean and immaculate as Julia Roberts in this movie. Here are some flaws in realism that can compromise history, depending on how important each one gives them. But ultimately, it's a dream movie. "What's your dream? Everyone in Los Angeles has a dream." That's what a man on the streets says during the movie, and that can almost be the moral of the story: there are dreams that, with a touch of luck, can come true.

I loved Julia Roberts's performance ... this movie helped the actress jump to stardom, which was pretty fair. She has talent and presence, as we will see in later films (Notting Hill, Erin Brockovich, etc.). Richard Gere makes a good romantic pair with her and is credible in the role of a millionaire who has failed in love and seems in need of female attention. Both dominate the movie and bring the best moments to life, ranging from romantic and moving scenes to the hilarious ones we can see. Next to them, a capable but discreet secondary cast, where Hector Elizondo stands in the role of a rigid and professional hotel manager.

I think this movie has always been a risky gamble, if only because of the strong prejudice society still holds towards prostitution. And I believe some have written harsh criticism of this movie just for involving a prostitute in the story. But prostitutes are not vile, polluted and sick creatures who must live on the fringes of society. Often its women (and men) who have had no luck in life, or made the wrong choices, or immigrants who have been deceived and are trying to make money without harming anyone, often under the cruel dictatorship of pimps who only think about profits. Glamorizing prostitution is a mistake, but diabolizing is even worse. It is a sign of a small mind and lack of Christian values and empathy for those who have been less fortunate than us. Worse than living off making money with one's own body is killing or stealing, and there is no shortage of films that glamorize theft and murder without anyone caring about it.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A one-time thriller that is tiring and was clearly poorly done and poorly written. Only Angelina and Denzel's performance can be saved.
22 September 2019
This film focuses on Lincoln Rhyme, a prestigious former forensic investigator who withdrew after an accident in service that left him quadriplegic. Sick but far from invalid, he remains a valuable ally of the New York Police, who seek him in more difficult cases. This happened when beat cop Amelia Donaghy found a body in an unusual crime scene, carefully staged to leave messages about a murder yet to be carried out. Unable to move, Rhyme will use Donaghy's eyes, ears and police skills to investigate the crime without leaving home.

Okay, we've seen a lot of similar things since there are literally a lot of movies focused on police investigating killers who want to be discovered and leave messages on their crimes. But the problem with this movie is not the lack of originality but the laziness, sloppiness and illogicality of the whole story. Never could a former police officer conduct an ongoing investigation, and even if that were possible he would never do so from home (to give an example of the illogic I referred to). The whole investigation, including Jolie's crime scenes, sounds fake and forced, with evidence coming out of sheer luck or because the character happened to recall a fact that later becomes relevant. But if we are able to ignore or lessen this the movie will roll all the way to the end... that's when things really get off track, for one of the worst endings I've ever seen in a thriller movie. Pure non-sense!

Ultimately, its the satisfying work of Denzel Washington and Angelina Jolie that saves the movie from being truly bad. They are two lost pearls in this movie, never having space or material to reveal all their potential. The supporting cast gives them some strength but also has no space or material to substantially improve the film. Technically, its a regular movie, which does not stand out for the positive and even has badly filmed scenes so dark that they become unpleasant to look at.

In short, this movie is a poor and careless thriller, made without the care it should have had. I'm sure Angelina and Denzel won't have fond memories of him. It's a one-time movie, falling into oblivion after seeing how bad it is.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Inside Out (I) (2015)
10/10
Intellectual and intelligent, its perhaps the most adult animated film Pixar has ever released.
22 September 2019
This animated film is undoubtedly one of the most original and creative I've seen in a long time, and all because of the script, portraying the way emotions (transformed into the characters Joy, Sadness, Disgust, Anger and Fear) influence the actions and behaviors of a young girl who has just moved with her parents to a new city. Intelligent, even intellectual, this film explains in a fun and light way how our emotions, memory and consciousness work, among other complex topics associated with our behavior and psyche, such as nightmares, dreams, traumas, etc.

Not much to say about voice actors, and I don't even know most of them. Amy Poehler, who gives voice to Joy, is the one that stands out but everyone did an excellent job. All the characters had their time to shine, but the focus of the film is on the five emotions (with a strong emphasis on Joy and Sadness) and Riley herself. There are truly moving moments throughout the film, which I don't think are intended for children, but rather for a teenage audience and young adults, able to understand what the movie is showing. Before finishing, I just want to leave a word for the well-written dialogues, with some humor in between.

From a technical point of view, the movie is flawless, as expected from a Pixar movie. Animated through advanced CGI features, it's the state of the art. Vibrant colors, good brightness, safe and realistic drawings ensure aesthetic and visual beauty, while attention to detail is visible, for example, in the way scenery and everyday objects are carefully designed. As sometimes happens in the movies of this studio, the soundtrack is not the strong dish here.

I was truly delighted with this movie because of the way it addresses complex and intellectual topics. But this film is not only that: it is, above all, a good story about how we deal with our dreams, longings and emotions and how they can shape, or even redefine, our character at key moments in our lives.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Riley's First Date? (2015 Video)
9/10
A good short film.
22 September 2019
This short animated film is a kind of mini-sequel to Pixar's Inside Out movie. Being a movie of this gigantic and creative studio, the quality is guaranteed.

This movie shows how often we pay more attention to feature films and totally ignore the pearls that may appear in the form of short films. In fact, taking the story shortly after where the feature ends, this movie gives an idea of how Riley's parents reacted to her first date.

Personally, I found the movie too short, had material for further development (at most about eight to ten minutes). The characters are already known to those who saw the movie in the cinema. Of all, the ones that get the most attention are Riley's dad and the boy she's going out with ... and what a boy! That boy really needs to get his ideas in order! It is a short story, but well made, well thought out and with very well imagined dialogues.

From a technical point of view, the film is impeccable, as expected from a Pixar movie: vibrant colors, good brightness, great attention to small details, beautifully done designs and a very realistic, smooth stroke. Although the soundtrack is not the strong dish here (as it had not been in the feature film), there is some attention here for this field.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Gambit (I) (2012)
4/10
A refined comedy, with a lot of British humor.
15 September 2019
I saw this movie yesterday on television by chance. I was aware of it, but I had never seen it from the beginning. Directed by Michael Hoffman, the film has a screenplay signed by the Cohen Brothers... and I only think about how the film could have won if both had also secured the director's chair. Still, this comedy, a remake of an older movie from which it uses very little material, has value and is funny.

The plot revolves around a painting by Monet, and the animosity between Harry Deane, a sly art curator, and Lionel Shahbandar, his vain and arrogant boss. But to deceive him, he'll need the help of a young Texan who promises to shake things up with her intense personality.

Colin Firth, Alan Rickman and Cameron Diaz gave life to the three central characters. Firth is the archetype of the perfect English gentleman, restrained and formal, in contrast to the cheerful, cheery, jovial character played by Diaz. Together, they exude excellent chemistry and its evident the attraction they will both feel during the movie. Rickman is good in the role of a rich, cold, arrogant man, whose money has made self-centered and pompous. Nonetheless, I got the feeling that Diaz's character was too cartoonish, and the heavy Texan accent was constantly sounding fake.

With a good cinematography and an discreet soundtrack, the film stands out for its jokes and dialogues, where the good British humor, full of irony and critical sense, is guaranteed. It's not the kind of movie that makes us burst out laughing, but it will give some enjoyable moments to anyone who likes this kind of comedy.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Notebook (2004)
4/10
Another ultra-romantic movie with a forbidden love story. The good acting make it interesting, but almost everything else is quite ordinary.
13 September 2019
This is the typical dramatic novel that comes out of the mind of Nicholas Sparks, the young teen's favorite author. The story tells the romance between Noah, a young poor man, and Allie, the daughter of wealthy parents who do not approve of this dating and decide to marry her with someone with more money. Their love story began in 1940 and continued through time, coming to us through the mouth of an old man, who reads an old diary to an equally old lady, who is already suffering from dementia.

Usually, sugary and melodramatic novels are not to my liking but this movie has been reasonably digestible, largely due to the satisfactory performance of the main cast. Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams were able to create a good chemistry together, and that went into the scenes where they are together. There are some dialogues between them that are so sugary that they seem to have been taken from a Brazilian soap opera, but the actors commitment is genuine. Gena Rowlands gave life to an elderly Allie quite well, but it was even better to see the performance of charismatic James Garner as old Noah.

Nick Cassavetes has done a satisfactory job as director, keeping a good pace and achieving a serious, elegant and balanced end product. The soundtrack is quite good, taking good advantage of the rhythms in vogue in the Forties and Fifties. Photography and filming is regular, denoting careful post-production and editing work.

Although this movie sometimes exaggerates in romance and sugar, and it pisses me off a little, its usually a satisfying movie, that gives us an interesting, though very common, love story, very similar to a million of forbidden love affairs already told in soap operas, leaflet novels, cheap literature and B-movies.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Trainspotting (1996)
8/10
A badly appreciated and misunderstood movie that uses wry humor to convey a serious and dramatic message against drug use.
13 September 2019
I confess that I began to see this movie with little expectation about it. I knew it was one of the most acclaimed movies in cinema for many. Even so, I was not enthusiastic about it. And I ended up enjoying the style of the movie.

The script follows the marginal trajectory of a group of young people from the Scottish suburbs. Everyone, in one way or another, is linked to heavy drug use and crime. And everyone, one way or another, pays for it. Thought of as a light film, it is more serious than it looks and addresses strong themes in an innovative and intelligent way. Contrary to popular belief, the film is not a comedy at all, nor is it a favorable view of the drug world. Quite the opposite. The movie is much more serious, there are truly tragic moments (such as the dying baby, almost symbolizing all innocents, suffering and indirect victims of the drug, by the hands of those who get involved and addicted to the drug) and a clear anti-drug message. drugs by showing how each young person suffers the consequences: years in prison, death ... Although drug use is clearly shown to be recreational in the movie, and the characters take pleasure in the drugs, the movie also shows how their lives (and those of people who love them) are ruined by addiction.

The characters are complex and intense. Each has its own characteristics and psychological profile. The dialogues are excellent and the use of a Scottish accent carried by Scottish actors gives it some authenticity and originality. Ewan McGregor got his springboard here for well-deserved stardom, and he might not have been the renowned actor he is today if he had not participated in this movie. With a controversial and unpleasant character, he is the star of the movie. Along with him, a number of actors who each had their own opportunity and talent to shine: Ewen Bremner, Robert Carlyle, Kevin McKidd, Kelly Macdonald, Jonny Lee Miller ... there's room for each to stand out at the right times, and I believe that their careers have taken full advantage of this.

Technically, the movie is flawless. Without ever taking the focus off the storytelling or exaggerating putting style ahead of content, the film features groundbreaking features in photography, film angles and soundtrack, considered by many to be one of the most interesting in contemporary cinema with tracks. by Iggy Pop, Lou Reed, New Order and other rock names.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Controversial, bold, with a touch of unpleasant brilliance ... but I confess I was expecting something else.
12 September 2019
I confess I expected more from this movie. Considered one of the 100 best films ever by more than one list written by more than one authority on the subject, he has won five Academy Awards from the Hollywood Academy (Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, Best Photography) and three Globes of Gold (Best Picture, Best Director and Best Screenplay). It's an enviable record for a movie that, when we look at it, doesn't seem to justify it ... In fact, just looking at the Oscar nominees for Best Movie in that far 2000s, I liked "The Insider" or "a lot more" The Green Mile "than this movie, which basically portrays the unfulfilled fantasies of a middle-aged, suburban middle-class man when

In fact, the American middle class is portrayed here in an almost dystopian way: a social group wrapped in huge paranoia about appearances and "looking good," obsessed with politically correct and socially acceptable, trying to keep secrets, taboos, prejudices and imperfections hidden through a beautiful house, a spotless lawn, a new car, a good tie. The patriarch of the family lives a crisis of middle age through the nostalgia of past and underused youth, to the point of feeling a sudden sexual attraction for a teenager. His wife, in turn, is the archetype of frivolity and emptiness, living a marriage of appearances and discounting everything through an extramarital affair. The daughter of this dysfunctional couple is the typical young rebel ... until she decides to plot with her boyfriend to kill her own father. And there is much more throughout the movie. Cartoon characters in a dystopian and uncomfortable portrait, especially for those who identify with the US suburban middle class (not my case at all).

Kevin Spacey, Annette Bening and Thora Birch are the central trio of actors who bring life to a family that is beyond normal. Nevertheless, the three had excellent performances and in fact deserved to be awarded and recognized for that. Mena Suvari also looked good to me as the provocative nymphet. Sam Mendes ensured careful, bold and inspired driving. Having been the first film in which he participated as a director, it was certainly a milestone in his career and secured a future for him.

Provocative, bold, disturbing, is a movie where taboos are put in check and troublesome truths are exposed. It is not at all a family movie or to see with children and young people nearby.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A good movie, where man-hunting and conspiratorial paranoia take up most of the time and are the main course to serve the public.
12 September 2019
This movie is a gigantic manhunt, where a liberal-minded lawyer is inadvertently caught in the middle of a conspiracy involving the murder of a congressman at a time when important secrecy laws were to be voted on. Unknowingly, these lawyer has strong evidences that compromises the killers and they will use every means to neutralize him.

That lawyer is probably the luckiest guy in the world, because he had people with him who had a lot more experience than him and who knew the danger he faced better than himself. In fact, the script is good, but the fact that the central character spends so much time in the dark about what's going on around him is hard to swallow. He spends half movie thinking that he is being targeted by a mob group because of a totally different situation. Also, 90% of the movie is pure cat and mouse game. Will Smith is good enough to appear credible in his character, but he can't compete with the charisma and strength of Gene Hackman, who shakes the movie from the moment he enters. Without him, this movie would not be so good. Jon Voight also did a good job, as a villain. The remaining cast is limited to what they have to do, which has not stopped many famous actors from agreeing to participate.

Technically, it's a regular movie. Tony Scott ensured a satisfactory direction, giving coherence and elegance to the film, ensuring a pleasant pace and no dead moments. Good photography, good sound and video effects (especially in action scenes), good special effects (when needed) and a discreet but decent soundtrack round out a movie full of qualities, though not particularly noticeable, or set apart from the panorama of movies involving persecution and state plots.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Just another sports comedy...
4 September 2019
This film is a slapstick-like comedy that brings us a little-known "sport": dodgeball, a game that, for us in Europe, is more connoted with childhood and school than with the world of professional and federated sports. Here in Portugal it is called "Queimada" or "Jogo do Mata".

The script is based on the boundless rivalry between Peter La Fleur, the owner of a small gym, and White Goodman, the owner of a gym corporation, who opens yet another establishment, right outside the door of La Fleur's gym. Things get worse when La Fleur is truly in danger of losing its small gym to its direct competitor. To pay what they owe, they decide to participate in the National Dodgeball Championship, where Goodman is already registered.

This movie is nothing new or original. The exposed plot is similar in everything to dozens of other sports-themed films, where the good ones try to beat the bad guys within four lines, while the bad guys try to use all means, including cheating, to win. It's a markedly humorous movie, with jokes all the time ... some of which are really funny while others not so much. It is a style of humor that does not appeal to everyone, but it will appeal to those who already like this genre.

Ben Stiller is an actor with a lot of experience in this type of comedy, where he fits perfectly, and he is responsible for most of the jokes, with a strongly cartoon character and with touches of social criticism. I liked the work of the actor, he really steals attention for himself and not always (almost never) had anyone to shoulder with him. Vince Vaughn was up to the character and gave him a touch of honesty and sincerity, but is too serious to make him laugh. Christine Taylor is the girl in the movie, but it doesn't do much more than be a presumed future romantic pair of Vaughn's character. The rest of the cast gives the essential support and is funny when it has to be. In addition, we have small cameos from Lance Armstrong (it was not yet known how he truly won the Tour), Chuck Norris, David Hasselhoff and other well-known names.

This movie is funny ... it doesn't make us laugh until it hurts, because many of the jokes used are not particularly elegant, but entertain the weather quite well and do not disappoint us.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A beautiful work of cinema that deserves to continue to be seen and appreciated today.
3 September 2019
The Cold War was marked, at the European level, by the "Iron Curtain", which included the division of Germany into two halves: the capitalist West Germany and East Germany, in line with USSR. The division existed until the fall of the Berlin Wall and divided families, cultures, mentalities and ways of life. In this movie, a young man decides to pretend that East Germany still exists, months after reunification, to spare his mother, a fierce socialist who has just woken up from a coma.

We are facing a true masterpiece of cinema. It's one of those fun and clever movies we've seen once and we want to see it again as soon as it's over. However, its not exactly a comedy, or at least not in its entirety. The film has some drama and the story of that family, especially that mother, is truly harsh, difficult and paradigmatic of a changing world. That mother represents well the past, and the pains of those who lived under a dictatorship, with difficulties and bitterness to which she had to turn around, while her emancipated, independent, creative and irreverent children manage to embody the aspirations of a generation that is eager for change, tired of decades of forced immobility. Another thing that strikes the eye is the speed with which everything changes, the almost dramatic and rough way in which the GDR falls and becomes Westernized.

The cast is made up of illustrious strangers to me, who am not a connoisseur of German cinema, but I think they were up to the challenge and did very well with what they were asked to do. The director, Wolfgang Becker, has achieved here his greatest work as a filmmaker. On a technical level, I especially highlight the careful photography, good camera angles, the way the movie played with color, light and shadow, the clever way it used scraps of television news and original archive material. Nor can I fail to highlight the extraordinary original soundtrack, by Yann Tiersen, who had been notable, two years earlier, with "Amelie" soundtrack.

Fairly nominated for a Golden Globe Award for Best Foreign Film (which he lost to an Afghan film), its hard to believe as it was not even nominated for the Oscar in the same category. Who can explain Hollywood, do it! But who needs prizes anyway? This film has achieved immortality for its merit and quality, while many of those who receive awards end up forgotten a few years later.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed