Change Your Image
![](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjQ4MTY5NzU2M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc5NTgwMTI@._V1_SY100_SX100_.jpg)
juanbo1
Reviews
À l'intérieur (2007)
Am I missing something? Utterly awful
I wanted to love this. I really did. I am a huge fan of horror, and the French new-wave has blown my mind. 'Martyrs' is a minor masterpiece that leaves a major impression - because along with the shocks it is beautifully filmed, well scripted and flawlessly acted. These new Euro horrors are head and shoulders above shoddy US counterparts such as 'Hostel' and the 'Saw' franchise. But this... this is a vomit-stain of a movie. Violent without a reason, blood-soaked with no heart... I couldn't wait for this to end. Logic? Nope. Plot? Absent. Badly written characters who exist merely to be stabbed with scissors/knitting needles/shards of glass? Present and correct. Why did the woman want the baby? What was the point of the car crash? Why did the mother show up only to get stabbed by her own daughter? Why would a policeman enter a house where gunshots have been heard with another suspect who is tied to him? Why did he then become a crazed almost-zombie, for no reason? I have no issue with gore, but there has to be some point to it. This is just one big excuse to show sickening scenes of stabbing, blood-letting and head-splitting. I actually think 'Hostel' was a better film. And that's saying something.
If you want hard-hitting, shocking horror that is actually worth watching for reasons other than bloodshed PLEASE avoid this and rent 'Martyrs' or 'Rec' or 'Ju-On' or 'A Tale of Two Sisters'. If you want to see lots of stabbing and squirting blood and a pregnant woman ripped open... well, rush out and rent this! This is the reason the phrase 'torture porn' was invented. Sick and wrong. And not in a good way.
Mamma Mia! (2008)
Stunningly bad
I will preface this by stating that I am a big fan of movie musicals, be they off-the-wall masterpieces such as 'Dancer in the Dark', top-end popcorn fare ('Hairspray') or Broadway adaptations ('Chicago', 'Evita' et al). So, no-one can accuse me of hating the genre, and blaming my negatives comments on that. Abba are the undisputed monarchs of modern pop, and I adore them. I wanted to adore this movie. I really did. I have to say, I found the stage version contrived and obvious, and didn't enjoy it at all. But
I really did think that given the freedom of location shooting and a top-notch casting, this could be something special. How wrong I was.
The fact that this movie made so much money (highest grossing movie musical ever?!) and has a rating as high as 6.9 on IMDb astounds me. It is testament to the popularity - and brilliance - of Abba. It has to be. Because this movie is gobsmackingly bad. Just dreadful. I watched it at the theatre in disbelief. I recently rented it again, following its phenomenal success, just to be sure. Yeah it sucks.
Blame the director. Not only is it full of ill-advised and badly timed farce, but it is shoddily choreographed and looks like it has been edited with a pair of children's scissors. This is a theater director who is making her first feature film, and boy does it show. Messy is not the word. Clichés work well on stage. They even work well on film, if they are used in context and with a knowing wink. But here... oh my God. I cringed through most of the movie, at the sheer depth of its amateur look and feel. The part where Meryl Streep and Pierce Brosnan are singing back to back with a wall in between them
oh my God. Not a hint of irony. And so-obvious-it-could-be-film-school shot framing and camera 'trickery'
beyond description.
The ONLY saving grace is the energy of the cast. Streep, Baranski, Walters and co. launch into this with so much gusto that they manage to make it not just bearable, but actually watchable. The female leads are a joy to watch, and the music itself means that I was certainly not bored. And when I found myself not being swept along by the music, it was fun to marvel at just how badly made a movie with this pedigree can be. And as for Pierce Brosnan. Sweet Jesus, NEVER let that man near a microphone again. EVER. I'm sure his performance was pitched as camp and hammy, but just comes off as amateur and embarrassing.
On the plus side
there is one song/set piece that works beautifully a lovely scene just before the wedding, with Meryl singing 'Slipping Through My fingers' as she helps her daughter get ready. Simple and affecting, it's what the rest of the movie should have been like. And (ironically) a deleted version of 'The Name of the Game' that has a similar feel. They deleted it presumably because it wasn't in keeping with the sheer crapness of the rest of the movie.
Make sure you have a few drinks first and prepare for what is quite possibly the most badly made big budget movie for quite some time and you will probably enjoy it.
P2 (2007)
A solid and extremely effective entry into the genre
I wasn't expecting much from P2. At all. In a genre that has become over-saturated with watered-down 'teen terror', by-the-numbers remakes and features that focus on spectacle over chills, I expected more of the same. And I was pleasantly surprised, and glad for the rental.
There is nothing new here, and if you are looking for character development then forget it. But what sets 'P2' apart is that it sets out to deliver some claustrophobic thrills and never strays from this simple goal. There is no big plot twist (an annoying trait that has ruined so many otherwise decent horror flicks); instead the action launches almost straight away and the film focuses on the sinister location to deliver an extremely intense movie. The narrative isn't as linear. Another refreshing aspect is that the female protagonist (an excellent performance from Rachel Nicholls) doesn't do any of the stupid stuff that the scream queens usually do; there's no heading into dark and gloomy places with no explanation here. Just a terrified woman desperately trying to get out of an increasingly horrifying situation. Wes Bentley gives a solid performance, even though he doesn't really have much to do other than be a crazy lunatic. That said, it makes the action all the more effective; there is no reason given for his psychotic behaviour - he's crazy, he's obsessed with this woman and it lends a refreshing air of unpredictability to proceedings. There are some truly shocking moments that come completely out of the blue, some quite early on in the movie, and the net effect is that you genuinely don't know what's going to happen next.
Another success is the cinematography and use of the location; we never leave the parking lot, and to say that the DOP and director get their mileage out of their location is an understatement.
It's not without it's flaws, that's for sure, but we don't watch movies like this because we want anything deep. We go to be scared, and so few movies manage to achieve this nowadays that I have to recommend 'P2' for simply daring to go for the jugular; no frills, all thrills.
Recommended.
Superman Returns (2006)
The worst movie ever? Are you people RETARDED???
I simply cannot believe the comments I am reading a few pages into these 'reviews'. 'Superman Sucks', 'Poorly executed' and (my favourite) 'THE WORST FILM EVER!' (please. Have you people ever seen 'White Chicks' or 'The Flintstones'?) As an intelligent, articulate 30 year old with an appreciation of the joy of great movies - from brainless popcorn gold (True Lies)to modern Hollywood classics (The Shawshank Redemption)to art-house masterpieces (Diva)- I can only assume we were NOT watching the same movie.
When I watch a film I view it for what it is - entertainment, a talking piece, a social comment, whatever. I doubt very much anyone pops a film like 'Bring It On' into the DVD and expects to gain a fascinating insight into the sordid underbelly of competitive cheer leading, just as you wouldn't watch 'Schindler's List' and expect to have to pause it to catch your breath from laughing. Granted, the bar has been set for superhero movies with entries into the genre such as the two 'Spiderman' movies and X1 and X2. The truly excellent 'Batman Begins' confirmed that audiences now expect (and deserve) better execution. Given Bryan Singer's pedigree, I did have high expectations for the resurrection of Superman and unless people posting such idiotic comments have had their sense of sight and hearing removed (or perhaps more accurately, their sense of taste?)I find it hard to believe that anyone could seriously say that he has done a less than admirable job.
I see how comic-book devotees or fans of the original may have issues with certain aspects of the movie. But 'unrealistic'? Come ON! This is a freakin' superhero flick! 'Gee, how can Superman lift an entire continent of Kryptonite but fall into Lex Luther's trap so easily? Not a patch on Richard Donner's original!' Well not that it matters but in said original the whole 'rewinding the earthquake' sequence had so many logic holes in it you could use it to strain pasta.
With 'Superman Returns' a highly gifted visionary director has managed to update an iconic classic with enough new visual and emotional flair to make it relevant to today's world but craftily blending elements of the original movies so the transition from what we know (and love)isn't too jarring.
Well written, superbly edited, great action set-pieces, subtle and knowing where the originals were often hammy and obvious, more character development than a dozen regular summer popcorn flicks combined, a fine, FINE performance from Brandon Routh (who pulls off the near-impossible by winning over a role so memorably played by Reeve), simply jaw-dropping effects that compliment the movie rather than dominate it... this is a wonderful example of the magic that Hollywood is still capable of turning out when it tries and it's a joy to see a talented young director working at the top of his game. This is the kind of movie that reminds me of all the things I love about the cinema.
If you didn't like it, fine. Each to their own. The friend I went with said it was 'pretty good but not mind-blowing'. But to slam this as the worst movie ever when there is dross like 'Fantastic Four' and 'Daredevil' out there (high-concept, poorly executed cash cows) is the only proof we'll ever need that you clearly don't appreciate good film-making.
A serious contender for the summer's best movie - and the only one of this year's biggies (so far) that hasn't disappointed on some level.