claradondes Reviews

Lolita (1997)

A fine adaption of a masterpiece

[7/10 · 25 October 2021]

Stanley Kubrick's Lolita wasn't Lolita. Not even close.

NOTHING can ever truly be like the book, but this is a good film. Dominique Swain plays Lolita perfectly, portraying the adolescent girl between childish but kinky complexity that is Lolita. Jeremy Irons is great too, but he is not fully Humbert. He portrays him a bit more mildly. However, this book is almost impossible to adapt.

There will never be a Lolita like Nabokov. Still, great acting and a fine script. Thank you, Adrian.

Spider-Man (2002)

I'm split

[4/10 · 19 January 2021]

I haven't read the comics.

When Peter comes home after defending himself from the bully, Ben says "you don't have the right to beat people up." Is he prohibiting Peter from protecting himself, against a guy who trives to beat HIM up?

This movie has several loose ends. Willem Dafoe is a great actor, but a lot of things about his role doesn't really make sense. The goblin doesn't really have a motive. For anything.

He seems like a poorly constructed Joker.

Maguire is a good nerdy Peter Parker, but not cocky enough to make the right Spiderman.

I've seen better, but i've seen worse as well.

Lolita (1962)

A huge disappointment, avoid it.

[1/10 · 22 August 2020]

I know you should not compare a book to a film. I also know this movie was created another time, one with more restrictions of what you can do in cinema today. However, there are no nuances in "Lolita" 1962, which removes the majority of the excitement.

1. You do not get empathy, for the main character. Unlike the book, he has no proper motives for his action, nor is he smart enough to be impressive.

2. Sue Lyon is too old to play Dolores. There are no nuances in the character, there is nothing unusual about her. And because she is too old, you don't feel a lot of sympathy for her either.

3. This may sound biased, since i have read the book, but Peter Sellers seems irrelevant. He shows up times that does not add up to the action and removes a lot of substance from the plot.

4. Back to the start, this is the wrong Way to tell a frame story. You care less about the main character, since you see only darkness, which shrouds all the nuances.

Avoid this, poor script, poor acting and poor storytelling. Read the book, a unique classic.

Waltz with Bashir (2008)

Brutality: yes, animation: not perfect.

[5/10 · 17 March 2020]

This movie handles a subject, that is very delicate, I believe that is why it has been made a cartoon.

The story is good. It does depict the brutality of the war, that still wreaks havoc in the middle-east. It might, however, lack some nuance. But it is a documentary after all.

I wasn't thrilled about the animation. The drawings are good, but they are not put together poperly. I felt the transition between the drawings weren't fluid, which made it awkward to watch. The artists are skilled drawers, but I don't think these drawings should have been put together, it felt like a stop-motion.

Personally, i am disappointed. If you like documentaries and want to do research, this can be a good source. If you're looking for a good cartoon, this is not top notch.

Melancholia (2011)

"I smile, i smile, i smile."

[7/10 · 23 June 2017]

I believe people have got it all wrong. I know Von Trier's movies are'nt for everyone, but i like his films, since he keeps pushing the limits, and therefor, i know many people find his works offensive. Now to the film:

***SPOILERS HERE***: Melancholia is a film about a wedding bride, who fakes her feelings, and tries her hardest to be happy even though she is all but happy. In the meantime, a great planet threatens to destroy the earth. The film is split in two parts: Justine's effort to conceal her depression, and how Justine's depression drags her closest relatives down with her. ***END OF SPOILERS***.

Like Antichrist, Melancholia starts out with a beautiful cinematography. Unlike Antichrist however, the cinematography, lasts for like five minutes or something, and you have to wait a bit before the film starts, and even longer to know it's relevance to the story. Once it gets started though, i think it's a good film, with convincing acting.

Long story short: If your looking for a melancholic, watch "Melancholia".

Closer (I) (2004)

This is the worst films ever....

[1/10 · 14 May 2017]

Why? The actors aren't the problem (Portman might even be my favorite actress), but the characters created for them, are hollow and dull, yet they act unrealistically.

The gap of time, between every scene in the movie is way too big, and too much is left to the imagination of the audience. The script is as dull as the characters. No real descriptions, just a lot of sentences, that could be used in almost any context. All the characters do nothing but talk, about each events, way too little is visualized, which is pretty much the essence of cinema.

Don't watch this movie. Just don't.

Antichrist (2009)

Flawless Horror

[10/10 · 15 April 2017]

Horror movies is one of the toughest genres to work with. The characters must act rational, without seeming dumb and in order for you to sympathize with them, you must give them a story. But you can't break the vibe of uneasy vibe either. This means the actor must stay in character and act afraid at the same time. A tough, but important job.

Lars managers to intertwine horror with drama. And it's incredible.

Both Gainsboirg and Dafoe are great here. They are very dedicated to their roles, as you see in several seen including the opening scene. Sometimes, the gore in a horror movie can seem dumb and poorly made. But the cinematography in Antichrist is all but Poor and dumb. You get sucked into the psychological and sexual terror in Eden, and it's not lame. This is not for the faint hearted, just like horror isn't meant to be.

Antichrist is everything horror should be.

10/10.