Change Your Image
razvanu
Reviews
300 (2006)
Worth the money
I just saw this in theaters 3 hours ago. I was looking forward to it, and it paid off. It's a good movie to see in theaters. I cannot be very sure about the historical accuracy (I forgot the details of the Battle f Thermopylae) but I am pretty sure this is not bent towards accuracy, but towards entertainment. That said, it is indeed good entertainment. The battle scenes are not a random amalgamation of blood and gore, and the rest of the scenes are pretty meaningful.
If I were to compare it to something like Gladiator, I would say that 300 has more of the "cool" factor, if you will. It is made to make you go "wow", whereas Gladiator is made to be more intricate.
Overall, it is worth the money. If the trailer caught your eye, go for it! You will probably not be disappointed. But If you are a history keener, maybe try saving the 10$.
Babel (2006)
stood up to my expectations
This movie is much like the director's other movies (21 Grams, Amores Peros). It also reminded me of Crash. Just like Crash, this movie looks at the way the lives of different people interact. The title Babel is also a great choice because it metaphors the boundaries of communication that often are of great importance in the film. Another thing I also liked about this movie was its degree of realism. It depicts reality at its harshest. It is a very serious movie, not for the seekers of cheap action or comedy entertainment (which is to be said about 21 Grams and the other movies I mentioned here). I am not saying this film is boring: far from it. But its quality does not come from action sequences but rather from the well depicted facets of human nature it reveals. If you liked Crash or 21 Grams, you will certainly appreciate this movie as well. I did not give this movie a 10 because I only give that to movies that manage to touch me in ways media rarely does (it's all very subjective): 9 out of 10.
Marie Antoinette (2006)
artistic
Just saw this movie in theaters. I like Sofia Coppola's style, but after seeing The Virgin Suicides, Lost in Translation and Marie Antoinette, I have to conclude that in fact, I just really love Lost in Translation. In comparison to that, I gave this movie a 7. But still! It's worth seeing if you like one of the following things: visually impressive, colorful, artistic movies (like Russian Ark, full of costumes of the times and such); a social, emotionally oriented view of the famous French Queen; subtle humor; a creative rendition of that particular historical time. Those are all characteristics of the film. Unfortunately, those items also make it a fairly slow movie. Now I know Lost in Translation is far from an action movie, and I have no objection to that. But Marie Antoinette is a bit too slow, especially for one who cares more about the characters and plot than about decorum, Versailles and social life at the palace. Though I see the artistic value of this film, and I don't feel I wasted my 10$, I also do not feel that it struck a chord in me. So 7/10 is pretty justified.
Miami Vice (2006)
Stood up to my expectations - and more.
This movie is excellent;so much more than a mere action flick! I should say that I had the same opinion about Collateral, when that came out. The trailer reveals very little of the movie, so one might go in to see it and be either surprised by the awesomeness of the film, or be disappointed because they though they went in to see something different. I was pleasantly surprised by the overall darkness of the film, its noir feeling, its surprising (or perhaps non-existing?) ending, and everything else. The music and the atmosphere of the movie were also simply amazing. In a way, I saw the possibility of this being more of a gun-fight oriented movie. But on the other hand, I remembered how I expected Collateral to be some sort of "taxi-driver-turned-vigilate" movie, and that was obviously not the case. Michael Mann never seems to disappoint me. By far one of the best movies this year, Miami Vice stood up to my expectations - and surpassed them.
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994)
Hollywood's Frankenstein - some SPOILERS
I have absolutely no clue why it was allowed for this movie to be called "Mary Shelley's" Frankenstein. If you go read the book, you will realize how incredibly inferior this movie is to the actual text. Robert DeNiro you say? Don't be fooled! His character barely speaks. In the novel, the creature is very eloquent when he speaks to Victor. In the movie, he can barely move his lips. Also, the character of Victor in the movie shows nothing of the internal struggle that goes on in the novel. He is made into a half-Hollywood hero: when the creature comes to life, he goes chasing after it with an axe LOL And that is just a small example of how this movie does no justice to the novel. If you have read the book, and you are expecting to see it recreated for the screen, you are badly mistaken! If on the other hand you wanna see a typical Hollywood movie, go for it!