Change Your Image
kghispredi
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Irishman (2019)
It's too long and they are too old
When we went to the start of the Irishman's career, I was honestly baffled a couple of times. What motivates this senior man to start stealing and hanging out with mobsters at his age? Is this young girl in his household his granddaughter? And they are now christening a newborn... his own?! De Niro was in mid-seventies so his character was at least 40 years younger! Makeup and visual effects can only do so much, he looks 55-60 in his "youth".
It was a bizarre decision not to use a younger actor. Imagine Godfather II with 50 year old Marlon Brando playing his young self. That would be a smaller age difference. One of the most problematic scenes is when the Irishman's De Niro beats up a grocery store owner. He jogs stiffly instead of running and attacks the grocer with all the realism of a pro wrestling fight. I couldn't help but remember James Caan's savage street beating of Gianni Russo in Godfather I. Compared to that, this was pathetic.
The movie is also unnecessarily long. You could cut an hour out and improve the pace. Too many slow scenes, discussions that don't advance the plot, driving around... For instance, there's a wedding of two characters we don't see elsewhere in the movie and we go to a slow motion study of the faces, dresses and so on. Why even show the wedding, let alone in slo-mo?
On the positive side, the cast is all great actors and when they play their own age, they are perfect. It's a decent crime story but I don't see it becoming a classic, despite all the effort to make it 'epic'.
Broj 55 (2014)
Lots of bullets, far less sense
The film is dedicated to Croatian soldiers who died in an ambush in the early stages of the war for independence. It doesn't work well as a dedication though. We learn very little about characters or political background or broader picture of the war (or heaven forbid, the enemy's angle) since the director prefers to shoot action scenes. More precisely, one big action scene. There's barely any pause among constant gun fire.
The director sticks to his strong suit - the action is shot well and will make your heart race. While special effects and gruesome deaths are convincing, the combat itself leaves a lot to be desired. Enemies stagger around the heroes' stronghold or charge at it dying in dozens (Maybe hundreds? Somebody should do the body count) instead of chucking grenades through windows. They are ugly, fat, bearded and of course adorned with chetnik insignia. Don't expect any subtlety in the portrayal of the enemy.
Acting is not great but for Croatian standards it's not bad either. Let's just say it doesn't get in the way.
I'm a Croat and the film did engage and was in some ways better than I expected (which just goes to show how bad Croatian films usually are) so I benevolently gave it 7 stars. If I didn't have the emotional connection I would've given it 5 stars tops. In that case I would've wondered why the film is recorded in a first place. If you want to deliver a patriotic message there are better ways to do it than shooting 70 minutes of shooting.
The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Three hours of pointless debauchery
The movie is about scummy Wall Street businessmen that make a lot of money. Except for the main character, almost everybody else is worthless: the men aren't interesting or funny or original or important or inspiring or good looking. They are aggressive, uneducated scum who spend most of the time snorting coke, falling over, and yelling YEAAAAH !!! and FUUCK !! The women, if in a speaking role, are gold-diggers. The rest are prostitutes.
Why do we need three hours of their orgies is beyond me. Who cares about these people? The aunt and the FBI guy are the only potentially interesting characters but they get very little space, I guess because the director needed to spend more time on depicting yet another senseless orgy or yet another detailed depiction of effects of drugs.
This would be a total disaster if it weren't for DiCaprio who gives a captivating performance of the main character. He's energetic and convincing. Too bad his talent is wasted on a character of a money- embezzling, drug-addicted salesman surrounded by human trash.
Fury (2014)
Saving Private Ryan - with tanks
A band of soldiers battle hardened in Africa now find themselves in Europe. They are joined by an inexperienced and naive soldier used to administrative tasks. He tries to be friendly but his new unit treats him roughly. They are scoundrels but they respect the commanding officer.
Their difficult mission will see graphic, realistic violence, moral dilemmas (treating a captured enemy soldier) and tough choices. Do what's right or what will keep you alive? They choose the latter but their commander will persuade them to do what's right.
They will die, one by one (except for the rookie), and the commander will be the last to die, fighting enemy even when mortally wounded. Despite that, their mission will be successful.
OK, what movie was that? That was a trick question: both! Saving Private Ryan and Fury share so many elements that it borders with plagiarism.
Is it a good movie? Up to a point. Acting is good and so are special effects, but military buffs will be quick to point out that the supposedly realistic portrayal of war is full of absurd situations. The worst of them is Rambo-style battle in the end in which elite soldiers perish in droves while running with rifles around an immobile tank.
Not a great war movie but definitely better than American Sniper!
Pacific Rim (2013)
Great action. Characters... not so much
Not a fan of blockbuster movies, I was dragged to see this by some friends. In the first part of the movie I was pleasantly surprised. The scenes were visually beautiful and the plot was interesting. It will still require lot of suspension of disbelief because the basic premise, that the most efficient method of killing giant animals is constructing giant robots to punch them, is ridiculous. If you can accept this, the movie will be very enjoyable...
...at least until the Hong Kong base part. We'll meet a lot of characters there who are best described as caricatures. They are single-dimensional and their interactions are forced and annoying. I hold two hysterical scientists and all the Jaeger pilots in this group. The altercations between the main character and another pilot, and between the main character and the general are grating. They can only appeal to 10-year olds in the audience and their idea of how Real Tough Men act like.
Fortunately the female lead makes up for this by being an original and interesting character (unlike her male counterpart), and a knife-wielding Ron Perlman would be beneficial to any movie. They will help the transition to the final fight.
In conclusion, not a masterpiece but a decent monster-robot blockbuster.
The Battery (2012)
the most boring zombie movie ever
This is an independent, low budget movie that focuses not that much on fighting zombies but on two guys who wander around the post-apocalyptic world. It's a cross between a road movie and a character study and I welcome that angle, rarely seen in a zombie movie - but however it fails to deliver.
The main characters are not very interesting and most of the movie is spent on showing them arguing and doing mundane stuff like playing catch, fishing, eating, brushing teeth, smoking. Playing catch and actual zombies are given roughly the same screen time! There are a few funny scenes but they are not worth the effort of enduring such a slow and cheap movie.
J'ai tué ma mère (2009)
annoying and mostly irrelevant
This film is about a teenage homosexual obsessed with his mother and their love/hate relationship. If the subject sounds specific - it is. Talented filmmakers make even the most specific stories interesting to the broader audience, but Xavier Dolan is not one of them. The film is a torture if you don't have interest in this very subject.
The boy is narcissistic and annoying and the mother is unlikable too, so it's impossible to identify with them. Most of the time they yell at each other and their relationship is not very interesting at all.
Only after I saw the movie I learned that the main actor is also the director and the screenwriter and he dominates the cover image too. At least he managed to accurately convey narcissism!
Smilla's Sense of Snow (1997)
Intriguing thriller turns into Lara Croft
I really liked the main characters - a strong but seemingly cold-hearted woman and her strange neighbor who manages to be attractive and pitiful at the same time. One of the rare movies in which I was as much interested in the characters and their development as in the story line.
Unfortunately half-way through the movie the events become more and more unbelievable and convoluted. People get killed, stuff explodes and our half-Inuit heroine goes through it like Lara Croft, with the difference that she keeps surviving not by skill or guns but by pure chance. The ending seems taken from an 80's James Bond movie. Disappointing for those of us who are not fond of evil scientist / mysterious forces clichés.
Stand Up Guys (2012)
great actors, weak script
Pacino and Walken are excellent, Pacino even better than usual.
The problem is that the movie revolves around the Walken's character's dilemma, which is forced. I don't think a single person who watched it doubted for a second what will happen, not to mention that it's also spelled out in promo materials. Almost the entire movie goes by while we are waiting for this obvious turn of the events.
What goes on in the mean time, the old guys' crazy night out, is sometimes exciting, sometimes silly, and sometimes plain stupid. The encounter with the victim of rape and torture who acts merely annoyed by the ordeal, certainly falls in the latter category.
We can only hope for a sequel with the same main two characters, but with better antagonists and a more convincing story line.
Shark Attack 3: Megalodon (2002)
not bad enough and certainly not good enough
Watched this and Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus (2009) the same evening. The Mega Shark movie was so bad that we laughed throughout it. It succeeds in crossing the "so bad it is good" line.
Shark Attack 3 doesn't. It is poorly done, unoriginal and boring. The only time we laughed was the main character's incredible pick-up line - you can see it in the Trivia section.
The movie takes place in Mexico but was actually shot in Bulgaria. The director fakes Mexico by putting a Mexican flag wherever it could fit the frame. You can play a drinking game - take a shot every time you see a Mexican flag! That's the only conceivable reason to watch this movie. If you want something funny and shark-related, see Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus.
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
Bring a snack, don't bring a brain
I'm not a fan of superheroes but I was pleasantly surprised with the first half. The actors are good - I love Michael Caine, and Bale, Hathaway and Oldman are spinning an interesting story. It's intriguing to see weakness and depression as a well executed theme in a movie of this kind.
However when the villain (Humongous, anyone?) takes over it all turns into an irrational whirlwind. He was shaping up into something interesting but his hatred towards Batman is poorly explained, his master plan is excessively contrived and unbelievable, and despite all his speeches and gestures the audience is left wondering what the hell does he want.
I must confess that I didn't see the first two movies of the trilogy but you would expect a screenwriter/director of such esteem as Nolan to deliver regardless of the viewers' previous knowledge. Instead, the crucial parts when they reveal the villains' "family" relations were undecipherable and irksome to me. Other trilogies like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings don't suffer from this.
For the last half an hour I fought to make sense of characters' motives and actions (and I fought to ignore how ridiculous the remote prison setting is) but had to surrender and let my brain flat-line while my eyes watched fighting scenes. I know many people enjoy that kind of cinema experience but I don't.
Prometheus (2012)
Visually great but with terrible characters
Watched in 3D. Prequel or not, a decent Alien movie.
Impressive visuals without getting too aggressive with CGI. I'd give it 10/10 for visual enjoyment if it weren't for one character's terrible mask (isn't it easier to get an old actor instead of masking a 45-yr old into a 90-yr old).
Storyline isn't waterproof but it's interesting enough and will have you trying to figure out details and plot holes after the movie.
Where this movie fails is characters. None of them are believable, charismatic or even nice enough to care for them. They are scientists and other highly skilled professionals but they act like a cast of a reality show - stupidity, unnecessary drama, occasional aggression. A pack of high-school dropouts would make a better scientific expedition than these Doctors of Science from year 2093.
Pyhän kirjan varjo (2007)
Boring and surprisingly uninformative
Unfortunately for Turkmenistan's residents, Saparmurat Niyazov's dictatorship left a huge and bizarre footprint on the country. He renamed months and days of the week in honor of him and his mother, he outlawed opera and ballet...
It would be excellent material for a documentary, but authors instead focus on Niyazov's book Ruhnama, which is regarded as holy scripture in Turkmenistan. The angle they chose is collaboration of Western corporations with this oil-rich country by means of translating Ruhnama to gain Niyazov's blessing.
So, corporations are ready to do business with a dictator if there's money to be made. Who knew?! This revelation grasped the authors' attention so much that they spent almost the entire movie filming themselves in motel rooms, calling said corporations' PR people, unsuccessfully trying to get them to talk about their support of Niyazov.
We learn very little about the book itself. The hour and the half apparently weren't enough to discuss the content of the book, its writing style, historical inaccuracies, alleged author - it was more important to record 45th phone call to the PR of some French construction company and 29th failed attempt of reaching the owner of some Turkish construction company.
This documentary manages to be too long and boring and at the same time convey very little information.
Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008)
Pretty sights and lots of stereotypes
The film opens with a steady flow of stereotypes and despite the expectations of Woody Allen fans, continues with them to the very end. Let's have painters... because they are so romantic and passionate. Let's have Spaniards... because they are hot-blooded and beautiful. Let's have Barcelona... because every scene taken in it looks like a postcard, or something directed by Tourist Office of Barcelona (which is pretty close to the truth considering the City of Barcelona DID pay for much of the film's cost).
The setting and the cast seem to be picked from a poll in a women magazine. Since Antonio Banderas is old news, our readers chose masculine Javier Bardem. For his Spanish partner they chose Penelope Cruz who is not only beautiful, but also the only Spanish actress they have heard of. They also chose Scarlett Johanssen because they would choose her in pretty much any film. And let's have all these beautiful people indulge in wine tasting, flying private airplanes and picking blackberries for breakfast while they muse about art and love, because that's apparently how hot-blooded Spanish painters spend their days in Barcelona.
Allen fails to show the flip side of this fairy tale-like Spanish life style, fails to show a sudden twist, a funny moment, his trade mark wit, or at least a hot threesome scene. Johanssen is the only one showing an interesting performance. Hall, Bardem and Cruz are confined in stereotypical roles, and Bardem even looks embarrassed pushing a Latin lover routine.