Change Your Image
EdwardNashtonReeves
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againPS. I live in Croatia and if a film was made in 2022, but entered out theaters or streaming in early 2023, the film is still counted in.
10 - Masterpiece 9 - Brilliant 8 - Great 7 - Good 6 - Okay 5 - Median 4 - Weak 3 - Bad 2 - Terrible 1 - Abomination
Based on Rotten Tomatoes standards, I would give approval (or Fresh rating) to films I rate 6-10 and disapproval (or rotten rating) to films I rate 1-5.
PS. I live in Croatia and if a film was made in 2023, but entered out theaters or streaming in early 2024, the film is still counted in.
10 - Masterpiece 9 - Brilliant 8 - Great 7 - Good 6 - Okay 5 - Median 4 - Weak 3 - Bad 2 - Terrible 1 - Abomination
Based on Rotten Tomatoes standards, I would give approval (or Fresh rating) to films I rate 6-10 and disapproval (or rotten rating) to films I rate 1-5.
PS. I live in Croatia and if a film was made in 2021, but entered out theaters or streaming in early 2022, the film is still counted in.
10 - Masterpiece 9 - Brilliant 8 - Great 7 - Good 6 - Okay 5 - Median 4 - Weak 3 - Bad 2 - Terrible 1 - Abomination
Based on Rotten Tomatoes standards, I would give approval (or Fresh rating) to films I rate 6-10 and disapproval (or rotten rating) to films I rate 1-5.
For this list, I'm considering only actors who are either born in the UK or live there for a long time. Personally, I wouldn't mind an actor who isn't British being Bond if he has a flawless accent, but I know we are not there yet. I am considering only male actors between 23 and 55 years of age.
I am taking in account their physical shape, but it's not the definitive element, as we all know how much physical work actors do when taking a role like Bond. Anyway, Bond has to be fit, but a variety of body types would do - from lean to buff, and some in between.
The actors are listed in the alphabetical order.
PS. I live in Croatia and if a film was made in 2011, but entered out theatres in early 2012, the film is still counted in.
10 - Masterpiece 9 - Brilliant 8 - Great 7 - Good 6 - Okay 5 - Mediocre 4 - Weak 3 - Bad 2 - Terrible 1 - Abomination
Based on Rotten Tomatoes standards, I would give approval (or Fresh rating) to films I rate 6-10 and disapproval (or rotten rating) to films I rate 1-5.
Of course this list is very subjective and I prefer adding ones I saw and especially ones I love for awhile. However, there are certain people that I didn't see yet, but still know they have to be here to make a proper list. I also welcome suggestions.
- To make it more easy to locate someone, I decided to put them in the order by date of birth.
2024 waiting list. These actors and actresses will hopefully turn 80 during 2024 and will be added (suggest someone if you like):
PS. I live in Croatia and if a film was made in 2010, but entered out theatres in early 2011, the film is still counted in.
10 - Masterpiece 9 - Brilliant 8 - Great 7 - Good 6 - Okay 5 - Mediocre 4 - Weak 3 - Bad 2 - Terrible 1 - Abomination
Based on Rotten Tomatoes standards, I would give approval (or Fresh rating) to films I rate 6-10 and disapproval (or rotten rating) to films I rate 1-5.
PS. I live in Croatia and if a film was made in 2012, but entered out theatres in early 2013, the film is still counted in.
10 - Masterpiece 9 - Brilliant 8 - Great 7 - Good 6 - Okay 5 - Mediocre 4 - Weak 3 - Bad 2 - Terrible 1 - Abomination
Based on Rotten Tomatoes standards, I would give approval (or Fresh rating) to films I rate 6-10 and disapproval (or rotten rating) to films I rate 1-5.
Reviews
Grand Isle (2019)
A quite confused movie
Ex-marine Buddy has to take care of his wife and baby daughter, so he accepts doing small jobs in the neighborhood. One day, local man Walter hires him to fix his fence. Before Buddy can leave, the hurricane starts, so he has to stay in with the couple for the night. Soon he discovers that one of them, or both, may be dangerous.
What this movie does right is setting-up the unsettling tone. The acting is quite good, and the dialogue is delivered in a way that feels unnerving in the right way. There are also some unpredictable twist and turns which always keep you on your toes. Just as you think you know where they film is headed, it shifts and keeps you invested. Nicolas Cage has some ''Cage-out'' moments, and KaDee Strickland and Luke Benward are pretty good in positioning themselves against Cage in dramatic scenes.
Sadly, just because this films throws tons of twist on you, doesn't mean they all work. The military background of two male leads was supposed to connect them, but it feels irrelevant to both of their characters, and gives a false sense of motivation where there is none. Instead, the main twist has more to do with Walter and Fancy's marriage and their wish to have a family. Even so, their twisted games feel more like a work of functioning psychopats than of someone who is convinced that they are doing the right thing. Thus, messages get mixed, and tonal balance falls flat in the end.
Also, this film can say a lot about toxicity in marriage, and how it can affect both parties, yet chooses not to dwell on it, and deliver a simplistic climax. Buddy is a cheater, and isn't the strongest of characters. At times, he lets himself being seducted by Fancy. Then he rejects her, but still sticks around and falls into her web again and again. Buddy's wife Lisa isn't particularly sympathetic either. After six months of choosing to ignore her husband, she is more preoccupied that he had an affair than by the fact that he's been set-up for murder he did not commit. I'm not sure these two people should be together, even if the final scene does set-up that they might evolve from that experience.
That bad marriage can be mirrored in an even worse marriage between Fancy and Walter, who sometimes openly despize each other, and at other times feel like Bonnie and Clyde. Sure, they are meant to be the antagonists, but their motivation in the end feels paper-thin. Also, the ''compromise'' between a ''cinematic'' grand finale and a ''realistic'' lower-scale shoot-out ulitmately feels not enough of either to fully satisfy.
The build-up, the setting, the acting, and the unpredictability do make-up for a solid viewer experience, even if it feels tonally imbalanced and hollow by the end.
He's All That (2021)
Exactly what one would expect for an updated remake of She's All That.
I do have some fond memories of She's All That, but I won't pretend like that film wasn't full of 90s cliches. Heck, it actually popularizes some of them. So, for a remake to be full of 2020 cliches, cheesy, and predictable wasn't exactly a big issue. The ''big difference'' is only a gender-swap between the leads. Now we have Padget (played by Tik-Toker Addison Rae), a popular girl who makes a bet that she could turn a nerdy guy Cameron (Tanner Buchanan) into a next prom king. If you've seen not only the original, but basically any rom-com in the last 30 years, you'll guess 85% of where this is going. Still, this sub-genre isn't exactly known for its creativity, no? It serves to shut your brain off for awhile and have fun. So, if you enjoy stuff like The Kissing Booth Trilogy, Tall Girl, or any of the Noah Centineo Netflix films, this will do. It's okay that it uses the social media concepts to update the plot, but it went too far in relying on it for my taste. The actors did fine for what they had to, and there is a nice moment or a funny joke now and then. It is still a predictable teen rom-com, so don't set your expectations too high, but it's not a godawful film either.
The Call of the Wild (2020)
A live action attempt at making an animated classic
The film is a loose adaptation of Jack London's classic novel from 1903. While the story beats aren't necessarily that different, the execution certainly is. The film simply cannot decide whether it wants to be a fairy tale or realistic and hovers in between. However, there is one genre in which this balance usually works well and that is an animated film.
Looking at the way the dogs have been animated, the way the human actors are directed and the way it's been paced, scored and designed, it feels like it was originally meant for animation. The director actually doing some animated films prior to this should come as a no surprise.
The story itself is heartfelt, but choppy. We follow city dog Buck as he's been abducted and sold in Alaska and then Canada. He matures and finds his way in the wild. Meanwhile, he meets several human and animal characters to interact with. The issue becomes the fact that as we follow his journey, most of these relationships end-up unresolved and tossed aside for a new story to come.
The character we get most familiar with is definitely John Thornton, masterfully played by Harrison Ford. He is the only human character who is well fleshed out, given a deep and tragic backstory and time to establish his closeness to Buck. Their scenes are by far the most emotional ones.
Postman Perrault (Omar Sy) and his partner Francoise (Cara Gee) are also likable, but as soon as we start knowing them better, they disappear from the film. I won't even bother to say anything about Bradley Whitford's essentially non-presence in the film.
The villain Hal, played by Dan Stevens, feels one-dimensional and over-the-top, even if Stevens feels charismatic in the role. He's simply not given much to work with. I guess it's mainly for omitting the key scene of properly understanding his character.
In the book (and Wikipedia page giving the synopsis), his two companions are named as Mercedes (Really good, off-type Karen Gillan) and Charles (Colin Woodell) and said to be his brother and sister-in-law. The film establishes no such relations. Also, it subtly implied that they might have died in the moment when dogs ran off, but again, it was never addressed. If it was, he might have been given a proper reason for wanting to exact revenge on Thornton and Buck. This way, with nobody seemingly dying, he just feels shallow and evil.
Gillan, Woodell and the sleigh dogs being completely forgotten creates another emotional issue. Despite Perrault giving Buck a mission to take care for his pack, he never bothers to search for them afterwards. Them being dead would've solved that issue, but with them just stranded at the woods, it feels like an unresolved plot thread.
Instead, the dogs are put aside and his new relationships start building-up with wolves. While charming and cute, his romance with the female grey wolf does feel glanced over. What works here, though, is him finally seeing who he is inside. The film shows a lot of moments of him not being adapted to living in human civilizations, so him finding himself in the woods only makes sense.
I really loved how the film gave Thornton a tragic backstory echoing his need to mentor someone into growing-up and finding themselves. Even though Buck is a dog, you get that sense of a true friendship with father / son undertones. By setting Buck truly free, he managed to fulfill some of his fatherly duties that haunted him.
The scenery is immensely beautiful. Camera work really well establishes lovely mountains, polar light and gorgeous woods. The CGI is actually really good for the most part (in some fast movement scenes it can be too noticeable), even if it feels different from the realistic sets around it.
So, even though there is a lot to unpack, this film still managed to do it's main job. And why is that? Because I believe that it was primarily directed to children. It has all the wonders, thrills and emotions most of the animated classic have. Children will probably eat this up. They likely won't care if the movie follows the book. The likely won't care which part of the CGI is the most realistic or which character feels over-the-top. They'll be entertained, touched and likely fulfilled. In the end, isn't that what any movie actually aims for?
Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga (2020)
Review from a long-time fan of the contest
As someone who not only follows Eurovision, but also national finals and the events surrounding it, I was very curious on how this film would turn out. There are a lot of misconceptions about ESC, as well as many dated associations (for instance, overblown glitter and mockery has (mostly) been left in 2000s). I love Will Farrell as a comedian, even though his last film, Holmes & Watson, was indeed really bad. Thankfully, ESC: The Story of the Fire Saga fares much better. I'll break down my review in two parts. First, analyze it as a film on it's own merits. Second, to see how it looks like as an homage to ESC.
As a film, it's your standard story of an underdog dreaming big and seeking for approval. I found Lars, Farrell's character, slightly too selfish and rude to root for, but his partner Sigrid is much more likable. Farrell is still, as always, a very good comedic actor. Rachel McAdams really gives her best and easily gives one of the highlights of the film. The other standout is Dan Stevens as the Russian singer Lemtov. He was really enjoying himself and I liked how the film treated his struggles. Some of the plot-points were fairly predictable and tad generic to the genre of comedy. Some jokes were funny, but some felt a bit flat (his ''disliking'' of Americans, for instance). Interestingly, the inclusion of Icelandic folklore somehow works well. If Lars was more likable character, I'd enjoy his redemption arc even more. Sure, he does some right moves in the end, but I think some of his impulses are still tad selfish. Even so, I liked how they ''lost the contest, but won people's hearts''.
As an homage, it works okay. There are several inaccuracies of how the Eurovision, or Icelandic National final works, so here we go:
- Semi-finals don't have a jury voting sequence. Only ten qualifiers are announced in random order to avoid knowing the presumed winner before the big night.
- Spain, as a pre-qualified ''Big Five'' country would never be in the semi-final. Same would apply to the UK, Germany, France and Italy.
- In the end, Lars comes on the stage and decides to change the song. In the actual contest, it would have been virtually impossible to do so, as all the music background is pre-recorded. They would indeed be disqualified for doing so, though.
- Both the Eurovision stage and Songvakeppnin (The Icelandic national finals) stage look really small when compared to the actual stages of the last decade.
- Songvakeppnin usually also has two semi-finals with six songs each.
- There is an astonishingly low amount of security there, as Lars could just easily go inside in such a short period of time.
There are also some things regarding the contest this film does right:
- The songs chosen to stand-in ESC entries are pretty solid and with a slight shade of satire (which any good comedy should have) aren't implausible to see in the actual Eurovision stage. However, perhaps with the exception of Sigrid's final song, they would probably be considered too much of a gimmick to actually win. However, a top 10 result for Russia with televoting alone would be more than plausible.
- Worth noting, the Belorussian band has a song and staging which is a direct nod to the winners of Eurovision 2006, Lordi (even though they were Finnish).
- The Greek staging is heavily inspired by the staging of Moldovan representative of 2016, Lidia Isac and Ukraine's national final winner of 2019, Maruv.
- There are some really nice cameos from previous Eurovision winners and contestants and are worth checking out. For instance, Portuguese winner of ESC 2017, Salvador Sobral, is featured as a street musician in Edinburgh, while his song, ''Amar pelos dois'' is playing (a hilariously mismatched song to the goofy plot which occurs during it). Also, previous contestants John Lundvik (Sweden, 2019), Elina Nechayeva (Estonia, 2018), Anna Odobescu (Moldova, 2019), Bilal Hassani (France, 2019), Jessy Matador (France, 2010) and winners Loreen (Sweden, 2012), Netta (Israel, 2018), Conchita Wurst (Austria, 2014), Alexander Rybak (Norway, 2009, also representing them in 2018) and Jamala (Ukraine, 2016) are featured in the party singalong scene.
- British anchorman Graham Norton appears as himself and with pretty accurate sharp irony describes what he sees.
- William Adams, the founder of Wiwibloggs, official Eurovision fan-site, also appears in the reporters' room.
- Jon Ola Sand, the actual chief executive of the contest is featured in a cameo, but isn't played by himself. Still, a nice reference.
- Even though nothing as huge as the hamster wheel (btw, a reference to Ukraine 2014) falling off stage did happen in Eurovision, there was an incident in 2018 where a stage invader interrupted the song of the British representative SuRie and she bravely continued to sing the rest of the song. It brought her huge respect in the ESC community.
Overall, I did enjoy this film and I hope it brings Eurovision closer to the general audiences. I'd like if Lars' personality was a bit nicer. I'd also prefer if the cameos were a bit more scattered throughout the film and if they had actual characters to work on. Still, it's an enjoyable film on it's own and I would recommend it.
Batwoman (2019)
A standard start for a CW show
The trailers for this show are atrocious and thus can mislead one to think that show is as well. Aside from one cringe-worthy quote, that simply isn't so. The pilot episode is well done to showcase what it's about and who to follow on their journey. Ruby Rose is solid as Kate Kane and the supporting cast is good too. Special nod to the main villainess Alice, who provides a lot of needed zaniness to contrast rather dark overall tone. So far, it doesn't seem to be as good as Arrow was, but it's hard to say from the pilot alone. It certainly isn't worse than Legends of Tomorrow (the show I love, but admit is kind of dumb). What people (justifiably) hate here is pushing the liberal agenda down our throats. But the thing is, the awfully handled marketing does it way more than the show itself (thus far) does. In the series itself, Kate's sexual orientation and gender and a mere fact just like any other. What I'm bothered with is that CW tweaks some characters to fit their mold rather than picking different characters. For example, Luke Fox is an athlete, not a junior version of his father Lucius. No wonder casual viewers call him Lucius. But that said, I like him a lot, as long as he doesn't become Vibe/Felicity/Wynn knockoff. Overall, I am a sucker for anything Gotham-related, so this has my attention. I hope it has a clear season structure (something a lot of CW shows struggle with in favor of repetitive, episodic stories) and presents it's characters' development in an organic way. Some criticism is warranted, but this many bad reviews are clearly a backlash to a horrible marketing strategy rather than the pilot itself.
Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again (2018)
A charming mess
Every now and then I get to a movie I am not sure what to think of and this year, it's Mamma Mia 2! It's sentimental, well acted and well sung, and oozes a certain charm, yet, it's convoluted, underdeveloped and has way too many fillers.
The main plot is about Sophie missing her late mother Donna (who died from ''insert reason here'') and trying to connect to her through stories about her youth. Lily James stars as young Donna and does a great job! What I loved about this film is Donna's personality and how they managed to make her sleep with all three of Sophie's potential dads without looking easy or selfish. The film also has some really strong scenes involving the mother/daughter connection. The scene when young Donna is repairing her house and Sophie is walking through an already arranged house is very strong. So is the one when Meryl Streep appears later on, again singing with her daughter.
Where film fails is inserting a lot of unnecessary drama which just shifts the focus to fillers - Sophie is in a rough period with her husband, wants to call her estranged grandmother, both of her other dads need to come from their obligations... I mean, each of these could have been a strong pillar, but together they just seem unfocused and the worst is how easily each of them is solved, giving them zero gravitas. I mean, does *anyone* care if Stellan Skarsgard and Julie Walters will end-up together again?
Songs are hit or miss as well - From the strong, emotional ones (My Love, My Life, One of Us, I Have a Dream) to completely pointless ones (When I Kiss the Teacher, Fernando, Super Trouper).
It's like movie doesn't know what feeling it wants to achieve, so it throws multiple darts at the audience, hoping one will hit hard enough. When the film hits the note, it gives genuine feels. When it misses, what's left is frustration because it steals the screentime from potentially interesting story. Donna's story was good and if the film decided to focus Sophie's story on one primary conflict (whether with Sky, Ruby or whomever), it would have been better.
How does it hold against the first one? In my opinion, it's better. The first one was a fluff with a weak central conflict. This one at least has emotional parts worth exploring. So, if you liked the first one, this one you will probably like even better. If you are an ABBA fan seeking for something moderately amusing, this just might be it. I am still conflicted about it.
The Dog Who Saved Summer (2015)
Rock bottom of 2015
Year 2015 in comedy has had some real misses: Paul Blart 2, Accidental Love, Hot Pursuit, to name a few. However, all those films are at least two leagues above this piece of ... 'art?'. Yeah, those films deserve three star reviews. At least *something* was done right there, I chuckled every now and then. This is a comedy that didn't made me laugh once. Yes, you heard right, not even once.
I really don't want to spend more time reviewing this abomination, but I feel compelled to do so, since it has no user reviews so far and the rating is 5.1. Really? You are telling me that Fantastic Four is worth 1 star less that this? Now the valid argument is that this is meant to be a family comedy. Fine, I can deal with more childish humor. But the level of dumbness here is out of chart. ALL 'jokes' are based on random tripping over and such, while there is so much overacting and underacting which isn't even in good harmony within.
Human characters are caricatures, poorly acted and with little to no personality. The dog is even worse. And I'm not blaming the dog, I'm blaming the dog trainers. The poor animal looks bored most of the time and the 'heroic' stuff he does are stale and uninteresting. It is not as silly as 101 Dalmatians, where the action is over-the-top and we have Cruella out of her mind chasing them. No, villains are lame, the main family is lame, dog trainers are especially lame and there is no purpose to this god-awful film. If you don't trust me, watch Bobsheaux's review on YouTube to verify.
This film is one of the worst films I have ever seen. Nothing works and it is never even 'so bad it's good', like Batman & Robin or The Room. I spend an hour and a half bored out of my mind and now it's my civic duty to warn the others: DO NOT WATCH IT!
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014)
Great fun with awesome characters
I enjoyed TMNT very much! That is the reason I wanted to share my opinion of the film to all of those who haven't seen it, but have doubts due to the bad reviews and bashing. Obviously people have some kind of problem with all Michael Bay films, and while I do see some of the issues, in this case I didn't mind.
First of all, the director is Jonathan Liebesman, not Bay. The film doesn't suffer from overuse of explosions, on the contrary, action scenes rarely end-up wrapped in them. Second, if you are going to see the film, it's because you presumably like the Turtles. And here is where you will probably get exactly what you want. All four brothers have really similar personalities to their animated counterparts and their brotherly bond, even in teasing and competing with each other, is very believable.
Megan Fox as April O'Neill is pretty good too, despite being called bad actress multiple times. She comes off as likable, dedicated young reporter who wants to uncover the truth about her father's old projects as well as advance as a reporter and I think she is easy to connect with. Splinter is a cool teacher and a fatherly figure who makes them the team they need to be. April's relationship with TMNT guys is also quite nicely built up to the point they fight together (which isn't big spoiler to anyone who knows anything about the premise).
The villain of the film is The Shredder, who is usually their arch- nemesis. What works is that he is a mystery, and doesn't show his face nor we know for certain his origin. He is also big, menacing and knows how to handle any situation himself. He maybe comes off as a blank slate so far, but we get hooked-up by his persona and I expect we will get a lot more from him in the sequel.
The action is very good, as well as the stunts performing them. Visual effects provide additional epic touch to the film. Also, the soundtrack is great.
The story itself is, as said, somewhat predictable, but not more than most of the films. But it doesn't suffer from poor characters, nor obvious plot-holes. The story can be followed and understood without laughing at inconsistencies, equally by children and by adults.
If you are a fan of these characters, and you love the Turtles, April, Shredder, Splinter and the rest, I can guarantee you will have a good time. While the plot and designs are somewhat different, it has been done with intention to give fans something new, yet recognizable and cool. Characters are nice and the action is good. At first, I gave it a solid 7, but as the film grew-up to me and I wanted to see it again, I gave it an 8 for what is and needs to be.
The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)
Our legacy lasts as long as someone remembers us
I assumed this film must be good, cause 9 Oscar nominations and over 90% critics on Rotten Tomatoes really imply that is is. However, I like to make my own judgment, since sometimes I do find certain films overrated or underrated. In this case, I have to admit that the critics are right all the way. I absolutely fell in love with this film.
From technical standpoint, it is beautiful, colorful, specially shot with an unique feel to it. It combines European art cinema, especially French and German art films with British narrative of a crime novel and with American grandeur and big scale production. The whole film actually feels like an old-fashioned European history film, mixed with Monty Python humor and great visuals. The setting is really unique, little Poirot, little Disney, little WWII. And it really works in this strange combination.
The story is really interesting, and yet focused and clear. What fascinates me is how much A-list actors appear in it, and yet it doesn't feel too crowded or having pointless celebrity cameos. I is because many of the actors listed on the poster actually have really small parts, yet all of them are needed to tell the story. There are no pointless characters, and neither of them drags longer than necessary, just to have a certain person longer on screen. All of the actors did a great job and had a perfect comedic timing, yet Ralph Fiennes is the one that really steals the show. He is the main character, concierge Gustave H., whose cold, yet witty temperament carries out the humor throughout many unusual situations. Characters in the film are often both polite and rude at the same time in such a manner that it provokes sincere comedy.
What I maybe love even more is the meaning of the story. Madame D gives her legacy to Gustave H., who passed it on to Zero Moustafa, who then told his story to The Author, who would subsequently pass it on to the world in his book. The main message is that our legacy lasts as long as someone remembers it. The legacy may be a valuable painting, a mansion or a hotel, but it may also be our life story, our time spent with someone, our thoughts and feelings that will outlive us if someone is willing to remember. It is such a beautiful and powerful message. And yet, so concise and clear, unlike in films whose complicated hidden message starts to overlap within itself.
I really have not much else to say but to recommend everyone to see this film, and to enjoy. It will make you laugh and possibly cry. And it will remind you to enjoy time spent with people you care for and to remember them fondly when they are gone. It is a very sentimental film, yet so funny, witty and full of action that it doesn't come off as too hard or depressive, but rather lovely and unique.
Spice World (1997)
Fun film meant for fans, but virtually plot less
At the age of 9 I was a Spice Girls fan. And I immensely enjoyed it in the cinema. Now I do realize how silly actually this movie was. Spice World is, and is meant to be, purely the fan-fantasy featuring five of their favorite singers doing... well, whatever. The film goes around with several subplots, one more forgettable than the other. But throughout we do see Spice Girls interacting (and overacting). When you are a child fan, that is how you imagine they must spend some of their free time, or at least, you fantasize about it in a similar fashion. Their personalities in the film are actually only exaggerated versions on what stereotype their nicknames presented them with.
If you are not a Spice Girls fan, do not see this film. You will probably not enjoy. Unless you are looking something 'so bad it's good'. Film goes nowhere and gives you nothing, unless you are a fan and enjoy seeing them on big screen, mostly singing familiar songs, bickering and having fun. It is definitely a plus if you are in a super-funny mode and ready to have some laugh with them and at them.
My diagnostics: 8/10 for fans, 3/10 for everyone else.
Marisol (1996)
First part is way better than the second
This is the first telenovela I saw as a kid, I was 8 back then. It's one of the reason I saw so many of them afterwords. I saw it again years later and I have some things to add. Seeing I'm the first reviewer here on IMDb, I have even bigger responsibility towards future viewers.
The series is a classic, that is undeniable. Audience who is familiar with telenovelas of the 90s know that Marisol enters top 10 most memorable and iconic ones easily. But the question remains, is it any good? To answer that question, I have to define the series origin. The first part is original, while second part of telenovela is adaptation of radionovela ''When you give up a child'' mixed with ''The rich also cry'' storyline.
I have to say that the first part is *way* better and more memorable than the second. It is one show that should have ended earlier. It evolves around young florist Marisol who is actually rich man's illegitimate granddaughter and she falls in love with his adopted grandson, while his mother, wife and several others are against it. Storyline is bit generic, but interesting enough and engaging. Main couple are Erika Buenfil and Eduardo Santamaria, accompanied by Claudia Islas, Aaron Hernan, now late Enrique Alvarez Felix and now missing Emma Laura.
Despite it's issues of rushed editing and bad sound mixing (which is the bad side of most 90's and early 2000s telenovelas), and some cheesy unbelievable subplots, I find the first part a classic and even love character development. As a standalone telenovela, for it's worth, I'd give it an 8, almost a 9.
Second part is more dull, unnecessary prolonging the story with more uninteresting characters, clichés love triangles and stuff. It even diminishes the influence of surviving supporting characters, including the previous main villain Sofia. She is nothing more than an irrelevant lunatic who commits suicide without special impact.
As a standalone series, I'd give this part a 4 or 5. It's not terrible, but nothing special in here. However, I did like the recapitulation they made in the last episode mentioned characters they have killed off. Felix's role importance has been however highly exaggerated since he has died in real life as well.
If you like telenovelas as a genre, and don't mind love and hate plots, give this one a shot. I still wouldn't blame you if you shut in down at half.
The Hills Have Eyes (2006)
Excellent! Unpredictable! Chilling!
Two things that I require from a film are being interesting and being convincing. And horror movies need to be scary and bloody. And Hills Have Eyes has it all! After seeing few mediocre clichéd horrors, I was quite pleasantly surprised with this one.
Characters are very believable and likable. I could easily relate to Bobby and Brenda and my favorite was Doug. That guy turned out to be a quite amazing action hero, which was not obvious, but had most sense. Some characters in horrors do things just for the sake of action/killing, but Doug was motivated by returning his baby. I think that is the strongest reason someone could have for facing possible gory death. All the good characters were well acted and acted like people in their situation probably would.
Furthermore, villains were awesome too. Nuclear experiments amongst mining inbreds would cause a lot of damage to their physique and intelligence, but I guess that surviving the radiation would make one more enduring. And unlike many other horror environments, this one actually makes sense to be isolated and have no phone signal. Also, most governments probably would try to ignore/hush down failed experiments with human casualties.
When watching this film, I was anxious all the time, at the same time enjoying every moment while also being afraid what the future scene brings. It wasn't illogical or boring at any time.
After seeing it, the scenes, the characters and the atmosphere stuck to me. I love this film and I can't find anything that I think is wrong, too much or obsolete nor anything I would have changed about it. Even the ending is very nice and rewarding to see.
Sequel is also worth seeing, being very original in it's own way and not being the replica of the first one.
9/10
Train (2008)
From a man who loves Human Centipede and Hostel....
I am a big fan of horror movies. Especially non-slasher disturbing shock cinema films. I love gory disturbing films with explicit violence if it has purpose and sense to the story. But this one doesn't. Sure, violence is there, and it has some great moments of massacre, but other that that, it still feels somehow censored (not showing penises several times throughout the film, for instance).
Also, I'm the first person who sympathizes with heroes more than with villains in most horror films. Usually, I hope many survive, especially my favorite characters. However, in this one I didn't have any favorite characters. Somehow, all the 'good' characters are flat and pointless. Two of the characters are irredeemably stupid, two are decent, but killed to early. One had potential, but did nothing worthwhile. Thora Birch's character was the only one making sense, until... she returned on train!!! Really?? Not only Hollywood-esque, but also stupid and irrational decision. Her fight with the villains was rushed too.
The villains were cool, though. Bit cliché, but the boss had unique face and was very attractive, conductor was cool too and the butcher had potential. I enjoyed inbred retards as well.
Oh, yeah, just to mention (to whoever wants to spoil the end), no surprises whatsoever. Thora survives, all villains and all other good characters die. Just generic and predictable.
However, OK horror flick for seeing if you are searching for blood and guts. But there are better films for that too, Hostel, Saw franchise and Hills Have Eyes being some of them.
But, I'm being generous, since I gladly give 9s and 10s to movies I really love. This one isn't that awful, but if you expect Hostel, just don't. You'd be very disappointed.
Cuando seas mía (2001)
Probably best telenovela I know of!
I'm an avid telenovela watcher, with more than 50 titles in my resume, and yet only few are really good. Among those which are good, only few get to be good like this. Maybe 2-3 get to compete. The thing about this series is that, once you are watching it, you get the feeling you are watching a drama series, not a soap opera. It's not cheesy, feels realistic, and not over-the-top. Every character is someone you can relate to. There are no 'goodies' who are dull as they can be, nor 'villains' who are mean just for the sake of it, everyone can be presented as the hero or anti-hero of the story from different point of view.
Acting is amazing, Silvia Navarro and Sergio Basanez really have lot of chemistry and their characters, Paloma and Diego, really look like people deeply in love. And unlike most telenovelas, where protagonists are angelic and their platonic child-like love is attacked by vicious passionate villains, in this one two leads have very passionate and physical, yet very deep emotional relationship. And unlike those stories where the leads are always being manipulated by the villains and they are just standing doing nothing until deux-ex-machina gets them back together, Diego and Paloma are very active, and sometimes very difficult personalities. I'd actually say that their own characteristics are more causing their problems than all other circumstances combined. Both are very short-tempered, she is decided to succeed by her own doing, and he is just crazy for her and will do anything to be with her, and yet is sometimes too angry to see in front of him.
The villains are also most realistic that I have seen in any telenovela and easy to relate. Instead of usual bitch-type socialites, who suddenly become multiple serial killers for no apparent reason other than being evil, Fabian, Barbara and Berenice have all the reasons in the world to be as they are. Fabian is Diego's cousin, calmer and more sneaky, but also better in business than him, who just wants to step out of his shadow and prove to everyone he can do better than his cousin. He isn't evil, but in order to keep Diego from producing the first heir, who will inherit most of grandfather's money, he will do many immoral things. His wife Barbara will support him in that mainly because she truly loves him (while he is cheating on her all the time). And her anger at her husband's affairs will be transferred into lying and plotting against their mutual business enemies. Berenice, Diego's wife whom he marries of of despair thinking Paloma left him forever, is Barbara's best friend, but unlike her, she isn't so loud, but rather likes to do things behind people's back, thinking that her affairs and stuff probably aren't bad as long as nobody knows. Every character, weather primary good or bad, has their ups and downs and there are scenes in which you can actually believe that person is right all along.
The trademark of the series is coffee, which is the subject of their business and coffee fields are the place where Paloma and Diego first met. And it's been presented throughout the whole show, and somehow it's never shoved in your face over the plot. There are telenovelas of 80 episodes, filled with action, dozens of dead, and so many plot twists you barely believe it, and yet, are very boring and unimaginative. Cuando Seas Mia (When You Will Be Mine) is a story of 237 episodes, and I assure you that each just gives quality and prolongs the relationships, which actually should be the point of any show. It has, so far, a record in my eyes, as the series with most episodes without cast changes, plot changes or any other stupid stuff (American soaps anyone?) that most series do when they run out of ideas. Of course some subplots are added, but when you come to it, it's history of two different love stories throughout about 10 years and their ups and downs. If anyone has time to see it, I highly recommend it, you won't regret, it's worth it.
Pure 10/10, even for movie standards.
Flash Gordon (2007)
This is actually great, very underrated show!
I saw the whole series of 21 episodes twice and thought it was VERY good. Actually, I dare to say, better than most higher-budget series. Yes, effects are mediocre and it is visually way cheaper than most TV shows we see today. But, disregarding the visual effects department, this show has something to say! All the main characters have purpose in it, and all actors give very believable performances.
Eric Johnson is a 'bingo' for Flash, as he gives the regular guy/fearless hero mixed interpretation, which was astoundingly right on the whole time. He is a hunk, sportsman, hero and adventurer, but at the same time confused about the new planet, peaceful, idealistic and surprisingly funny. Actually, this is the rare opportunity to see a main guy being the one who saves things, eye-candy and also comic-relief. Rest of the main team is also funny and likable, Gina Holden as beautiful Dale, Jody Racicot as somehow confused Zarkov and a newcomer main character, not seen in comics, Baylin, performed perfectly by Karen Cliché. Surprisingly how Baylin's humor, which is half way between action star and Temperance Brennan from Bones, is exactly what the main team needs in the stressful situations. Also, I must say that Giles Panton is great as Joe Wylee, character which can be very likable at times, but sometimes also kind of an A... Steve Bacic and Ty Olsson as Barin and Vultan also give something new to the characters which I liked.
And the villains are just as good, maybe even more realistic. This time, Ming isn't a comic-bookish, Bond-type megalomaniac, but more like Lex Luthor or real-life dictator. He knows he's evil, but he simply loves power too much. John Ralston is very charming and very chilling at the same time performing him as 'The Benevolent Father', who is a tyrant, but also a sleazy politician, whose power could be overthrown at any time. The whole Mongo is not a system of planets, but a sole planet, divided by cantons. Each canton has it's people and it's leader, while Ming's 'central' rule is not always stable and besides being evil, he must be very silverthounged and witty. He controls the planet by sources of clean water, which he distributes. That is very realistic approach, since those things are already happening on Earth in some parts. Ralston's Ming interpretation kind of reminds me of Hans Landa from Inglorious Basterds, which is a good thing.
Ming's second in command is Rankol, instead of a movie Klytus. Although I was skeptical at first, Jonathan Lloyd Walker's cold intellectual puns, deep mystical look and political games he's controlling made him one of my favorite characters in the show, maybe he's even better than Klytus. He's not as evil as Ming, but he does things for him. Since he is probably the smartest character, you never know what is he actually thinking and what is his hidden agenda. Besides Mind, the most evil character in the show is Queen Azura, played by beautiful Jody Thompson. She is the only person who can say to Ming whatever she pleases, since she is a powerful dictator herself.
And IMHO, the best and most elaborated of the characters is Princess Aura, played by beautiful and underrated Anna Van Hooft. She has so many levels, immaturity, intelligence, frustration, love, respect and hatred towards her father, desire, respect and rivalry to Flash Gordon. She is a spoiled brat, potentially bigger threat than Ming, and still, the most valuable ally Flash Gordon has. And the way her character (well, all characters, but her especially) goes is very complex and unexpected.
The main plot is great, the side stories are some good, some mediocre, but overall don't distract much from the main thing. There is humor, and occasionally cheesy puns, but not as near as the reviews describe. Personally, I thing that many professional reviewers base their opinion on what they are told, quality of the visual and first impression of the first half an hour, which is a shame. They should have given this show another season, since it's so good! There wasn't much budget in it, but it has heart, and most importantly, they have given so much good new stuff to the Flash Gordon universe, which I hope the future generations will appreciate.
If you like SCI-FI, highly recommended show.
The Hottie & the Nottie (2008)
If any popular actress was the lead, people would find it watchable
People hate Paris Hilton. Why? Because they are taught so. Because when a woman makes internet porn, she's instantly famous, yet again instantly hated. With people like Charles Manson on IMDb, the girl who shown a lot of skin and is rich certainly doesn't deserve any hate IMO. Was she Oscar worthy? No. Was the film? No. But it is a watchable, nice film, and she isn't bad at all in her role.
It is actually a story about a guy who loves a hot girl (Hilton), and then gets slowly involved with her unattractive friend (Christine Lakin). It is a story of surpassing the physical stuff and loving someone for their inner personality. And it is not original, nor genius, but it is a warm and funny film. I'm certain that if some actress who is not famous for being famous is playing Hilton's role, that this movie would have like 5.0 average rating instead of 1.9. People need to stop bashing just for the sake of bashing. Bottoms Up was bad. This one is not. I would actually recommend it for a casual and relaxing afternoon watching.
The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1 (2011)
Review as neither hater nor a fan
I heard how many people are mad about Twilight and I heard how many people say it's the worst movie of the year. Then I decided to watch it myself and this is my totally unbiased review:
THE GOOD
Kristen Stewart actually did good as calm, yet romantic, emo-esque, mature and immature at the same time, Bella Swan. I also loved the way she acted when sick from pregnancy and especially loved the make-up/effects they put on her to look sick. It really did worked. Taylor Lautner was surprisingly OK as Jacob, his actions made sense and he acted like he really cares for Bella. Alice was cute as always. Billy Burke did a great role as Bella's father Charlie, maybe most convincingly human character in the story. Scenery was good, photographer did some really amazing shots, especially exterior, you can actually feel the warmth/coldness when needed in the woods and the rivers. Production design was cool too and costumes were fine, I mean it was obviously more costume supervising than designing, but it was just like it should be. The whole concept of concentrating on a relationship between a human and a vampire seems fun, and only thing I liked script-wise is that they decided to concentrate on one main storyline, cause in this case in particular, any side-story would be too distracting.
THE MEDIOCRE
Acting was just OK, but nothing special for most other actors. Interesting to see actors like Anna Kendrick, Michael Welch and Mia Maestro, otherwise great, to just be there to fulfill couple of badly written phrases. There was more of Nikki Reed this time, and I still cannot decide weather she did good or not. She wasn't terrible, but maybe bland, which is good for Stewart's character, but not everyone. CGI wolves and running was done adequately, but still unpleasantly surprised since Twilight is supposed to be earning millions and we all know how effects can be good these days. And background songs' lyrics were sometimes just too cheesy.
THE BAD
First of all, the whole movie is about weather Bella will survive pregnancy? Couldn't she abort as soon as she got pregnant? Why did she got pregnant anyway if she's human? Stephanie Meyer better have some good explanation on that one. And couldn't he make her a vampire when they got the news? Why is sex so violent? Didn't Meyer study Brahm Stocker and other vampire authors? Vampires drink human blood, but can do intercourse just like humans. I don't want to spoil the further plot, but it has some holes. And it's boring at times, same thing over and over again. Also, I must add that Edward Cullen is the most miserable character in modern literature that gets so much attention. Why? He is sexist, boring, obviously has diarrhea just to start with. Why on Earth would any girl go through all that just to be with him? So immature. And yeah, imprinting, sounds a lot like pedophilia. I mean, she was just born! Barely a newborn! I mean, it did save her life, but in that case, wouldn't it be better to present it as Jacob's sacrifice and sort of arranged, but never official and never consumed marriage, just for convenience. She's just a baby, and when she grows-up, wouldn't it be normal for her to pick who she'll really be with? It totally grossed me out! And Jacob had good chemistry with Leah, why not go with that? Much more appropriate!
THE VERDICT
Well, all given and taken, this movie could've been so much better! I give it 5 starts out of 10, but actually it's more like 4.5. It's still better than Spy Kids 4D, but it's too cheesy to be taken seriously.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)
Oscar-worthy, Best film of 2011!!
Wow, where to start? First I'll say that even if I rate many films as 10/10, this is one of those few whose real rating should be 1000/10.
Solely the opening sequence is Oscar-Worthy. Atmosphere is so good, photography is a masterpiece, everything seams authentic, even more special mention of sound design and beautiful music score by Trent Raznor and Atticus Ross. Simply enchanting!
I usually like thrillers and mysteries, but this one is even better. It's not only thriller, it's also drama and the characterization is strong and it shakes you all the time along. The plot actually contains two story lines, Vanger family and Lisbeth Salander, which eventually clash together, and each is fantastic by itself. Story is intriguing, it doesn't back out one bit from telling the ugly truth and it doesn't even soften it. It says straight in your face everything you need to know. With no sugar-coding at all.
Acting performances are fantastic! Rooney Mara simply IS Lisbeth Salander, so emotional, autistic, fragile, yet strong, intelligent, independent young woman, who can easily be a role model to many young women who have had it rough in life. She literally transforms into the role, who uncompromisingly takes lemons life gave her and turns them into lemonade without second thought about it. She truly does deserve our respect, Lisbeth, and Rooney Mara, a lovely young actress with very bright future. I know it is unpredictable to say who will win Oscar, but she has my vote, and I know I'll be disappointed if she doesn't get nominated. Her performance is hand to hand with Heath Ledger as the Joker, and my personal favorite film ever so far is The Dark Knight, so I know what I'm saying.
Daniel Craig is also amazing as Mikael Blomkvist and quite different than in Bond movies, proving he is a great actor. Stellan Skarsgard, Christopher Plummer and Joely Richardson are especially good in this stellar award-winning cast and if any of them receives Supporting actor/actress Oscar nomination, it will be very much deserved. All episodic cast is also superb, notable mention goes to Geraldine James, Per Myrberg, Alan Dale and Goran Visnjic. Everybody was just... AMAZING!
So, David Fincher's film is a masterpiece which will not be forgotten in movie history! It is shocking, emotional, deep, clever and realistic, it won't leave anyone indifferent. I would give it more that 10/10 if I could and I know I'll buy a double DVD when it comes out.
Only thing left to say is... I can't wait for The Girl Who Played With Fire to be made and I hope it will be soon. If it is as half as good as this one, it will still get 10/10 from me.
Recommendation to see!!!
Date Movie (2006)
It's a PARODY, and a very good one!
People really need to realize that in order for a parody to be good, it has to be cheesy and in other words, bad. I know it's a paradox, but that is the only genre it is actually applied to. I was surprised to see the average rating of all newer parody stuff on IMDb: Date Movie, Meet the Spartans, Epic Movie, Vampires Suck, etc. They all have 2.something average rating and it's mostly because people are not well informed on the whole concept of this genre.
For a parody to be successful, it has to take elements from real life and/or movies/other media that are seemingly serious, but cheesy, little overrated, over the top, inaccurate, ignorant, full of prejudice... etc. So, the good mocking of this just HAS to go a bit further to make the vague inaccuracies more obvious and laughable. I think that this movie succeeded in that. Everything that is bad or over the top is INTENDED to be so, hence, planned and I like it.
Alyson Hannigan and Adam Campbell have good chemistry and acting skills and I enjoyed their performances very much. Adam is an underrated actor and he needs more recognition overall. Also, the cast is full of talented parody performers, like Jennifer Coolidge, Eddie Griffin and Tony Cox.
For anyone who doesn't particularly find romantic comedies good, and considers them cheesy and overrated, this is the film. It's particular 'victims' are precisely romantic comedies, mostly My Best Friend's Wedding, Meet the Fockers, Wedding Planner, Hitch, Bridget Jones' Diary, My Big Fat Greek Wedding and most wedding films.
Alyson Hanigan's character is named Julia Jones, parody of Bridget Jones and Julia Roberts, and Adam Campbell plays Grant Fockyourdaughter, parody of Hugh Grant and Fockers. Sophie Monk's character is parody of Julia Roberts in My Best Friend's Wedding and typical 'bitch' characters, Tony Cox is Hitch, Julia's family is mostly parody of My Big Fat Greek Wedding family with all national prejudice in it. All the characters are hilarious and deliver their puns on time. I was laughing all the time, it's so on spot about all romantic clichés. The moment at the end, with all the most cheesy love declarations ever is my favorite, I can't restrain from laughing hard at that point.
Also the films contains Jinxters, the most disgusting cat you just have to LOVE! Let's just mention he doesn't restrain from gerentophilia and necrophilia. His scenes are so disgustingly nauseous, but one of the funniest ever! I will probably never get tired of watching this and I highly recommend it to anyone who loves good laughter and mocking romantic clichés.
It's 9/10 in everything it was supposed to be no matter what critic say!
Spy Kids 4: All the Time in the World (2011)
And I'm a Spy Kids fan!
What to say? Me and my brother (18) and his friend (also 18) went to the cinema and decided on Spy Kids 4D most based on our previous liking original 3 movies and the fact that 4D could only be interesting in cinema, not video. And so I expected a decent and fun children's flick, with warm message and lot of fun action.
So, I was ready to love this movie in a children's kind of way and to see the Spy Kids legacy was supposed to be fun. BUT, when I saw the movie, I was totally disappointed. It was awful. The real value of this pic is exactly that three stars that average ratings gave, but I gave it more due to my admiration for Rodriguez, Alexa Vega and Daryl Sabara. And seeing them all grown up and looking so cool and attractive was the best part of the movie, although their characters didn't do squat this time. They were kinda just... there, even more than Banderas and Gugino were before. But it was nice seeing them anyway. Although, for Alexa and Daryl fans out there, if you really wanna see them now in something worthy, go see Halloween, Repo or Machete.
I know that the story is supposed to be bubbly and childish, but I think that they were totally out of proportion with plot-holes and defying gravity and common sense, for anyone older than 7. And there are many children's movies who are still innocent and fun, but far more realistic anyway. I didn't expect much realism anyway, but 30% of realism couldn't harm even the most imaginative films in the world. The talking dog-robot, shiny colors, gadgets who look more like MacDonalds toys than anything else (I suppose their replicas are supposed to be in promotion), ALL IS OK by me. BUT, I draw the line at villains WHO NEVER PUNCH OR TRY PUNCHING ANYONE, not even adult characters! They just stand there and wait to get hit!! Also, performances were OK, adequate for this kind of film, no one's acting was above or below the OK level. Jeremy Piven was actually really fun as the main villain (Gosh, I 'spoiled' the 'unpredictable' plot twist!) and his image was kinda cool.
And I usually like kids, and I'm ready to defend them any day, but the little girl was SO ANNOYING!!! If she was an adult she would be called a name starting on B, no doubt. And the way she treated Jessica! I never thought I would say that, but she needed to get hers, and not her brother instead, who was kinda cute.
Effects were decent, but 4D was awful! At least in my cinema. NOTHING was going out. Numbers couldn't be scratched out, just on them, and all smells were kinda similar, mostly like peppermint.
And yeah... 'Spy Detector'... right! But I guess it is OK if you are 7.
Marple: Murder Is Easy (2008)
'Hallowe'en Party' of Miss Marple
This is my fourth Julia McKenzie Marple after Pocket Full of Rye, They do it with Mirrors and Pale Horse. She is getting really warm on me. I'm a big fan of Geraldine McEwan, who used to play Marple, so I was cautious with the new Marple. Well, Julia McKenzie is a very different Marple. I wanna congratulate her for not copying Geraldine. Her approach to the character is more active (since she's 10 years younger) and seams more worried. I like her, it still is Marple, but she's certainly different.
As for the story, I was shocked. If anyone saw butchery that is Poirot: Halloween Party (very good film, butchery as in many dead, not as in destroying the story), then you'd have an idea of what I wanna say. Usually there are 1-3 dead bodies per episode, and usually we wait for one third of the episode to pass before the murder is committed. Not here! So, in the opening sequence a murder victim has been buried, at her funeral another person is killed and by the ten minutes of the film we have four deaths. And lets say that's not all. Plus some cold cases that are connected.
It really adds suspense. Just like Hallowe'en Party, I have a feeling that if a director wanted to make a horror film, it could have been done with some very slight changes of perspective. You always have the feeling someone's gonna die. And usually they do. And the person or persons who did it all is completely different personality than you're used to as well.
Cast is excellent (like in all Marple/Poirot movies). I knew many of them: Benedict Cumberbatch from The Atonement, Sylvia Syms from The Queen, Lyndsey Marshal from Poirot: Cards on the Table, Shirley Henderson from Harry Potter and Anna Chancellor from Hitchhiker's Guide Through the Galaxy. Also, my new discovery was Margo Stilley, who is just too beautiful. Everyone did their best, so it was very nice seeing them in different roles.
As for those who say the movie has to be identical to the book, and that therefor this isn't Agatha Christie, I say: It says: BASED UPON, not literally copied. I loved all the books, but I also loved all the changes so far. Some of them are also modernizing it a bit, like opening some subjects that exist (and existed back then too), but were too much of a taboo for that time. I'm sure Agatha wouldn't mind people changing it a bit from time to time. This one is not an exception, it turned out just great.
If you love mysteries and/or horror, recommendation to see.
Husk (2011)
This horror is actually unpredictable
I got to watch this movie for Scarecrow killer, nails and CJ Thomason. Movie starts right away, five young people driving and suddenly... bam. Don't want to tell the whole story right away. True, the movie is full of plot holes and unexplained things and it's not realistic. But, if you are a horror fan who is not seeking for 'most rational movie award', but instead a great fright, this should do. Two things I loved about this movie are that it's very spooky and unpredictable. Atmosphere is dark and corn field, scarecrow, abandoned house and crows are just a bonus. Blood is realistic and the fear is all around. Trust me, you'll never be board. And I dare you, after you see the cast, just please tell me who's gonna be a main character. I really dare you. It's not your typical virgin, yet proud and brave teenage girl. Three main characters are easy to connect with. The acting is very good. And the killer is awesome looking. Of course that his back-story is very vague, full of unexplained things and incomplete, but at least he looks cool and kills in a very nasty ways. I think it's actually a pretty good horror movie. Not a complete movie with everything about everyone, but a really good segment what happens in an abandoned cursed corn field. Don't expect an Academy Award winning drama, but suspense is guaranteed.
The Butterfly Effect 2 (2006)
Didn't watch the first, but I liked this one
It actually has a really good message at the end. Don't temper with time to adjust it to your personal needs. Life is a struggle. Not everything needs to be perfect. The first time Eric Lively's character changed the past was really worth it. He saved the lives of his pregnant girlfriend and two friends. But then, when he discovered his powers, he used them to fix everything that wasn't perfect, and, of course it went from bad to worse. After he made Julie and Trevor die again, he went back all away to the beginning of the film and sacrificed himself for Julie. So, he died in a car crash, allowing Trevor and Amanda to stay as they are and Julie to raise their son, who possibly inherited some of his father's abilities. The movie has some horror elements, but it's actually a psychological drama/thriller, in some ways similar to Donnie Darko (Although Drako is better). Acting performances are superb, especially Erica Durance, who plays Julie, Gina Holden, who plays Amanda, David Lewis, who plays Dave and Chris Gauthier. For everyone who loves this type of somehow confusing thrillers based in one's mind, this is a good choice to see.