danila_1 Reviews

Wild Ocean (2008)

A film about sardines

[4/10 · 29 September 2013]

If you are a sardine, this must be a pretty interesting movie. No so for a jaded human such as myself. The film has some well shot scenes of the battle between sardines and its predators, comparable to some really battle scenes in intensity. But when you think about it, it's just some birds and dolphins attacking and eating sardines. Do you care?

The scenes by themselves would get a 8/10 for visuals and 2/10 for meaning (because it's sardines). The accompanying episodes of some black fisherman doing random stuff, apparently fishing for the sardines too are pointless and boring. The narration about cold and warm current is totally boring. The argument that we must protect the oceans and probably fish less is common sense, but it isn't presented here with any particular persuasiveness.

"This is the wild ocean, this is where Africa meets the sea." sounds great for the tag-line, but in reality there is nothing particularly wild or interesting about the coast (coast is where land meets the sea).

So I suggest skipping this.

Children of the Secret State (2001)

Propaganda, psyops, information warfare, that's what this film is about

[3/10 · 13 October 2005]

This review present an analysis of some of the scenes of the film. My conclusion is that this film is an attempt at manipulating the viewer to believe that North Korea is a horrible place, its leader Kim Jonh Il is evil, his regime is brutal and the economic system has collapsed. But a careful and impartial viewing of the film with a critical eye and constant online double-checking demonstrates that there is very little in this film that should be believed. In this film no evidence was presented, although the authors tried extremely hard to make it seem as if such evidence was in fact shown. And I have no doubt that most viewers believed that it was. The film starts with the video of hungry child orphans (still, apparently looking healthy enough) that is going to shock everyone, especially combined with the matter-of-fact narrative. Claim that 3 million people died from hunger. Another claim that UNICEF estimated there are 200000 orphans in the country (BTW, don't trust all statistics about orphans, lies and manipulations are an ever present danger. It's awfully hard to find data on orphans in the US, but it appears to me from the data here that the number of children without parents as a percentage of general population is about the same in the US - about 1%. The population of the North Korea is 23 million, BTW, the population growth rate in 2005 was 0.9% (0.38% in South Korea), life expectancy 71.73 years (75.82 in SK) and infant mortality 24 deaths/1000 live births (7 in SK). While we are at it, the literacy rate is 99% (compared with 97.9% in SK) Everyone is shocked, that's expected, even I am. However, I start to think what they are trying to say, whether I am being manipulated and how this agrees with other things I know. OK, we move into the capital. The presenters are trying to make a ridiculous point by implication. They present the images as if the whole capital is essentially fake and everyone else lives in poverty and hunger in secret towns. Well, to begin with, that doesn't make any sense. Why would the North Korean government want that? Do they really care that much about impressing foreign journalists who manage to enter the country despite the apparent restrictions? That doesn't make sense (they actually restrict foreign journalists from visiting). Then every image is twisted as the presenters need. There is no one in the street in the middle of the day. Well, of course, there is no one - everyone is working. The hotel is empty, because it was designed and built in a different time, but it turned out to be a mistake and there aren't many foreign tourists today. There aren't many cars, because cars are too expensive, not very efficient and North Korea is short on fuel. All this somehow proves that North Korea is bad. The fact that they are well fed is somehow a proof of how evil and corrupt the regime is. Supposedly, one can't find such a stark contrast in the US, no way. Filming a dinner in an expensive Manhattan restaurant and some child suffering from hunger (there are millions of those in the US) doesn't enter the minds of the journalists. Then we hear some unsubstantiated claims that all well-fed children rehearsing for the parade are the children of the elite. How do they know it? Of course, the American viewer is unlikely to question the words of the journalists. Then the Children's Palace. Here even the fact that there are apparently some children who are not hungry presented as an evil deed of the Dear Leader. He is told to have "decided to favour these children". I wonder if the journalists have any ideas of why exactly did he make this decision. Does he have anything against those other, hungry children? Does he have an evil plan? The journalist is near the Chinese border. He is allowed to drive there in a car and he has to exaggerate the dangers. If they spend too much time in one place, they may be interrogated by the police. Well, try to spend too much time in one place next to the Mexican border. I bet you would be interrogated by the police as well. It's illegal to film at the border (like in many other countries), but the brave fighters for freedom managed to do it. Apparently, they filmed some border guards, who appear to be guarding the border. Clearly, that is some evil North Korean plot. Is it possible that they are looking for possible violators, who intend to cross the border illegally? Well, I am sure no civilized nation would ever do such a thing. Certainly not the United States... Well, pardon me my sarcasm, but insinuations are everything. It is possible to film perfectly legitimate activities, but if they are in North Korea, they suddenly become menacing, dark and evil. Such as border guards hiding in bunkers. Then we get a lie about refugees facing execution after being returned from China to North Korea. There is no evidence, just hearsay. Signs such as "Never help an illegal alien" are presented as something horribly wrong, even though (no sarcasm this time) most countries have some regulations against illegal aliens and helping illegal aliens is a misdemeanour in many countries as well (North Koreans are facing a fine, which, supposedly, is horrible). And so on and so forth. There is a 1000 word comment limit, so I'll stop here.

Genesis (2004)

Don't believe the fans

[6/10 · 2 April 2005]

Clearly not everyone will like this film. It is very different from Microcosmos and Winged Migration in that it doesn't have enough imagery to woo the viewer, but adds some sort of narrative unlike the first two films.

Unfortunately, the narrative is extremely simplistic and not creative or beautiful enough to hide the fact. It consists of a Negro elder somewhere in Africa, who in rather accessible, but very simplistic language explains that Earth emerged, cooled down, life evolved, organisms have sex and this is how he came to this world. This might be interesting to children or people not familiar with science and nature documentaries, but for a refined viewer such narrative doesn't offer anything compelling.

Unfortunately, there isn't much in the film for them. The visuals, while pretty, are not original at all (some molten lava, some birds, some insects, etc.). We have indeed seen most of it in countless other documentaries, which was not the case with visually revolutionary Microcosmos and Winged Migration. There are some funny scenes that usually involve anthropomorphic behaviour from animals - perhaps revealing the intention to target this film towards kids. :) If you go to see this movie, please don't expect to see anything deep, don't expect to see but most cursory description of genesis and don't expect visual breakthroughs. It's just a nice small movie with pretty pictures and some funny moments.

Robot Stories (2003)

Would be passable, if it didn't pretend it's some deep thinking

[5/10 · 7 March 2005]

All things considered it was terrible. It would have been novel about 10 years ago, but now all the ideas have been explored much better by cinema and other media as well. The stories are too unsophisticated and do not go beyond "feel goodness". I am sure that artsy people who do not follow scientific and technological developments much and who are not really into sci-fi, may be pleasantly surprised and challenged by the ideas in these 4 stories, but for anyone, who have thought about these issues 10 years ago and have since moved on, these stories do not offer anything other than cheesy effects and lame acting.

The first story has an interesting premise - a couple has to adopt a baby robot for a month as a test for their ability to adopt a human baby, but it really doesn't add anything to what was already covered in depth in Spielberg's A.I. and it also looks sh1t compared to an A-movie sci-fi such as A.I.

The second story isn't really a science fiction film at all and is virtually content-free. The main idea is that it's sucks when your son lies brain-dead in a coma and you need to give doctors a permission to pull out the plug. Well, yes, indeed it sucks, but in what unique way does the story explore this problem? The third story is funny and even nice in some ways. It has some semi-interesting ideas about the future, but the overall message is pathetic - robots need some love too. Once again, there is nothing that wasn't said in, say, Bicentennial Man. And once again, the effects are non-existent and there is no depth.

The fourth story is the most ambitious of all, and it probably fails less dramatically than others. But it still fails. May be the director had some deep message that he wanted to put there, but he probably forgot. Again, there isn't much in terms of original ideas - deathism, senile dementia and irrational stupidity. May be the viewers are expected to feel empathy with that old loser, I don't know... But I certainly didn't.

Overall these films are probably worthless to a sci-fi fan. However, to a casual viewer, who lived in a cage for the last decade and was not exposed to even the simplest ideas about the future through Internet or magazines such as Wired, SciAm, Pop. Mech. etc., would probably enjoy these (especially if he's into independent Asian films). There is also some hope for Greg Pak, seeing as he is in the very beginning of his directing career. Hopefully, he will tackle these ideas better in the future. And it's also nice to see such interest to sci-fi themes among the juries.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

A mediocre film that everyone feels obliged to love

[6/10 · 24 December 2003]

For some reason people fell compelled to love ROTK, even despite all its shortcomings. After making the Purist Edit of The Two Towers (check eDonkey2000 network for it) I have no such qualms. Return of the King is mediocre filmmaking at most. Yes, it does have excellent source material and it does have some expensive (but not impressive) CGI. But almost everything else that the film is comprised of is shoddy. Script is a butchering of a book, created by three self-assured writers who think they can do a better job than JRRT (regardless of the target medium). Acting is poor with a few exceptions. Music is either a rehash of TTT themes, or is extremely lame. Directing and editing are absolutely pathetic, overall and in minor details. Even make-up is not on-par with FOTR and TTT, reusing some mutant from Total Recall for an orc chieftain instead of lifelike Moria orcs and Uruk-Hai in FOTR and Mordor and Isengard orcs in TTT. Special effects are everywhere, but the quality is truly pathetic. Disneyesque phantoms, unbelievable miniatures (with blatantly obvious jumps from set filming to miniature and back several times), completely lame collapses of Minas Tirith's buildings hit by catapults (note to PJ: your are not filming an attack on flimsy movie sets, you are filming an attack on a mighty Gondor fortress).

The film clumsily borrows from Star Wars, Terminator, Aliens, etc., instead of creating its own visual style like it was done in FOTR. Even more blatant are the rip-offs from TTT - countless scenes, dialogs and whole episodes look like they have been taken straight from TTT with only a little modification (like superimposing the same footage on a different background - compare the HD and MT Rohirrim attacks, Gimli and horn vs. Pippin and beacons, etc., etc.). There are many extremely cheap and overused shots, the beacon sequence is crap (there is no sense of direction, it is unrealistic). There are simply to many faults in this movie to list them here, on average I flinched about once per minute, witnessing yet another wild story change, lame dialog or poor performance.

There are some good parts, but they are few and far between. If you are a sheep or have other reasons to believe that PJ is god and his movies are gospel, watch the film suppressing your disgust. Otherwise don't expect much from it, a few laughs at the ridiculousness of the movie at most. If you love the books and don't enjoy pointless and stupid plot (and character) changes, avoid this one. Watch FOTR EE again instead.

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)

You will probably like it... though it doesn't deserve it.

[1/10 · 20 August 2003]

Disclaimer: I saw a moderately crappy cam-version with a crappy dub (50% translation, 50% own creation).

Most people seem to enjoy this flick and I guess that chances are that you will too. I saw it (better to say some parts of it) yesterday and to say I was disappointed is to say nothing. After about one hour my dad said he can't bear it anymore and walked out. I followed him, but later returned, since I had to kill time somehow. My mother and 19 y.o. sister moderately enjoyed it (or may be just thought it would get better), but after less than two hours said they will watch it sometime later (read 'never') and stopped it.

Well, my impression was that the movie was pretty stupid and cliche. May be not the worst script, but nothing to write home about. The acting was either over the top (Johnny Depp) or bland and boring (everyone else). There might have been some brilliant special effects that I missed on the cam-copy, but I doubt it. There was hardly any sea worth looking at, and everything else was taken out of the Hollywood library of generic effects.

If you have nothing better to do, see it on the big screen, may be it will look cool (it probably won't). Don't pay much for the tickets, though.

Microcosmos (1996)

I knew it was unbelievable, but I didn't expect it to be THAT good

[10/10 · 29 June 2003]

I saw the Winged Migration before this one and I though that was the most beautiful and amazing films ever made. I never though I would be proved wrong soon. Microcosmos has everything Winged Migration has, such as amazing cinematography, beautiful music and the best studio ever, our planet, it also has something more - the whole new world to show that most people don't realise exists. "Look at your feet, this funny world." starts the beautiful song while the opening credits roll and we are treated to a beautiful flight through the clouds. The camera pans down, to the forest and then lower still. Thus starts the most amazing journey you ever saw on film and for the next hour you can't take your eyes of the screen.

Palm trees, anakondas, space aliens... Grass and insects actully, but shown in the way you never thought possible. Who would have known that the sight of two snails making tender love is so cute and lovely, that spiders are so scary, dung-beetles are so funny and waterdrops so heavy? Watch how grass grows, flowers open in the morning, insects eat plants, plants eat insects, insects make love to other insects, plants and vice versa, chrysalis change into butterfly, etc., etc. And did I mention tender snail lovemaking? :)

There is whole new world under our feet. Everything so small and so amazingly beautiful at the same time. Don't let it stay unnoticed. Go and watch this film immediately (and see Winged Migration as well).

Final Destination 2 (2003)

A solid thriller

[9/10 · 6 June 2003]

The film is good. Unlike the Final Destination, there is actually a story (and pretty decent one), nicely tied to the events in the first film. There isn't much character development, but then the film's point is different, it is to show the omnipresence of death and the characters' encounters with it. And it does that brilliantly. Especially the "encounters". Death scenes are very scary and very impressive. The opening episode is amazing. To imagine the quality and intensity of the action, think about action scenes in the Matrix: Reloaded (like Burly Brawl), only with people dying.

Even more impressive is tension build-up in several other episodes. The film frightens us most by showing how close are people to death in everyday life. The gas station episode shows it best. Cars narrowly miss each other, a man drops a gas-cylinder, dogs strain at leads. In that moment it is scary to see just a man fixing a lamp. Death is always around the corner, is always waiting for us to make a mistake. You can't help but think (half-seriously, but nevertheless) about miriads of small mistakes you make every day. Dropping a knife into the drawer, looking for the light-switch in the dark, holding a sharp object close to your face. Plain scary. And that even without mistakes made by others that can kill you just as well. Boo! :)

Most of the film is downright scary, but there are few darkly humorous scenes. These scenes(only a few, mind you) didn't improve the film, but didn't harm it either. One may like or dislike it, but this is a valid writer's/director's creative choice and we just have to accept it.

S P O I L E R: (Minor) I personally think that every lift (elevator) must have photoelectric cells in the doors (that prevent them from closing if something is there) and a big red stop button on the panel that immediately stops the lift when pressed. I nearly lost my dog once THAT way, but that red button saved it. If the lift that you need to use doesn't meet these standards of safety, you might be better off using the stairs.

Finding Nemo (2003)

Not as good as it should have been

[6/10 · 3 June 2003]

This is not Monsters Inc. and, of course, not Shrek (by DreamWorks). Animation is excellent and leaves nothing to complain about, but the story is not that good. It feels very disjointed and fragmentary, you don't really feel the flow (despite it being set in the ocean). Often it is too predictable (I know, it's not a thriller, but still you can make it somewhat original and surprising sometimes) and during some moments even boring. There is not really much for adults in this film (like there was in Shrek), except for quite funny Memento-like Dora with her short-term memory loss, a couple forced semi-funny jokes, like "what's with men asking for direction" and supposedly funny "totally cool" turtle "dude".

I recommend renting it on DVD or cassette just to see the eye-candy (even a cam version would be enough) and that's all. It's not that special.

Winged Migration (2001)

It's perfect as it is

[10/10 · 28 May 2003]

To those people who complain about lack of story or narration. Have it ever occurred to you that the filmmakers were perfectly capable of adding a detailed commentary. But this film is not you usual Animal Planet documentary. Don't you see that "This is a penguin. It lives here and there. It is blah-blah-blah. Now this penguin does this and that" would be completely incongruous in this film. This is a work of art, not a popular science documentary. And complaining about lack of story is the same as complaining that there are no car chases or sex scenes. Well, let me tell you, this is just a different film. If you want action, you will not get much, but it as stupid to complain about that as about the lack of spaceships in LOTR. There are only about 60 lines of narration, but that is more than enough. The story is told through the most amazing cinematography ever, through the beauty of the birds and the nature. If you want words, just go and read a book.

Winged Migration (2001)

One hour of WOW! plus 30 minutes of OMFG!

[10/10 · 28 May 2003]

This is amazing, unbelievable and totally unreal. This is THE MOVIE, the perfect film, probably the best film I ever saw. Every shot in the film is beautiful and magnificent, half of it is amazing and about 15 minutes are so breathtaking and jawdropping that they leave you totally speechless. It had extremely cute, tender and touching moments, it had genuinely scary and sad moments, but for an hour and a half, I remained glued to the screen, amazed by the neverending beauty of this film. 10/10

And well, the soundtrack complements the cinematography perfectly.

Over the shifting desert plains, Across mountains all in flames. Through howling winds and driving rains, To be by your side.

For I know one thing, Love comes on a wing, For tonight I will be by your side, But tomorrow I will fly.

The Animatrix (2003)

Something for everyone

[8 May 2003]

Well, it was quite simple to make the best animation ever by making it of 8 completely different parts. The style, the genre, the plot, the feeling of every part is so different that every person is going to love at least one of the stories. So overall it makes the Animatrix better than any other animation. :)

Final Flight of The Osiris has the best CGI-animation that I ever seen, which is not surprising, since it's made by the creators of the Final Fantasy. Beyond has a truly beautiful story and great animation. Matriculated has the best visual representation of virtual reality. All the rest, Detective story in particular, have excellent animation and compliment well to the Matrix universe.

A Clockwork Orange (1971)

Overrated, pointless (today) and silly

[3/10 · 6 May 2003]

Everyone seems to like this movie so much. But I honestly think that people just like to put their own thoughts and ideas into this film and imagine that was Kubrick's genius.

The points of the movie might have been revelations 30 years ago, but now there is nothing original and relevant in this film. There is really no message in this movie. An invitation to think? May be, but do you really need an invitation for that?

The quality of the filmmaking itself is crappy, honestly. The acting is uneven and sometimes extremely unrealistic. Nothing special about camerawork, sets, sound or music (of course, it's Bethoveen, but they could have put any classic music there, so Kubrick doesn't get any credit). And the movie is tooooooooo sloooooooow for the modern tastes.

One thing was quite good - directing. Too bad that Kubrick's talent was wasted, because all the components were crap.

And everything is extremely silly, from the opening shots, to the use of Russian words without any apparent purpose, to the manners of the people, to overacting by practically everyone (I felt embarrassed for practically every character :]).

Equilibrium (2002)

This is not a rip-off

[9/10 · 28 April 2003]

Note: the following review intentionally does not compare Equilibrium with other movies.

I am already tired of people saying that Equilibrium is like "Movie A" combined with "Movie B". Stop that now! It makes a really wrong impression. Equilibrium is as original as any other movie out there. It managed to show the dystopian world that might be the most believable and realistic ever filmed. The story has enough surprising twists, even though it's one of the oldest stories - "good guy against the bad guys". The cinematography is very good and the fighting scenes, especially in the more action-heavy second part of the movie, are breathtaking. John Preston, played by Christian Bale is excellent. For some reason he reminded me about Prince Corwin from Amber Chronicles - deadly, badass, but extremely stylish and dedicated in his every move and action.

Go and see this movie for its own merits, not because it is "Movie C" action + "Movie D" plot.

Psycho (1998)

Judged on its own merits, this is an excellent suspense/horror film

[8/10 · 23 January 2003]

I have never seen the Hitchcock's version. I didn't even knew that he was the director of the original. I just saw Psycho in the IMDB top250 and downloaded it. Turned out to be the 1998 version. So I watched it without any prejudice at all.

It was creepy. It was scary. Several times I really thought about stopping watching it, because it was so scary. :-) I enjoyed every minute and every second of this film. It was simply great.

Now to all who whines about this being a lame rip-off. I know how you all feel. I feel the same about recently released The Two Towers compared with the book. I understand that the original Psycho might be infinitely better. May be. But why don't you just forget about the original for a second and rate this new film for what it is. I would give it 8/10 at least. It's an excellent horror movie, without any glaring mistakes. It is truly scary. What more do you want?

The characters were believable, the acting was good. I had absolutely no problem whatsoever with it being shot in colour. I think that is ridiculous to claim that just because it is in colour, it is immediately worse than the B/W original. Come on!

And once again. Be objective! Or try to be objective. At least pretend to be trying... THIS IS NOT A BAD MOVIE. May be it not the Mona Lisa of movies, but this is a REALLY DAMN GOOD film. The fact that it is a copy doesn't make it bad. The fact that it is a shot by shot remake doesn't make it bad. Judge the film for what it's worth. And this film is worth at least 8 out of 10.

The Andromeda Strain (1971)

The finest example of how to make science-fiction movies

[8/10 · 23 December 2002]

The Andromeda Strain is virtually perfect. And it doesn't need the special effects of Alien to succeed in telling the similar story of alien life and our contact with it. The movie is captivating right from the starting credits that introduce us to story. Of course, the director had a brilliant novel of Michael Crichton, but he also did his best to bring this novel to the screen sacrificing neither the main idea, nor the minor details. Actually, all the details that mark every scientific thriller by Crichton are there in the film. The Andromeda Strain doesn't have any dinosaurs, it only has a small virus, but overall it is a much better film than any of the Jurassic Parks. And it succeeds in telling us a great story about science much better than some modern CGI-filled movies like Invisible Man.

Finally, the acting is flawless, the actors are great, sets are excellent. If you want to see a great sci-fi movie, choose this one and you want be disappointed.

The Black Hole (1979)

Any point that was there is lost after 20+ years

[4/10 · 22 December 2002]

This movie never was very popular to begin with. And so it is never going to be. The effects can't compare to 2001 or Star Wars. The characters have become cliche - we've seen that many times now. Add to this the lacking character development.

The photography in general is decent, but that doesn't help, since stunts and special effects look extremely dated and poor today. And the "sci" part of this sci-fi movie is as bad as in Armageddon.

On the positive side, there are no stupid jokes. Also the script and the story are quite decent, but unfortunately that doesn't really help much. All in all, there remains no reason to see this movie today, unless of course, you are a fan of cheesy sci-fi from the 1970s. I haven't paid anything for it, but I still feel robbed of 90 minutes of my life.