Change Your Image
mullaryn
Reviews
Obyknovennoe chudo (1965)
Strange but beautiful
Watching this film may be difficult for many people. For starters, if you don't know Russian, don't bother watching it. A translation would kill this film. And even if you do, you need patience to finish this movie, which is long and doesn't have a lot of action in it. But if you do get to the end, I doubt it's possible not to like this movie. It's one of the best love stories I've ever seen. It's wildly original and at the same time very mesmerizing and sometimes even hypnotic.
The best things in this film are the actors, and everything hands on them. In 1964, there was no CGI, no fancy advanced cameras, certainly not in Russia. So the visual part of this film is not impressive, although it is amazing at conveying the quiet, soulful mode of the film. But the actors here are so brilliant that (assuming you have gotten through the first 5 minutes) they will hold your attention to the very end of the film. The dialogues, the half-glances, all the minute changes in their expressions speak volumes, and that is what the entire film is based on.
This film would be very difficult for anyone that doesn't understand Russian to watch. But in my opinion, it would be well worth learning the language simply to watch this movie, because it is one of the best Russian movies made, and one of the best I've ever seen.
How to Train Your Dragon (2010)
Everything I look for in an animation comedy is here.
I didn't bother to watch this movie when it first appeared because I thought they made another 'Lilo and Stitch' out of it. At least, that's what it looked like from the trailers. I probably wouldn't have seen it for some time yet unless I hadn't been on a trans-Atlantic flight and had nothing better to do than watch a movie.
Although I was watching it on a 4 by 6 screen with crappy sound, I have rarely enjoyed myself as much as I had with 'How to train your dragons'. Because it has just about everything I look for in an animated film: Funny. This film, unlike many, manages to avoid toilet and slapstick humor entirely, and that is already a huge plus, rare as that is. But the jokes that are in the movie slot into place so naturally, and are so well timed that I don't know of anyone who could watch this with a straight face for more than five minutes. The humor has something in it for everyone: visual gags, puns, word play, allusions... all but the aforementioned toilet/slapstick humor.
Clever. Surprisingly enough, this movie is actually original. I don't remember any other movies with a plot even similar (Eragon does not even come close) to this one. Does the movie completely avoid cliché situations and is it completely unpredictable? No. But the clichés are few and extremely well done at that, and of course it's predictable. It is supposed to be that way. You know what the ending will be like. But at the same time, there are many interesting twists thrown into the plot, what's predictable is cocooned in humor and even some self-irony, and even the ending has a slight surprise which I have never seen before in any movie.
Visuals. If I can be immersed in this movie on a 4 by 6 screen, I can imagine how it would've been to watch this on a theater-sized screen. Mind-blowing would not begin to cover it, especially in 3-d.
Should you watch this? Oh, definitely. Bring everyone you know along as well, because I don't know anyone who would not be at the very least mildly entertained by this movie. It's not my favorite movie, but it's definitely in my top 20 or so. For a very good reason.
Smokin' Aces (2006)
Thoroughly enjoyable, though not without it's problems.
I've read and heard many criticisms of this movie. Most people complain that there are too many plot threads which go nowhere, have nothing to do with the plot, or that are not explained. A lot of people complain that the movie is drawn out and that the ending is very cheesy and weak. I will not agree with these people. I think that Smokin' Aces is one of the most enjoyable action films I have ever seen. It is not ingenious, or a classic, but it provides a lot more entertainment than most action flicks do, and it avoids total idiocy.
The best thing about this movie, I find, are the characters. When I first saw this, I thought that this was the work of Guy Ritchie. There was the same wry humor in it, the same multitude of characters whose stories intersect and twist towards the end. Of course, the characters are less deep than Guy Ritchie's works, and this movie sometimes descends to really banal and frankly boring jokes and puns, but this would pass as a really good imitation of Ritchie's works. Almost every character, however little he is on screen, is just great. I think the FBI agents could have been a little more lively and developed, but on the other hand they are more than made up for by the Tremor brothers (the most I've laughed in months was when they were being introduced), the two female hit'men', and the little kid on extreme drugs (One of the only instances of drug use in movies which I found truly hilarious).
As for the ending being cheesy, allow me to disagree. It's not exactly in the style of the rest of the movie, but it has it's own charm in that it is interesting, far from stupid, and fairly good at explaining the rest of the movie's plot. Could it have been done better? Oh certainly yes. But what they have now is not bad at all.
Should you watch this? Yes. It is a great action comedy, and unlike most movies in that genre, it actually manages to mix sense with strange and action-prone situations (That could have come out better, I know.) I give it a 7.8/10.
Warehouse 13 (2009)
Surprisingly good
Ever since 'LOST' came out on Sci-Fi, I hadn't really seen anything good, movies or series, on TV. Then, I started coming across ads for 'Warehouse 13' on just about every channel. I was annoyed enough by these ads to resolve to watch it scornfully and get it out of my mind.
Even though I sat down to watch it with an unfavorable preconception in my mind, I was impressed by 'Warehouse 13'. It is very well made, just the right balance of mysticism, drama, humor, and action. The acting is not epic, but it is much better than expected, and for once the humor seems quite natural, as if the actors just come up with the little jokes on the spot. Best of all, there is no stupidity in 'Warehouse 13', even though it is a sci-fi (most other series tend to use sci-fi as an excuse to put in random aliens, miscellaneous explosions, weird magical effects, and a load of other ****). The plot, while (probably) impossible, is very cohesive in itself and holds together no matter where you look.
Of course, this is just the beginning of the series, so I could be in for a disappointment and see it go downhill. But if the rest of the series continue the way it's been going so far, I will be amply entertained for the remainder of the year. Should you watch it? Hmm... yes. It's worth making a special effort to find it on the sci-fi channel or rent it when the DVD's come out.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
Pleasantly surprised
I was very pleased with the way the series has continued with 'Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince'. After the (in my opinion) miserable almost-failures that the fourth and fifth films were, I expected no better of the sixth. But the sixth movie is energetic, funny, coherent, and actually sticks to the book fairly well. There are, however some deficiencies, so let me get those out of the way first.
The first is the plot. I understand that it is impossible to make a 2.5 hour movie relay a 700 page novel accurately, but at the same time, the film left out some major events which would've not only increased the effectiveness of the film, but also contained some key points. Particularly at the end. In the novel, Dumbledore stuns Harry so that he can't interfere with his death, which is a crucial point in the novel. Also, there was a huge fight just below the top of the tower, which would've a) looked awesome on-screen, and b) also been pretty important in the novel. Also, the whole love theme, which was the funniest part of the novel and also fairly interesting, was relayed somewhat skimpily here.
Dumbledore's funeral and in particular the character of Rufus Scrimgeour (yes, I can spell that correctly without looking.) were completely left out. This was extremely important in the novel, as it set relations between Harry and Scrimgeour. Once again, I understand that it is impossible to get every single detail into a 2.5 hour movie, but these aren't small details. And Jim Broadbent as Horace Slughorn... well, Broadbent is an excellent actor and he played Slughorn great, but personally, I think that that was a miscasting. Slughorn by the novel was an extremely fat, boisterous man with a gruff voice. Here, Slughorn isn't really fat, is very tall, and has a rather reedy voice.
Now to the good points. Rarely, all of the acting in a movie is great, and this is one of those occasions. Every character was played exceedingly well, particularly Alan Rickman as Severus Snape and the two boys who played Tom Riddle. Both of them somehow managed to project something very sinister onto the screen, that made your skin creep a little. As for Rickman, he was unpleasant, reserved, emotionless apart from occasional frustration or malice, and arrogant: precisely what Prof. Snape was in the series.
The movie looks great. There weren't actually that many special effects in the movie, which was what might have spoiled the fourth one. In the fourth movie, the directors went for the blow-away look and neglected everything else. Here, the work was more balanced, and as a result, an extremely decent movie emerges.
I'd give it... a 7.2/10 Should you watch it? Well, just about everyone else is going to. Jump on the bandwagon, and actually, it's worth it, because this is a very nice movie, and a great way to spend the time. But if you haven't read the novel yet, I suggest just going on sparknotes or something, because there are some plot twists that you might not get if you haven't read the books (but who hasn't, by now?).
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)
Incredibly good looking bull.
It would appear as though the rule of the sequels still prevails: the first movie will be better than the second, which will be better than the third, etc. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen has not broken out of that pattern at least.
What makes the second movie worse than the first one? Mainly, the plot. In the first movie, the plot, while a complete sci-fi, was at least gripping and made sense. In the second one, the plot fell into the fairy tale like areas, with secrets, resurrections (3 of them, by my count), magic-like stuff under the guise of technology... bull. Complete and utter bull. And the resurrection at the end... was lame (yeah, that's what the Romans said. :-)). Seriously, even I could've found a better way to return Sam Witwicky.
The acting was worse in this movie too. Megan Fox and Shia Labeouf were a lot more energetic, funny, and believable in the first movie. Now they aren't horrible, but they don't have that same spark anymore. The humor is a little strained, the terror and tragedies a little fake... a little worse, here and there. The rest of the acting was... eh. The only really bright spots I saw in this movie were John Turturro and the guy who voiced the old airplane-transformer (I don't remember the name in the movie, therefore can't find the actor.) The rest of the acting had no absolutely horrible spots, but no great ones either.
Overall, the movie had some great spots (breaking into the museum, mommy on drugs) and some horrible ones (the aforementioned resurrection). But two things it had throughout and that was how it looked and it's energy. It is a non-stop adrenaline rush from beginning to end, and as for how it was made... it would blow you away even on a small screen. The film doesn't stop moving. There's always something being blown up, shot, hit, crushed, blown up again, etc.
Should you watch it? Yes. It's worth it for the energy and the special effects. But if you do not watch it... well, you're not missing much. 5.2/10
I heard that there is a 3rd one coming out... don't know if I'm going to watch it. Rule of the sequels...
The Dark Knight (2008)
Kind of mediocre, but with astounding redeeming qualities.
The Dark Knight is pretty much an average action flick. The standard 'almost-all-powerful-bad-guy', the 'all-powerful' good guy with friends, romance, rivalry, friendship, pathos, sob-stories, etc... The plot is really quite mediocre, but this is made up for by several things.
One of these is the way the movie looks. The movie is alive with special effects, stunning views, constant movements, some slow motion 'cool' takes, pyrotechnical effects, and more. The movie is more than two hours long, and yet it is constantly in motion, something is constantly going off in a spectacular explosion or a wonderful car crash. Not once during these 2 hours was I bored or inattentive.
The acting. The acting in this movie was superb, with two exceptions. Christian Bale... well, I can't say anything special there. He is a good actor, but somewhat uniform. His acting is almost the same in every movie. Michael Cain and Morgan Freeman were more rewarding, and I think that Harvey Dent is Aaron Eckhart's best role yet. Maggie Gyllenhaal was not bad, but a few times she was... unconvincing. There was something not quite right about her playing, either it was too dramatic or a bit weak. But good overall.
Gary Oldman was a disappointment. He obviously tries, but his James Gordon is unconvincing, overly dramatic, and weak. The final lines (a very cheesy little monologue meant to inspire) would've been so much better delivered by any other actor (except Ben Affleck). And this is the same Gary Oldman who played Zorg in 'The Fifth Element'...
The other exception is Heath Ledger as the joker. His acting is not superb, it is above. His Joker is the epitome of deranged, malevolent genius, and every single scene with the joker should be watched again and again and again. Heath Ledger as the Joker has become an iconic role, similar to Johnny Depp as captain Jack Sparrow and Kevin Spacey as 'Verbal' Kint. Heath Ledger truly died at the peak of his career. (I really did watch the scenes with the Joker several times, over and over again).
In short. The Dark Knight rates a 5 without the Joker, a 7 with. A weak and foolish plot line is masked by a very glamorous and advanced look and great (for the most part) acting. Should you watch it? Yes. Once or twice. Except for the scenes with the Joker. Watch those several times.
PS. (Kind of a spoiler) The situation with the two ships is Utopian and unrealistic. In real life, both buttons would've been pressed within 2 minutes, 3 minutes tops.
Three Days of the Condor (1975)
Mystery/Action/Politics/Intellect/Drama
This film is definitely one worth watching by anyone. It boasts a great cast, incredible acting, a suspenseful, intelligent, and coherent plot, and is probably one of the highest points in Sidney Pollack's career.
The plot focuses on a low-level CIA agent by the name of Joseph Turner, who basically reads books and compiles reports. What exactly this accomplishes is never specified: perhaps Turner is looking for CIA leaks and accidental revealing of techniques... whatever.
Turner's life turns upside-down when he sends one of his usual reports to his superiors, and then goes out to lunch. When he returns, he finds that all 6 of his colleagues have been murdered and the office in shambles. Now Turner does not know who to trust (when he attempts to trust the CIA, it costs the life of one of his best friends, and his superior tries to kill him. Pleasant), and has only two advantages. One of these is the fact that his voracious reading has given him a large array of amateur tricks which actually work against the government agency. The other is the help of a random woman that he, in desperation, kidnapped from the street and later began a romantic relationship with.
The whole movie focuses on how Turner attempts to find out what is going on. While in itself, this is far from a prize-winning subject, it is presented in a way which makes the viewer pay attention throughout the 1.5 hour + movie. True, there are some slight gaps in the plot, there are a few boring points, but they are more than redeemed by Redford, Dunaway, and Von Sydow's acting, the intellectual turns the plot takes, and (for me) the final talk between Joubert and Turner.
Is this movie worth watching? As said before, yes. This movie is witty, enthralling, and should be afforded the title of 'Classic'. 8/10
Van Helsing (2004)
The mad adrenaline and non-stop action makes up for the at best weak plot.
I'm not certain why so many people hated this movie. I think it's because they expected something fantastic, Oscar-material, CGI laden action with deep philosophical ruminations, etc...
No. Van Helsing isn't like that. The plot is at it's very best weak, there are obvious stupidities, and the acting, while not at all bad, is really unremarkable. But Van Helsing makes up for it by having boundless energy. The movie doesn't stop for one moment, piling acting upon action upon action sequences. All of that stuff about automatic crossbows, miniature bombs, and life-experiments... that's all bull. Of course it is. But it looks extremely good on screen, so just accept it and enjoy the fast-paced action.
The acting... well, varied. Princess Anna was quite unconvincing to me. Too much pathos and drama, not enough regality (although again, that's just my opinion). Van Helsing, Carl, and Velkan were all on the level, convincing, and sometimes even very good (I particularly like that little line after Van Helsing shoots quite a few baby vampires. 'Now that I have your attention'.) Count Dracula was quite brilliant, and I believe that is the best role of vampire/scientist gone mad I have seen. His evil is believable, and his manner of speech is perfect for the role: a bit drawling, aloof, mocking. Best of all, he actually LOOKS the part. He is quite tall, equine, and there is the mark of those graced with aristocratic disregard for human life.
Should you watch Van Helsing? Sure. But not if you need a quiet night in. Gather around with some friends, watch it on a big screen with good surround sound.
7/10
Prêt-à-porter (1994)
Not half as bad as people say.
I was surprised to hear such malignant commentaries from those who have watched this film. Granted, it is not done in Altman's usual style, and may seem vague or shallow to some, but I believe that this is a misconception. The characters... some are rather undeveloped, but I have a hunch that this is on purpose. 2 hours is not enough to form a picture of a person, and so I think Altman made them so undeveloped because these are, when all is said and done, regular people. A large amount of correspondents, a few model designers, a bit of these, a few of those... the only character which seemed foolishly vague in my opinion was the Communist Italian. Apart from that, I only saw people that I would see on the street, or on some show, or some that I wouldn't see at all, that merely write stories which others publish and get credited for.
The theme of fashion design seems to be quite irrelevant here, or rather, it serves as the backdrop for an array of the aforementioned characters. Who cares about a fashion show when such drama is going on? Who cares who designed what dress when a mischievous Irishman is so irreverently teasing famous personages in such a hilarious manner? Who cares what outfit was voted best when two complete strangers are trying to sort out the mess their arrival was? All in all, I believe that this movie fits comfortably among Altman's successes. The story is gripping, logical, and possesses a vivid array of characters reminiscent of Guy Ritchie's films (yes, not exactly chronically correct: Guy Ritchie came later, but I just wanted to make the image.), and funny. An enjoyment from beginning to end.
Tropic Thunder (2008)
Gripping, funny, fast-paced.
Tropic Thunder: (n) A Ben Stiller film starring himself, Robert Downey Jr. and Jack Black. Intended to spoof all war films ever made and entertain all viewers. Contains disturbing images and thematic moments, including rough humor and sexual references. Unique in starting out in a series of bogus trailers introducing the main characters (many viewers actually went to rent the movies advertised). A very controversial film, it was blasted by some for making a mockery out of war and veterans, and praised by some who focused more sensibly on it's ridiculous side.
All in all, Tropic Thunder was a very good movie. If anyone lost a relative during the Vietnam war, possibly it's best that you don't watch this, though. This movie does spoof veterans and the war in general, so you might be outraged. Otherwise, this movie is a fairly successful comedy in the style of 'Top Secret': spoof everything in sight.
The acting was astoundingly good. Robert Downey Jr. in particular must be noted for his portrayal of a foul-mouthed but intelligent African-American Platoon Sergeant. (His accent is another spoofing the movie... anyone see it?) Also, Jack Black in the role of an addicted actor with a successful 'Fatty' franchise (pretty self-explanatory) was hilarious. His line 'OOOHH, I f***ing hate movies!' was improv, and so were the more witty conversations. Brandon T. Jackson was also a gem in this movie, contributing non-stop laughs in the campfire scene and the confrontation with Osiris. Ben Stiller, while not as outstanding as the others, was very convincing as a rather perfectionist and thick-skulled actor.
The theme itself is quite unique (I only saw the theme of actors in a real life situation in one movie: 'the man who knew too little', which. by the way, was a great comedy), and the directors are quite adept in making the most of it. Tropic Thunder is indeed a good start to the new year (yes, I know it came out last year, I only watched it today.)
PS: watch the movie with commentary later. it's like another comedy in itself: the Black-Stiller-Downey Jr.-Baruchel quartet is hilarious! Should you watch this movie? Definitely. But get ready for a lot of swearing and rough humor.
Eagle Eye (2008)
Weak. Looks slick and seductive, but it's weak.
Right away I would like to note the striking resemblance of EE to I Robot. The same demented supercomputer, the same controlling antics... etc. But if I Robot at least was enjoyable, then EE ripped off a LOT of films to create... well, a lot of not too hot air. I wouldn't say that Eagle Eye is an absolute failure, but it comes quite close...
There are glaring idiocies in the movie itself. You cannot expect me to buy into reading audio via the vibrations in a coffee cup caused by a cell phone on the desk. Unless you're on some type of exotic herbage, the level of control that the computer Aria has is ridiculous and not-so funny bull. The security in the capital is beyond all description. A security guard within 50 yards of his president doesn't open fire on a man with a gun that's running right at him? Please...
The acting is quite unremarkable. I am not saying that LaBeouf and Monaghan should be drawn, hung, and quartered (optional order), but neither am I saying that their acting was any more than... gray. They were at times boring, and times mildly amusing... average. The movie neither suffered nor benefited from the actors.
The movie was filmed quite well. Nice special effects, realistic incendiary effects, all that jazz.
The idea itself actually wasn't too bad... with a much better plot line and some coherence (and possibly better acting), this would've rated a 7 on my personal scale. Eagle Eye is worth watching maybe once, but not too closely. Either just put it on while working in the kitchen, or disregard common sense and logic. Enjoy it, but... well... if you're after a thriller or something such, take 'The Usual Suspects' or 'The Thing'. Eagle Eye is weak.
Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)
Something to remember when you're into your second century.
The theme of pirates is a very common one in movie-making. There hasn't been a high enough level of mathematics invented yet to number the pirate cartoons made. Several of the 'immortal' classics such as 'Treasure Island' are about pirates. And of course, Hollywood has it's share in the pirate stories: 'Cutthroat Island' (I don't know why it flopped), 'Treasure Island', and variants have all graced or disgraced our screens for decades. And then this...
I truly think that pirate movies aren't going to get better than POTC. The plot is original, surprising, and impossibly dynamic, the humor fresh and unforced, the filming absolutely stunning, and the acting thorough and enjoyable. Watching Jack Sparrow (by the way, the entire image of Jack Sparrow was left up to Johnny Depp. I can't imagine how it could've turned out better) clamber, sway, and in extreme cases fall through trembling holds, cages, and rigging was something that I know I will look back upon in about twenty years with just as much relish as I do now. The brilliant dynamic created by the sarcastic, irreverent Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) and the uber-eccentric, hilarious, infinitely scheming Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) is something that cannot accurately be described by anyone on this earth. Add to that some semi-peripheral roles that only enhance the humor and action, and you get a masterpiece.
The sets were filmed on location using real ships (well... 2/3 real ships), real ocean, real islands, and a specially constructed real fort, giving this movie an authenticity that serves to endear it even more.
There is something in this movie that will appeal to anyone: action lovers, wisecracks, the romantic souls, those that like to tickle their nerves with semi-scary images, the thinkers, ANYONE. Should you watch this movie? Of course! And bring the kids along too... the skeletons and such, they're not even really scary. The whole movie is almost like a story, in fact. A very fast-paced, engrossing, exciting, and profound story.
Get Smart (2008)
Towers above the rest of 2008's comedies.
I was very pleasantly surprised by this film. I expected yet another comedy trying either to parody every single movie ever made or a rather dull comedy on the level of 'Fat man slips on banana peel, falls face-first into cake.' However, 'Get Smart' turned out to be a very entertaining, mild, amiable comedy which was a pleasure to watch and is just as good the next ten times you watch it.
The idea itself is quite common: nuclear standoff, secret agency, unlikely hero, attractive heroine... But after that, the originality of 'Get Smart' begins. The hero is a quite difficult balance of clumsy and adept, and the heroine is not without flaws. Most of the jokes are quite fresh and at least mildly amusing, and even things which normally are crude and make you squirm at the pathetic attempt at humor (such as bare buttocks and references to genitalia) are, for the most part, done very well. Again, there are few such moments in this film. Although there are some... doubtful moments, they are eclipsed by the rest of the film.
The movie itself is very dynamic and clear, but that is not what made me like this movie. The acting (from my point of view) was fantastic. Each actor fit flawlessly into the role, and I for one will associate Steve Carell with Agent 86 for some time. Their delivery of the jokes is unstrained, unconstrained, and apt, and the rest of their roles resonate with emotion, laughter, and thought as well. Alan Arkin particularly stood out in this film in his semi-peripheral but hilarious role as 'The Chief'.
One note: one of the things that really stood out for me is the Russian dialogues. Unlike most films, the director of 'Get Smart' actually used actors who speak fluent Russian, and almost always translated flawlessly. The overly picayune will of course argue that some things are mistranslated and that oh my goodness the accent is wrong... but personally I applaud Segal for paying attention to a detail which others overlook (I speak and understand Russian, so hearing some gibberish on screen translated into English text quite ruins the moment for me).
Should you watch it? Yes. This is a very good comedy, the type that leaves you with a smile on your face at the end and that will have the viewer quoting lines from the movie for some time afterward. The action lover will be satisfied by a very well done car/airplane chase, jump out of an airplane, shootout in a bakery, and some other notable moments. The thinker will like the various little twists and turns the plot (deceptively simple) takes. This movie is definitely not a waste of time. At all.
Trainspotting (1996)
Profoundly irreverent, Crude, Ugly... I loved it!
I spent half the duration of this film with my eyebrow raised and occasionally wincing. This movie is rife with cursing, nudity, drug use, alcohol, disturbing images (that doesn't just mean dead bodies, although there is one in it) crudity, screaming, psychedelic flashes, crime, twisting minds, feces, pornography, knives, treachery, madness, blood, noise, you name it! The result is a movie which not only boasts incredible acting, but a tangible plot line, and a lesson that one can learn because it is immersed in such a vibrant and... eh, different plot.
Do not mistake this movie for something like 'Requiem for a dream'. This i s not a movie that intends to spread anti-drug propaganda. Nonetheless, that is exactly what we get out of this movie, after we see how revolted we are with the main characters, only two of whom are worth anything. In the main 5 characters, we have a drug-free, irreverent psycho with a temper to match Timur's. We have an addicted young man who tries to quit, but just can't get free of his dirty lifestyle and eventually betrays all of his friends in a scam. We have a not-quite right in the head junkie with weak bowel control (oddly enough, maybe the one most appealing character in the movie). We have a blonde addict with certain criminal tendencies and a dead baby on his mind. We have a semi-crazed addict who breaks up with his girlfriend because he lost a porno with their video in it and eventually resorts to eating cat feces (charming).
These five characters do things that would revolt the most twisted, demented incarcerate. One shoves drug-pills up his *** and then dives into a VERY clean toilet to get them (needless to say, this is sarcasm). One would fight/maim anything up to and including architecture. One...
Well, it's useless to describe the main characters and their actions. This is something that has to be seen to believed. But WARNING:...
This movie is not for the weak-stomached or perfectionists. Here, you will see what is possibly the worst of humanity in all of it's dirt, crudity, and viciousness. Here, you will hear cursing that would make a sailor stop chewing and cross himself (actually, only 'In Bruges' has more curse words per minute).
A triumph. 9/10
Mamma Mia! (2008)
Could be better, but not a total failure either
I have read many reviews that completely despise this film and I think that that is unfair. This film wasn't great, and it had so much potential that was foolishly squandered, but it was quite nice all the same.
I have heard several people refer to it as a 'girly' piece, and I, for the most part, agree. There seems to be two main characters and their respective story lines: a mother worrying about her daughters wedding and about the three guests, all of whom might be the father (it's a bit hard to explain), and the daughter trying to find out about her father. The mother has two friends (rather well played) who help her out in these situations while engaging in casual fun of their own while staying on the mother's island.
The acting was a mix of great and disappointing. Meryl Streep, contrary to popular opinion, can sing quite well, and her performance of 'The winner takes it all' was quite emotional and apt, albeit slightly mistranslated. The daughter (played by the rather charming Amanda Seyfried) sang quite well and gave across at times the energy of an already active young woman right before her wedding, and her desperation as things go wrong when she is trying to find out who her father is. The singing was actually one of the better parts in the movie, but I think that Pierce Brosnan, while being a fairly good actor, needs singing lessons.
Brosnan's singing was the largest flop in this movie. Apart from that, many would say that the plot is cheesy, the ending lame, and that the entire plot is simply an excuse to sing. I would agree with that, but the only really misplaced song I saw was 'Money, money, money', which was placed out of nowhere and had nothing to do with the plot. The plot is rather cheesy, and the ending was, if not lame, then lacking, but I believe that the movie doesn't need a magnificent plot or a mind-blowing ending. And the ABBA songs were changed quite a lot, but I had no complaints to the changes that were made (although they left out my personal favorite 'One of us'). Oh well.
All in all, a rather nice movie to watch when you have spare time. This is what got me re-interested in ABBA songs. I give Mamma Mia... 7.1. That's a 7.
The Pink Panther (2006)
Pretty good... not a chedevre, but not a flop either.
I am not entirely sure why this film has such a low rating on IMDb. It seems to me that some people simply might have been confused by the humor in this movie, because it covers such a wide range of humor types, from the physical humor to contextual to word plays and puns.
I never watched any of the originals nor prequels of the Pink Panther, and I must say that my opinion of this film is entirely uninfluenced. I think that this movie is quite nice. It's nice to sit down and enjoy with a few friends after a good dinner and laugh at it. The Pink Panther, I think, falls into the series of films which try to do what 'Top Secret', 'Airplane', and 'Hot Shots' mastered: put in so many jokes that even if only 10% of them are funny, you still get non-stop laughs.
The Pink Panther falls slightly short of this goal, but it still went pretty far towards achieving it. I wouldn't recommend watching the second one, though... generally the second movie in a series is far worse than the first: look at what happened to Shrek and the Mummy.
Overall, the Pink Panther gets a 6.3, rounded down to a 6.
Dark City (1998)
Surprisingly good. A more human-based Matrix
This movie surprised me. I read a brief plot summary for it, and was hesitant to watch it, because it seemed to me that I was in for another cheap action flick based on alien life forms and a plucky human hero who rises from the bottom blah blah blah...
After it ended, I was left with a pleasant sense of content. This movie was NOT a cheap action flick, and in fact carried even a somewhat worthy message. It was quite well done in terms of acting: this movie put Rufus Sewell and William Hurt on the map for me. Rufus Sewell played a confused and desperate hero who had no idea that he was a hero until it was either that or die. William Hurt plays an open-minded police detective who, in my opinion, feels that something is wrong in this bustling city of his.
The soundtrack to this film is quite appropriate. It is rather pointless, but fits the dark and at the same time fast-paced mood of the film well. The ending of this film, in my opinion, is a magnificent one, second only to 'Fight Club', 'The Truman Show', and 'The Thing'.
There were some places where the film could be better. I was kind of disappointed in the alien life-forms. They seemed a bit too... stiff. They could have been developed a bit more. Keifer Sutherland played the role of a VERY scared doctor well enough, but could've done better.
A solid 8/10.
National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation (1989)
They have the idea, but they haven't done it well enough.
This movie I saw at the recommendation of some of our friends. I respect their opinion, and so I sat down to watch it with high expectations.
It started out well. I laughed quite a bit at the ridiculousness of the jokes and the setup of the movie thus far. I quite liked the idea of an affectionate, but rather incompetent father. I think the part was very well played out, and up until the thirtieth minute or so, I had no complaints. However, after that, I began to get bored. Frankly, the jokes went from good to fake and cliché, and on some, I simply shook my head and wondered 'Who would find this funny?'
There were some moments in the later films that made me hope that the bad jokes were just a minor lapse, and the movie would get right back on track... but apart from these rare moments of shining, the rest of the movie seemed dull and uninteresting. The plot really is no big deal: it's quite common, the incompetent family bonding at Christmas, but this film got nowhere near the laughs and simultaneous seriousness that films like 'The Ref' achieved. This movie stands on it's jokes alone, and, frankly, they aren't that good.
It is not a horrible movie. I'll give this movie a 5.8 total. Round that up to a six. Watching this movie, you don't lose anything. But it's not that big of a deal, really.
The Thing (1982)
A certain classic
This film first caught my attention on the blockbuster shelf for a very strange reason: it had the only blue DVD case in a field of red tones. Just for the sake of it, I checked it out, and then watched it.
Before my eyes unfolded a magnificent story of fear, paranoia, and survival. John Carpenter has managed to make a perfect film: the suspense is beautifully created, ramped up sharply and yet not ridiculously, the blood doesn't run ahead of the plot, but doesn't fall behind either, and the effects are great! This is the type of film that proves that CGI is nothing compared to good old models and sets.
The acting deserves special mention. Kurt Russel was terrific in this film as a grim, rather solitary man with the quite apt name MacReady (kudos to Carpenter if he put that in on purpose). Hallahan, Brimley, and Carter are perfect as rather worn and rugged researchers and essential people on a small, isolated Antarctic station.
As for the Thing... well, it's beyond description. Robert Frost and Shakespeare himself would fall short of a satisfactory description of the Thing. You have to see it to believe it.
A definite 10/10. This film I rank as an equal to 'The Truman Show', meaning I would give it a 12 if I could. I have watched it numerous times, and I am glad that I have 40+ years to watch it again.
PS. I don't know why I found it in the Horror movie section... seems like an obvious Sci-Fi to me.
Mars Attacks! (1996)
Not the pantheon of movies, but OK
I found this movie amusing, and quite interesting, with pretty good acting... but somehow, I felt that it wasn't enough. I seemed to like it right up to the end, and after I switched off the player, I suddenly realized that I couldn't say what I liked about it. Come to think of it, I didn't really like it THAT much... This movie was nice. it had good jokes, Martians that were pathetically fake and yet shockingly believable, a nice if cliché plot line and even some pretty good effects (who would get tired of watching Las Vegas blown apart?). But somehow, this movie did not install the immersion that a really good movie guaranteed. While you were watching it, you could still feel that this was just a movie. I think this movie tried to do what 'Top Secret' and 'Hot Shots' mastered: being so saturated with jokes that even if 10% of them were good, you had almost non-stop laughs from them. But it failed in that respect. The jokes got quite lame after a while of watching, and you begin to get bored and maybe even not hit pause while you go fetch a glass of water.
The Million Dollar Hotel (2000)
One of the most underrated films I've ever seen.
When I looked up information on this film on various sites, it was heavily criticized, and so I decided not to watch it. However, my curiosity grew, and I once decided to put it in to the DVD drive. It exceeded all of my wildest expectations. The movie I saw was a subtle yet profound story of the losers of life. I loved how a random array of not-quite-right-in-the-brain, the drunk, and the just plain unlucky showed emotion that would make any of us collapse to the floor and have a fit. I loved how Mel Gibson managed to reveal beauty in the type of people referred to as gutter trash. I loved the eventual revelation that Tom-Tom really was the killer, and yet in a way that was so subtle that we cannot think of him as a killer. I love how a person who may even be revolting (unclean and mad) eventually endears us and makes us feel such compassion for him... Why did this film flop? Why does it have such a low rating? Granted, it's not the best film of all men and ages, but it definitely belongs in the top 50 of all time. Well, maybe top 100. WARNING: This is a rather queer film. At times, it may seem hard to follow, and it may seem like a waste of time. If you get this feeling, stop watching for now. Watch it again some other time. This film deserves your attention, but you have to feel and think on your own.