ivona021 Reviews

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

Ron Howard rules!!!

[9/10 · 4 June 2006]

I didn't like the book because I thought it was too long for what it had to say, and since reading of the book happens at the reader's pace, the puzzles weren't tough enough to appear difficult to a reader with a substantial mathematical knowledge at his own pace.

However the book did make me imagine the wonderful locations it goes through and I figured it was going to be a really good movie.

I read the critiques when the movie premiered - booing in Cannes, jokes about Tom Hanks' hair, Audrey Tautou's accent, incomprehensible dialogue, whatever. Some friends told me the book was better, some that they didn't like it and they didn't read the book, and fortunately, some told me that it was totally OK.

We saw it last night and we really liked it! I thought it could have been longer, and I wouldn't have even noticed it. The script was fine. Tom Hanks' hair is fine. Audrey's cute and intense, her accent does sound confusing in 2-3 lines but it is believable, and the rest is all fine. Everyone did a great job. I liked it how all the clues were highlighted and how they were passing through ghosts on the way to the Westminster Abbey; the flashbacks were clear and not overwhelming; I felt sorry for all the characters who were manipulated to do horrid things in the name of their faith, and the end of the movie offers the moral of the story much clearer than it was done in the book, and ... Yeah, I liked it very much.

There are 2-3 instances in the movie when the cut to what happens next was too fast, and I imagine the DVD will explain why some stuff was cut out -- probably to save some time, which they shouldn't have done.

And, unfortunately the sound was not crystal-clear which, given all the accents, in the audience full of popcorn and candy-chewing couch potatoes, for whom it is appealing to crack a difficult code fast without need to understand complex sentences, made it difficult to listen.

Sretno dijete (2003)

Nostalgic, musical documentary about youth cultural trends in late 70's/early 80's Yugoslavia

[10/10 · 2 May 2006]

Yugoslavia does not exist anymore. But the music from the partly repressed, partly happy times (late 70's and early 80's) still exists, and time has been very kind to it. And the people who made that music are now older, one foot in present, another in the past, some wiser, some changed. They are now scattered all over the world. This movie brings most of them back together, and realizes that the crucial piece of puzzle is now damaged, a ghost, but life, imperfect, goes on. It also brings back the feel of Zagreb (ahh, that attitude!), and to some extent Belgrade (ohh, more attitude!), of those times, their culture, dialects, language, teenage angst (Communist repressions vs. punk and alternative), a bit of an isolated, naive, even arrogant idealism, and a lot of self-confidence and passion to change the world for the better.

It is a wonderful trip back. Everyone in ex-Yu lands should watch it. It brings back the state of mind that most people had in early 80's -- the one just preceding the late 80's disbelief and denial that the advertised civil war could ever, ever really happen.

Braindead (1992)

So, this is how you finance a hobbit film! :-)

[8/10 · 1 April 2006]

I've seen this movie in 1993 or 1994... whenever it was that it came out. My friends, all guys, convinced me that a horror film was just what we needed that day. I really don't remember much but I do want to say this: We had a great gross-out fun, and are still sometimes making references to the insanely (I have to use 'insanely' since apparently, 'retardedly' isn't a word in English language) funny scenes -- we still remember the baby zombie, the zombie bloodbath party, and of course, the LAWNMOWER.

Why am I writing a review now? I just saw "Slither" -- this time the kids convinced me that a horror film is just what we needed today -- and I liked it but I immediately recalled and recommended "Dead Alive", which is slightly better I think.

So I came here, saw that Slither and Dead Alive have very similar rating (it isn't only me) and I was surprised to see that the director was Peter Jackson, of the LOTR / KK fame! Man!!! I sort of like P.J. better now that I know his horror history! Another recommendation if you like "Dead Alive" is, of course, "From Dusk Till Dawn".

Flirting with Disaster (1996)

fun, fun, fun!

[8/10 · 16 March 2005]

This movie is hilarious, and 8/10 is the average value of it, but you will extract a 10 out of it if you meet these criteria:

1) You're about 30 years old;

2) You're watching it with your same-sex buddies;

3) You've been to California and to New York;

4) You're allowed to smoke during the movie.

All of the actors are doing a great job, and I liked the dialog. I don't agree with other comments where the movie is described as going nowhere. The main character's journey makes a full circle, as he learns that there isn't anything to him which is missing after all just because he didn't know his real parents, that he wouldn't be who he already is had he grown with his real parents, that he's happy with himself after all, and... that he's been a schmuck.

While You Were Sleeping (1995)

Bullman & Pullock are treat gogether

[8/10 · 25 January 2005]

This is a very enjoyable movie from start to end. Even the cliché'd parts are cute. I might be childish but I do like the message -- dream men are sometimes very shallow and clueless, and their less charismatic, less perfect brothers (or friends or neighbors) are oftentimes much, much more inspiring once you get to know them. Fortunately for girls, the handsome clueless bunch usually spends a lot of time sleeping or otherwise misplacing or misdirecting their charms.

The movie relies on a silly premise that a good-natured lie won't be discovered, and when discovered, it won't be ridiculed. However, this premise is treated fairly. The viewer doesn't feel stupid, as the lead character, Lucy, has a silly idea which leads her to the silly lie; so it isn't only the audience who is duped -- the audience is just asked to engage in Lucy's silly idea, and explore it as if it was just a dream. And at the end, it's all good for real - since Lucy doesn't need her silly idea anymore, you feel relieved of the whole silly premise.

There is plenty of chemistry between lead characters which makes the romance believable.

Who is this movie for? Best fits people in their late 20's; boys might be interested if they like Sandra Bullock. She's adorable in the movie, very natural, seamless.

Storytelling (2001)

what to look for in a story?

[6/10 · 20 January 2005]

This movie consists of two parts which are related only by the director's attempt to make inverse points. Part 1 was called "fiction" and it was about 20 minutes long. Part 2 was called "nonfiction" and it was ... well, the rest of 70 minutes.

After seeing this movie, I understand why people usually make trilogies or omnibus films with three parts: for the same reason that major musical pieces have introduction, middle, and repeat (and an optional coda)-- the need to wrap-up... It isn't that we LEARNED to like the 3-part structures; but because with 2 points, you can only draw a line; for anything 3-dimensional, you need another point, a reference. If at least the first and the second part were of equal length, the movie would have been better, although it would have still felt like 2 movies. But at least you wouldn't feel that one story is less important than other. If the director felt that the second story was so much more important, why even bother with the first story? If the point of the director was exactly to trivialize the first story, he should have arranged his movie differently, because it doesn't flow well as a movie.

In "fiction", we learn that any nonfiction written as a story becomes fiction. The young author is not being true to herself out of confusion; she thinks she needs to be cool to write, and is trying way too hard; her insecurities are crushed by those same people she's trying to use to achieve coolness.

In "nonfiction", we see a guy who wanted to be an actor when he was a teenager, succeed in making a hit documentary about a boy who wants to be an actor; the documentary feels real but funny, while the boy's life is completely artificial. But I can't make a clear parallel with "fiction". Is it that any story drawn from a fiction is a non-fiction? Or is it that in this case simply life is unreal and story is real? Or am I too rational?

Exploitation of geeks and minorities in life and in art and of course their revenge is a key lite motif in this movie, as well as in other Solondz movies, I love the cynicism on the politically incorrect side. The heart of both stories is no matter how you write a story, people find in it what horrifies them the most - be careful what you write about, since you're writing for an audience, and the audience might not get it... or it might get something else out of it.

So there is a lot of wonderful acting, good cynicism, and all in all, a good potential in the material, my vote is only a 6 because the movie doesn't flow well, the parallels (conclusions) are unclear, and the third or concluding part is

Yeah, what??? Oh. Yes. It's missing.

Underground (1995)

It puts you right there, inside the circulus viciosus

[10/10 · 9 December 2003]

For anyone interested in Kusturica's work, this is my favorite. Don't get discouraged because it's set someplace you never traveled before... People are all alike. You'll recognize the patterns easily.

It tells a story how come a country which appeared to everyone inside as an uniquely ideal world (they aren't aware where they are) could abruptly dissolve in a really, really bloody war the moment that the outside interferes... And more then that: it lets you LIVE AND LEARN through this experience yourself! It tells what time heals, or can't heal. It tells a lot about people, and about powers of mass deception, and examines personal issues arising from such a condition. It talks about a different set of values, which can be understood only in a specific situation. It makes you understand the Balkans as well as any other region held together by a weird, claustrophobic mix of hundreds of years of love and war on a small piece of land, a thread so fragile that it would break if love gets any more removed from war then it ever was.

The sense of time in this movie is marvelously directed, and the reason it starts as an action flick but then at one point starts to drag towards the end is... because there is always, always a slowdown just before the next big boom/collapse; don't fight this feeling or you'll miss on the experience.

It is like the Truman Show without the Hollywood ending.

The movie is based on a play from Serbian master playwright, Dusan Kovacevic. Anything based on his plays is well worth the watching.

My Best Friend's Wedding (1997)

To get married, you must figure all of the following: ...

[10/10 · 8 December 2003]

I loved this movie from the beginning to the end.

The story is simple: two ex's-turned-good-friends vowed to get married to each other if everything else fails by the time they are a certain age. On Jules' birthday (Julia Roberts), what's-his-name calls (Dermot Mulroney), and leaves a message that he needs to urgently talk to her. Her heart suddenly starts beating although she almost forgot all about that deal for years, but she literally drops down when all he has to ask her was to be the maid of honor on his sudden wedding! She charges up, and with the support of her best friend George (Rupert Everett, wonderfully gay and handsome), she sets a goal to win the guy, Michael, from the bride in the last four days prior to wedding. But, the young, rich and beautiful bride Kimmy (Cameron Diaz) isn't naive - oh no! She fights back -- flatters Jules, plays up her phobias and sets her up for failure as much as Jules sets up her. She uses all the charm and all the info she got from Michael, since Michael still talked about Jules in awe and respect. They are both jealous at each other. *** MILD SPOILER *** They are both good fighters, with some evil turns. They have totally different stands. While Kimmy is ready to drop out from college and follow Michael around, Jules, an independent, strong-spirited, and responsible woman with career ridicules both Michael's job and Kimmy's apparent lack of ambition. Kimmy returns strike with promise of unconditional love, which totally overwhelms Michael. However, we know that Kimmy is smarter than that: she'll promise everything in a rather shallow way, knowing that sooner or later, her rich father will take care of both her as well as Michael's career, but that Michael's pride would most likely drive him away if she offered all that bluntly and immediately. *** TOTAL SPOILER *** Jules figures that out, and succumbs to dirty scheming in order to show Michael how it's all going to end up one day AFTER he's already married to Kimmy for some time. And that's where the movie makes it clear that she is the bad guy. When her scheming goes much worse then she ever wanted it to go (a fake e-mail is mistakenly really sent instead of kept in 'drafts' for Michael to see), she almost succeeds... But then, on the wedding day, it turns out that she can't win either... And all those things come clear to her... (With George's help, naturally)... That it was all about winning, that she just felt like she'll lose everything if she doesn't win this guy, that she was a chicken and never told him her true feelings until the last moment because she really didn't feel what she tripped she did... She can do better than this guy... She needs to really believe in a guy... And it's okay if she lets Kimmy win... But she can give them her blessing, and ... dance! *** END OF SPOILER *** The movie is totally hilarious at times, especially the karaoke scene, and when George comes to the rescue. Also pay attention to BOTH the leading ladies scheming --- the movie is made so that only Jules' are 1000% apparent... But don't oversee the rest! A must-see romantic comedy.

Happiness (1998)

Nothing is as it seems.

[10/10 · 22 October 2003]

Oh man, this movie is super if you're old enough to understand the quirky, absurdist approach. If you don't dig that, skip the movie.

For those who don't want to skip, well, the movie is, again, a revenge of the nerds a la Solondz. It all seems like one of three sisters, Joy, is a loser. Even the most obnoxious of men take advantage of her, she gets abused by everyone she tries to be nice to, her "successful" sisters are shooting poisonous darts into her oh-my-gosh-thirty-and-unmarried heart, and so on and so forth. She's sad, but she's still nice to everyone, and she does learn one thing or two along the way. Sisters look plain evil ...Until we get some hilarious/disturbing insight into the perversity of people that surround THEM.

The actors are WONDERFUL.

The AristoCats (1970)

Soooo romantic!!!

[10/10 · 21 October 2003]

Since cats have nine lives, I'll give you nine reasons to see this movie:

* The kittens Berlioz and Toulouse playing the piano together (so unbelievably cute!) * The car-chasing dogs Napoleon and Lafayette * Toulouse jumping like electrified every time he wants to be like a tough alley cat * Marie sighing romantically while alley cat O'Malley seduces her mom * Scat Cat and his jazz band, singing "ev'rybody wants to be a cat" * Stupid but proper and nice English geese Amelia and Abigail who make the cats walk like geese * O'Malley obtaining the "magic carpet" which puts the Cheshire cat to shame * Roquefort the brave mouse's journey to ask help from alley cats * Edgar the butler chase scenes and transition from a nice guy to an insane cat hater due to cat riddance plan gone bad