I went to the movie without having the slightest idea of enjoying it since i hate "creature features" - but i went anyway because i have a free pass;) and i was SURPRISED. with a slight post-production discolouring of the images, the photography is very 'cinegenic'. right from the first scene you get the feeling that you're dealing with a gifted director. his choice of camera angle in crucial moments is remarkable. the editing is tidy and very tight. you can't edit another single second from the reel. and the music, although very conventional for a this kind of movie is effective, couples exactly with the pace of the film. well, the beast, just one another BEAST. but it's not a problem as long as the movie is not totally depending on the display of the monster. there many more things that the director delivers. the scene in which charlie is being trapped by the creature is awesome. (of course, it far from being realistic - the whole film is not, but you don't give a damn). the correct camera angle, the tight editing and the hard-boiled music of this very acrobatic scene leaves you right at the edge of your seat. this is not a movie which makes history for it's not trying to renew the codes of the genre. yet it's a remarkable accomplishment because it exploits those codes to the maximum.
Reviews
6 Reviews
The Green Mile
(1999)
after all, not a word against the death penalty!
8 December 2003
The simplification of characters, the eternal battle between the 'angels' and the evil that we don't want to see on the screen anymore and the utter professionalism of Hanks acting make this film pretentious and conventional. Well, Hanks insists on treating the condemned humanely, but not a word against the death penalty. Oh, Hanks, the patriotic American son that "we" love so much... of course, he doesn't want to take a minimum risk by pronouncing a single word with a political/radical connotation. They could have easily made a 90mins movie out of this 3hrs long vaudeville.
Suspiria
(1977)
too explicit
21 October 2003
Very overrated movie. I watched the movie because the IMDb users had given it a good rate, but I was really dissapointed.
The plot is too banal, the directing is too explicit (close-up of the stabbing scene and the scene in which a dog kills a man among many others). Blood is unnecessarily omnipresent. After all, we know that thoses effects are mere 'effects' : the colour of blood is too pale to be true; the wide-opened eyes of the murdered has nothing natural and used to shock the viewer very naively... The music, abused, is a real headache (Listen to the score of Signs (2002) to see the wonder that the music can do in a movie). Acting is poor, melodramtic, unnatural. When the characters are scared to death, the viewer wonders why... he doesn't feel anything horrible in any moment (other than a feeling of gore, disgust). The atmosphere, overworked, is nothing than a barren style. The variuosly coloured settings never really contribute to the plot.
Just like the subject it deals with, this a very superstitious movie that should lead your 'black list'.
The plot is too banal, the directing is too explicit (close-up of the stabbing scene and the scene in which a dog kills a man among many others). Blood is unnecessarily omnipresent. After all, we know that thoses effects are mere 'effects' : the colour of blood is too pale to be true; the wide-opened eyes of the murdered has nothing natural and used to shock the viewer very naively... The music, abused, is a real headache (Listen to the score of Signs (2002) to see the wonder that the music can do in a movie). Acting is poor, melodramtic, unnatural. When the characters are scared to death, the viewer wonders why... he doesn't feel anything horrible in any moment (other than a feeling of gore, disgust). The atmosphere, overworked, is nothing than a barren style. The variuosly coloured settings never really contribute to the plot.
Just like the subject it deals with, this a very superstitious movie that should lead your 'black list'.
Signs
(2002)
A poor conclusion not enough smart to patch up the dull script
20 October 2003
The film is brilliantly directed, fairly acted, and despite the poor script based on a banal idea, Shyamalan creates a thrilling movie experience. His choice of camera angles and the subtle way in which he films his most horrifying scenes are remarkable. But the last scene spoils all these efforts. Mel Gibson regains his faith and becomes a priest again. So it is that almighty God and His 'miracles' who saved the world from those wicked aliens... a poor conclusion not enough smart to patch up the dull script. The score is the best thing about this movie!
The House of the Spirits
(1993)
too much heavy for a film
19 September 2003
Not as moving as the great novel by Allende. Of course, when commenting this as a movie, one has to take into consideration the limits of cinema compared to a novel. But one easily gets the feeling that the events of the saga come one after another as if they were 'ready-made', but not as logical and inevitable consequences of the narrative. Probably, the story is too much heavy for cinema despite the fact that August drop a whole lot of (interesting) events frome the original story. The casting is ok. But nothing special; no one does any exceptional job. But this is an enchanting work.
Last Action Hero
(1993)
Unbearalby boring!
23 February 2003
I saw the movie in a free screening (otherxise I would never have watched it). This is unbearably boring and predictable; there's nothing innovative in it; as its kind, it's full of clichés. The poor script asks constantly the viewer to laugh - this is ought to be a fantastic comedy - instead, one would laugh at the script for its poorness. The arrogant acting of the little boy killed me. I wasted 2 of my precious hours.
Tell Your Friends