Change Your Image
stupidus
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againThe best ones reminded that life is worth living and/or inspired to be a better man (if only for couple of hours).
Obviously in no particular rank.
I realized that one day I'm going to die, and that no one's going to give a medal for enduring all those hours of watching *beep* just because someone made it happen.
Believe me, this will be the wisest, healthiest and most beneficial decision you are likely to ever make in this life.
Let eject button become your new best friend.
Reviews
Jobs (2013)
Good for what it is
Come on, it was perfectly watchable and informative enough for an average viewer who doesn't know much if anything at all about Jobs and/or Apple other than who he was and what they do.
At times it's quite touching even. But this really is more a biopic about birth of Apple than anything else.
Just like David Fincher's The Social Network (2010) was more about the birth of Facebook than it was about who Mark Zuckerberg is, and why. And more pressingly: why should anyone even care?
Yes, Kutcher and/or director exaggerates some physical traits of Jobs such as the limping and bad posture (I'm guessing). But they are insignificant gripes, really.
Stereotypes exist. Deal with it.
Now someone else can do another movie that shows in a little bit more depth what Jobs' private persona was like and how it got to be like that.
Now we know what Jobs the CEO was like, but hardly anyone still knows what Jobs the everyday guy was all about (particularly when he wasn't working for Apple).
We know Jobs the phenomenon but not the man behind that.
Inception (2010)
Could it possibly suck any more?
Q: I didn't really understand the whole movie and I fell like the only one who didn't understand
A: watch it again and pay attention. it helps.
Q: I did pay attention and still didn't get it maybe I missed something
A: Read through the entire FAQ section of IMDb for the movie.
---
I rest my case (the above is a word-for-word excerpt from the film's IMDb message board - in case you were wondering).
Possibly something like 90% of what is posted about Nolan's movies in the IMDb forum are obvious and desperate fanboys' attempts at explaining what each movie was really all about.
They go to great lengths in trying to reason everyone why what seemed like plot holes weren't actually plot holes at all. Or what seemed like bad writing, directing, acting etc., was actually outstanding.
It's like an engineer telling us when we complain about a p.o.s. technical gadget we just bought not working the way it's supposed to that it is actually quite easy to use: "Here let me show you. First you press here. Then you open the menu. No, not that menu, the other menu. Then you
" ad infinitum.
If we didn't care about the characters, if we didn't care about the plot, if we didn't care about the visuals, then why would anyone with a half a brain expect anyone to suddenly view the same movie as a master piece by that one notion alone that it could have technically worked?
Might these be the same guys (they are always guys, you see) who lament that their girlfriends - if they indeed have one - either can't or refuse to have an orgasm even though they themselves are technically doing everything right?
Four words, homies. We. Do. Not. Care.
Black Swan (2010)
Why should we care?
This is what D. Arrogantsky said about making BS:
" I wanted to say something about ballet dancing. I just don't know what or why. Or why I'd even be particularly credible to say anything about it.
I planned to recycle all the clichés that people - myself including - have about ballet dancing and ballet dancers particularly.
That ballet dancers are much more sensitive and much more artistic creatures than the rest of us. And because of this, and because ballet dancing simply takes so much dedication and so much hard work, dancers tend to suffer from emotional instability and more often than not have problems with their sexuality. Either they are too loose or too frigid. Babies in grown-up bodies. Who lead sheltered and isolated lives, who probably still live with their parent - in singular because that's even more telling!
Stuff like that, well you know.
That's why I wanted some hot lessy scenes in the film. Well that and because it will lure those reluctant males into theaters, too. And I made the ballet director the typical dirty and scheming old man. That's how we males get to see some action yet remain clean ourselves.
I wanted to cast Portman as the leading lady because the public for some reason sees her as the greatest living actress around - plus I think it would be just too damn funny to make this whiny, self-proclaimed goody-goody girl-woman with two-expressions cry and twist her face throughout most of the set and to make her touch her self, to boot.
Haha, a riot - I know!
And in the end I'm just going to nullify all criticism by lamely pointing out that it was just all in her head anywayz - and then maybe add later on how, if you pay attention, you'll see what really went down after all. Major mindf*ck!! Ding-ding-ding-ding! Yes folks, that really does work. People are stoopid that way. That's the whole point of my films, yet no one seems to get it.
I trust that all hipsters will say they got my film, and that they will bring more of their hipster friends in the cinemas. That always makes my day! It's especially comforting as I walk to the bank. It just cracks me up every time, I swear! "
OK, I'm not 100% sure if the director actually said all this. It could just be all in my head. Wow.
La guerre du feu (1981)
Nice try, no cigar
If you can get past the fact that
a) different types of early hominids all exist at the same time, and that b) a pack of hobbling neanderthals/homo sapiens(?) manage to wander across nearly all types of terrain in an astonishing short time frame (and still find back to their tribe which is _still_ for some absurd reason standing in the same small patch of land in the swamp whence they had left...),
then I guess it's a passable, even engaging, movie.
The wildly varying outdoor shots are beautiful but of course totally out-of-place.
When they chose to film in multiple (and likely very expensive) outdoor locations probably meant that they could only afford to show exactly two saber-toothed tigers and a pack of mammoths...
Only the two most recognized animals that everyone will expect to see in a "Stone Age" film? Pathetic.
I thought the story itself is/was powerful. Primarily the constant changes in the scenery was distracting as were smaller or bigger absurdities throughout the movie.
I'd personally been very cautious about portraying sexual behavior in such a way. Tribes are bound to have a pecking order, particularly when it comes to mating. Such a casual way of raping at will would probably have been a big no-no: that "right" is reserved for a chief or chiefs and would in effect require their consent or facing their (=basically the whole tribe's) wrath. Punishment by death springs to my mind without much effort...
I dunno. Painting "cave men" as walking penises just runs against the common logic. When it comes to your own tribe - that is. When you are out and about, it's always a different story. Even still.
I can't help but feel that gratuitous sex scenes and most of the times bare female body of a leading lady were planted for the interest of an average guy (Annaud, including). Men who trashed the film apart from previous reasons, seem to indicate that the target was met.
But seriously, if you can sharpen your choice of weapon, you certainly can come up with a rudimentary defense system for your own (not to mention your tribe's) protection (other than just a lone watchman).
Frankly, the film is just too damn inaccurate for its own good.
The Prestige (2006)
How do you make a serious movie about magick? Trick question. You don't.
For me, if the story is good, or at least believable, the script decent and the actors/actresses know their trade, then all that is required from the director - of not *ucking it up - is to just follow the script.
Everything else is more or less masturbation with the aesthetics. Granted, if the form is fitting, we'll probably like it even better. Still, if you manage those three things, it should work even without a music or a set to speak of (à la "Dogville").
While Nolan's story in interesting, it fails to be believable in the end.
Nolan loves movies with a twist. And honestly, who doesn't? The problem is, such movies really only work once.
I can't help but feel that movies like "The Prestige", "The Sixth Sense", and so on, are little more than a waste of perfectly good celluloid...
In retrospect (at the very least), one always has to shake her head in disbelief. To insist that Bruce Willis - or anyone else for that matter - could go on living a day without realizing that he is actually dead, is an insult to our intellect. You wouldn't need to plss or shlt anymore? Go shopping for food? You wouldn't notice people walking right through you on the streets?
There are some exceptions. "The Blair Witch Project" was kinda fun to watch again because it has that real-life documentary feel to it. The trio's reactions/emotions ring so true. The scene where one of them confesses that he ditched the map in frustration, is timeless.
But back to Nolan.
I liked the mood he created in "Insomnia", even if that may have had more to do with solid performances given by Williams and Pacino - and the midnight Sun.
My memories about "Memento" have grown vague, but I do remember enjoying it all those years ago. Don't know how I would feel about it today, though.
But you'd figure if a movie is any good, you'd remember it, right?
Still, "Memento" is the only Nolan movie I've cared to watch again. "Batman Begins" had absolutely nothing to remember it by. But it probably looked really cool. I don't think any director would be pleased hearing comments like these.
Even though I haven't seen "Inception" or "The Dark Knight", I fear neither of them will make me really appreciate Nolan as a director who has something worthwhile to say. And if South Park's "Insheeption" is anything to go by, it's safe to assume that his notion of great cinema probably differs from mine on some crucial level.
"The Prestige", of course, had it's moments, but for me it failed for a couple of reasons. First, I couldn't really bring myself to care much about any of the main characters. I fear Bale is more or less Keanu Reeves 2.0 and Scarlett Johansson is just a poor man's Kate Winslet.
There, I said it.
Worse than that, when a walk-on (Bowie, whom I did not recognize) is far more interesting than anything else in the movie, you know someone blew it royally.
And second, to wrap it up with something as inane as cloning is just bad writing. So, instead of leaving us with a lingering feeling of mystery, we're simply ordered to eat up this poor excuse for a science fiction and asked to feel satisfied about it nonetheless.
I think "The Prestige" wants itself taken far too seriously. All in all it's a good fun ride, just not all the way. A ride I don't feel like repeating.
PS. For the record, and since _everyone_ compares these two, I cared immensely more about the characters in "The Illusionist", and the ending was much more satisfying, too: you could either reason it, or you could just believe there's some magic after all... Nothing else to it for a mission accomplished.
PS2. And Nolan, if you really want to tell us a story about Tesla, feel free to do so. We have your interest, and we have an actor for the part as well.
127 Hours (2010)
Riveting but morally questionable.
Another reviewer insisted that 127 Hours does not try to be epic or monumental. I totally disagree. This is exactly how the movie plays out, regardless whether it was Boyle's intention or not - or whether he will ever admit to this.
The only thing we know for a fact is that Boyle wanted this story turned into a film and that according to him it would never have been possible without the prestige (read: money) brought about by "Slumdog Millionaire" (And I think he's right about that).
So, I'm glad this movie got to be made, and I agree with the same reviewer that 127 Hours is a remarkable filmmaking achievement. However, there is one critical underlying issue that in retrospect in a sense makes this movie irrelevant. How? I'll talk about it soon.
Overall, it's very flashy, but it's his movie and he can stylize it anyway he thinks is necessary. Didn't much bother me, if truth be told. I think I know what he was (is and has been) aiming for with this kind of a visual treatment, but I still feel it would have worked just fine without all the glitz and epileptic cuts. Quite possibly better in fact...
While I feel 127 Hours should be an unwavering warning against selfish care-free stupidity, I fear it's not (and neither is "Into the Wild"). Rather, an invitation to infantility. Both movies tickle all the right places but I feel their lesson is either missing or simply misunderstood - maybe by the filmmakers themselves, too.
In 127 Hours, by choosing to make the situation seem fast-paced and absolutely oozing with "coolness", instead of making it much more slower, much more silent, much more lonelier, in a word more _authentic_ and just sad, the director does everyone a moral disservice at the end of the day. He makes it entertaining.
For 127 Hours, the often used saying (I'm sure you can figure it out) rings truer than ever.
Mark my words: after 127 Hours more people will be "inspired" and go canyoneering (or anything else that counts as extreme/cool enough for that matter) with an irresponsible, hedonic, *uck-if-I-care -attitude.
Every year absolutely unnecessary dollars, time, expertise, equipment and so on are wasted because of self-caused stupidity. It's a national disease on a global level we could all but eradicate today without much effort on anyone's part.
A lot of people have these unfounded sentiments that just because they pay some taxes, the society should cheerfully provide a miniature "Save Haiti!" -operation every time one of us ends up in a tight squeeze of his own making.
You'd think Ralston would be giving free talks about these kind of issues for the rest of his remaining life, and just be thankful that he is in fact alive at all, instead of trying to conquer (honestly, what does that mean?) all 20,000ft peaks in the world or whatever (again, what exactly are these people trying to prove here and why?), and lecturing to dimwits (I'm assuming) about will power (I'm guessing) for $25,000-$37,000 a pop.
That's what I call a lesson learned. This is humanity at its sorriest. But I digress.
I can understand why real-life Ralston could find the movie effective - because it is. But I'm both baffled and deeply worried if a professional mountain climber who himself went through all of this really doesn't see the dangerous fallacies this movie ultimately conveys.
James Franco's performance is nothing short of stellar, though. 127 Hours will launch him into superstardom. So, while the film _is_ both deeply engaging and touching to boot, in the end it's just a well-crafted film that lifts human stupidity and contempt for life and for loved ones on the podium.
Definitely not meant for the immature audiences _even though_ (and you damn well know it too, Boyle) they will be the ones most drawn to it and enchanted by it - for all the wrong reasons.
I call Boyle guilty as charged.
The King's Speech (2010)
Oscar winner regardless of jury.
An Oscar deserving picture because TKS is an important film unlike most candidates. Genuinely touching to the point of transforming the viewer as yet another on-screen speech coach and an extra moral crutch for "Bertie" to overcome his stammer and dread of public speaking.
_Everyone_, who's ever had a speech impediment, however small, or who's ever been afraid of public speaking, can relate to Bertie. If I'd have to take a wild guess, I'd figure that would include the majority of us. Even if you've managed to shed the impediment and kill the fear of public speaking altogether long since, Bertie's distress has a stupefying effect on _you as well_ even when experienced from a total comfort and safety zone of your own private place (where ever that might be).
This is essentially a one man show, despite fine performances by Rush and co. When Colin Firth goes into full-throttle mode, he is no longer acting but pure flesh and blood!
Apparently there have been some artistic liberties taken, but absolute historical accuracy really has very little to do with hmm... what is essentially a delayed coming-of-age story, now that I think of it. Weird, I know, but that's what it is.
Sure, TKS felt at points a bit forced as if the director was just realizing that he's gonna run out of time prematurely. That's what usually happens when the focus of the story is momentarily lost. Not that I've seen a perfect movie thus far...
Of course you should see "127 Hours" because of James Franco's performance, for comparison if not for anything else. But make no mistake: while fully entertaining, it's not an important film. At the end of the day "127 Hours", just like "Into the Wild", sanctifies stupidity.
Today's ideal is one of personal überhedonism. Morals are randomly lifted from authors of one's fancy. In our new dark ages Nietzsche okays shooting your classmates/coworkers in the back and yourself in the head. Where Smith absolves anyone from feeling guilt by making profit out of speculation, exploitation or mere thin air. And where Thoreauesque scramble back in the woods looks like a viable solution to any personal and global problem.
I don't want to go back to (pre-)WWII times, but I would like to see the comeback of some of the principles, some of the dignity and some of the comradeship we see in TKS and what I feel we are truly lacking these days. When I watched TKS I felt like most people in the film were real and worthy of my empathy. Seems like it's been years since I've felt the same way about fictional characters.
If that's not a mark of excellence, I don't know what is.
The Social Network (2010)
Worth a film?
Ultimately there is no reason why I or you should need to watch it at all (let alone again).
Core problem with "true stories" is that we are always asked to go along with a particular interpretation. And the better the story is told, the better we will remember it. Fincher is a good storyteller.
The best storytellers are masters of exaggeration and omission. While most of us will acknowledge this, we can't remember it! What we're actually left with in the end is this vague notion of accurate-enough account of what really went down.
Of course the big picture is almost never clear-cut. Movies have überpower of stamping forever into our brain images of heroes and villains, and more troublingly, scarcely unchallenged truths.
Remember "127 Hours"? It showed us an irresistible adrenalin junkie which - I'm told - the real life Ralston was anything but. Real life engineers are rarely held as gifts of god to women (something that James Franco's character undoubtedly is) by hardly anyone bar engineers themselves.
And sure enough coders have it even worse. And inventing something like Facebook doesn't suddenly turn you into a sexbomb - even in our current image economy. It merely translates to a high-monetary-value ex-partner(s). But I'm sure Zuckerberg already knows this.
No, I don't really care who invented, let alone coded, Facebook. No one can patent an idea that unoriginal. Everyone knows that Facebook wasn't the first social network on the internets - and yes, they even say it in the movie. But Facebook did change the way that millions of people now choose to interact with each other (not that I'd be personally thrilled about it).
Zuckerberg/Facebook "just" got a couple of things right from the get-go. E.g. no ads (wait until they're hooked), making it exclusive (total self-image management) and making sure the service is never, ever, down. That, combined with the connections he apparently got from the Napster guy, and it was pretty much a waiting game from there.
It's hard to get worked up over something that seemingly required no real effort/pains on Zuckerberg's part to make Facebook an instant local and later global phenomenon. There's never a feeling that things even could backfire. I'm sure this is not the case, but that's the feel we get.
Plus, the grand idea behind Facebook didn't get any less banal and immature after seeing the movie: just another superficial way of making similar-minded friends while helping to score some. It was maybe _more_ elitist than other services, so why am I not impressed?
I can appreciate Zuckerberg for his seemingly natural talent with programming. Brilliant minds like that make my life more easier than harder (we can always opt-out) while they get to do what they love doing the most.
But in no way do I feel indebted to this guy, or feel he's responsible for starting something new that will change our lives forever. Far from it. If anything, I feel his contraption has only progressed the regression of genuine human interaction.
Too bad that most people have less than stellar interest on guys and gals who happen to share his level of talents in any particular field. Sure, near-and-real geniuses might all have an affable persona underneath the "cold" outer surface and/or any number of other good qualities, but if they - like Zuckerberg presented here - never let anybody see that side of them, how could they blame anyone but themselves when accused of being a-holes?
Usually one has to give people a genuine reason - or better yet reasons - for them to even consider a possibility of falling in love with you (to be understood in a very broad sense). I'm sure Zuckerberg - like most of us - can love, can be loved and is in fact loved, but that is something we are not allowed to see in the movie (except briefly in the last scene, I'm guessing).
That's an epic fail if one is aiming for a moral story of any caliber. The real Zuckerberg remains a mystery, and what's even worse, a mystery who does not (yet) even warrant a biography.
But the persona of Zuckerberg is irrelevant anyways. He's just a name. Just a random guy you'd meet in a party and forget the next day. Not someone you'd take an instant interest in - in real life. And unlike a self-made hero, Zuckerberg ultimately comes out as a sad opportunist (despite also being gullible/impressionable) who got immensely lucky, and whom very few would call a friend.
Even if Aaron Ralston was pretty much out of his mind going alone and seriously underprepared canyoneering, at least you could cheer for this guy to succeed. Pure American care-free idiotism combined with pure American persistence and will to live. That's an engaging story (and a true accomplishment from Boyle). "The Social Network" was just the first act.
We knew Ralston would survive, we knew Zuckerberg would become a billionaire. We saw Ralston change, but Zuckerberg stayed essentially the same. Where's the film? When Facebook won't be around anymore, then a bio might be in order.
Jesse Eisenberg plays his caricature character flawlessly, though it's just more of the same he did in "Roger Dodger" (which by the way did have something worthwhile going on in it). But like many others I was more impressed with Andrew Garfield and Justin Timberlake. As for the soundtrack, I'd be more than content to see the comeback of old-fashioned film score composers who know their place in filmmaking ("There Will Be Blood" - anyone?).
***
BTW. I absolutely resent it when people insist on saying they are drunk when they've in reality just had a few beers. IF you're drunk, you don't code. You barely form sentences. Try typing when you're wasted, and you know what I mean.
Avatar (2009)
They didn't have any money left for a proper script?
I'm going to be brutal: Avatar is an epic let down.
A perfectly engaging movie turns into a run-of-the-mill action flick once we get to spend just a few moments on Pandora.
Vaguely reminds me of the Beach Boys' "Good Vibrations". It too start out beautifully, then lapses into a standard surf pop pastiche. But at least it has other verses to anticipate for... Avatar never manages to lure you back in once it dawns on you that you really ain't getting a better script than this.
When exactly the downward spiral begins depends largely on the viewer's expectations of what constitutes a decent science fiction movie. If you can accept that interstellar travel is possible in less than 150 years from now (quick and dirty patent fix would be to add zero), you'll get to Pandora no problem.
But alas, I simply couldn't take it seriously after the "mental link" argument. Your mileage may vary. If you try to intellectualize Avatar, you will be sorry. It's an expensive show case what modern CGI can do these days, but to go with a plot of this caliber in the year 2009, and still manage to convince A LOT of folks that they're watching a masterpiece, is beyond me.
It actually pains me to realize how much time, money and talent was wasted in creating this. That's the proper ecology lesson I'm gonna walk away with after seeing Avatar.
If you want a valid message just watch "Idiocracy". Films like Avatar take us yet one step closer in reaching the heights of pure and utter retardedness.
I'm sure that's a merit too, though.
PS. If you for some reason can't remember why Avatar sucked, here be few reminders:
-to accept "mental link" explanation is the same as to believe in magic
But seeing that humans can suddenly travel in light speed, I would not be overtly surprised if I was told that by then we are also able to somehow copy human memory/consciousness onto an alien-human-hybrid's blank brain... But remote control? That's just.. retarded.
-"Oh.. He's a warrior? Never seen one before! Surely we can learn something from him! My daughter will teach you about our ways. Although... your ways surely helped in getting my other daughter killed already. Well, I guess it's different this time around. Have fun now kids! No funny business though!"
-the biggest mineral deposit is located right under the tribe's village / Jake is the chosen one
Of course he can ride the biggest dragon, silly Cameron. Only _everyone_ realizes that when she gives him (=us) the lecture. And that sex will be inevitable.
-tribe chief sounds distinctly American Indian and her wife Afro-American / Na'vis are such considerate killers
Is it possible to make it any more obvious that we are now dealing with the Most Benevolent Oppressed People of All Times... on _any_ planet!
-why is the forest lighting up every which way whenever our couple's there but it's pitch dark when Jake's trying to survive his first night out in the woods solo?
Suppose he was just too far off from the fairy land at that point? Good thing he still managed to recognize the plant which would provide fuel for his torch. Part of the training? Was he just lucky? We don't know.
Even if that goo hadn't lit up, our semi-naked native girl would surely have come to the rescue, right? Not least because, as we are told, they are _everywhere_.
-the sex scene
Please just pan away and let it remain a mystery. We have hard time enough thinking how hybrids could ever hope to produce offspring.
-ridiculous, embarrassing and endless "homages" to other movies
-new age chanting, swaying and other intellectually insulting hippy moments that scream: nature is a mystical things, do not try to understand it, just _feel_ it!
-if you must have one-dimensional archetype-like characters, at least don't make them do something they probably wouldn't do
Why would the corporate head suddenly care about what happens to the natives when he obviously hasn't cared before? And even with a sudden change of heart, would he seriously think an hour's chaotic powwow would help much, let alone dissolve the situation? You would figure that he'd at the very least tell his men to stay put, and maybe back off a bit (he's still in charge of the whole show, right?)
-the antagonist crash-lands right next to the portolab, as do Jake and Neytiri!
-arrows pierce armored glass when you _really_ want it; half a dozen men with machine guns fail to take out an alien that lands right in front of them; floating maglev mountains; high-speed horses in a jungle terrain; personal dragons; running on tree trunks... and so on, ad infinitum.
"Gotta use 'em cause the CGI guys already created them!"
Bottom line: just because 10ft tall bipeds (and other alien species for that matter) _can_ move like our Earthly comrades doesn't mean they - like us - wouldn't be affected to things like slippery moss, breaking bark, etc.
It's like everyone on Pandora are on auto-pilot or high on meth! Na'vis aren't supermen. Only undead lack instinct of self preservation...
And last but not least: you don't think Jake would have insisted on getting a new pair of legs _before_ signing up?
1) It would establish good will from the get-go. 2) Costs would be insignificant. 3) Fully operational man would in all likelihood provide a much better future investment for a corporation who will clearly always need experienced and unethical ops "such as" Jake. 4) Oh yeah, and the the fact that they _need_ him!
- - -
I could go on and on, but since no one's paying me to point its many faults, I'll just stop now.