berrorg Reviews

Melancholia (2011)

This is not a review.

[10/10 · 30 November 2011]

All the pros and cons everybody here bitches about this movie are pretty much worthless when you understand the film and the ultimate fate of everything. I'm not even criticizing anybody for doing that; this is, after all, a forum to discuss movies, so complaining about that would be stupid. This is a recommendation to those who have not seen it: Go and watch it, but do it with the expectation of watching a piece of art, not an enjoyable movie experience. Don't try to analyze what the causes the characters to behave like they do; don't expect plot twists; don't wait for bright revelations about secrets or other intrigues; don't expect a story cut down and served for fast consumption, life is not like that, and this movie is more like life. Most of all, don't expect a happy ending. Enjoy the film like you would enjoy your favourite painting, or classical music. Enjoy the ride and don't hope for its ending. It is a long movie, but every minute adds to the mood and the tragedy that you know is coming. You'll find yourself asking for an extra 5 minutes at least just to delay the final scene from breaking your heart. Watch it and understand the fragility where we all stand.

Fright Night (2011)

Compared to the original...

[8/10 · 17 August 2011]

.. it is pretty different, in a good way. I said "good", not "better". If you're a fan of the original (I know I am), please do yourself a favor and FORGET that this is a remake. I think that it was a huge distraction for me to be aware of the original one because it changes A LOT of key situations and the story arc, and I kept thinking "this won't make sense with what comes next", although it did make sense because at the end, THIS Fright Night is a totally different monster than the 80's one.

Just go to the theaters thinking that this is loosely based on the original and enjoy the ride... it is actually quiet fun this time too.

Cheers!

Green Lantern (2011)

Great FANTASY movie!

[9/10 · 21 June 2011]

I was going to reply this to a person who was criticizing this movie with a number of objections, all based on its implausibility, but I figured my point of view would maybe help some people to make a decision whether they should support or turn their backs on a movie like Green Lantern. X-Men, the Avengers' movies (Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, etc.) and the new Batman movies (especially the Batman movies!) are strongly anchored in our reality, and that's a good thing, it gives credibility to the story and characters, taking away the burden from the spectator to suspend disbelief by showing everyday situations, locations and people as the basis of the fictional world where they then unleash the presence of a superhero. I love the movies mentioned above, but this is not the only way these movies can be done. This style appeals mostly to people who, like me, have gone through the totally fantastic worlds of the old superheroes movies and comic books, and now crave something more "mature". But what about our kids?? Why would we stole these superheros from them just for our enjoyment? I'm not saying that these new superheroes movies are not appropriate for young kids, I have kids and they love most of them, but they, as most kids I know have also mentioned, like those movies "in spite" of the "boring" parts. Now, we're talking about kids, from 6 to 11 years old, so don't be to harsh on their concept of "boring parts". I remember how I loved "Flash Gordon" in the 80's, and "Superman II". "Tron" was the best because, after some 30 minutes of "boring" "real-world", the whole movie was set in a fantasy world, just like "The Dark Crystal" or "The Beastmaster". That's what "Green Lantern" brings now: a sense of FANTASY without sacrificing it for the sake of making it more gritty, or realistic. Yes, of course it has real-world scenes, but the movie doesn't linger in them in an effort to make you feel that this is real; it just so happens that the characters live in this world, but the important parts are when Green Lantern appears or when his world with all the "funny looking" aliens make an appearance. That's what other movies don't dare to do so they can appeal to older audiences. The sad thing is that they forget about the young ones (or the young at heart ones), and this movie proves that a movie with more fantastic elements than logic can stand still make a great movie for old and young. I'm not saying that Green Lantern is a "kids movie"; what I'm saying is that Green Lantern is a superhero action movie that doesn't shy away from its own fantasy, and that's what makes it great.

Saw 3D (2010)

Awesome, awesome...

[10/10 · 29 October 2010]

I know is always "hip" and "chic" to dis a movie (specially a sequel), but whatever, I'm used to that and don't mind it, there will always be those... but I can tell you that I liked it a lot, and that it DOES indeed ties a lot of loose ends (the last 2 or 3 minutes of it are PURE GOLD)... no room for another sequel (unless they REALLY want it, but it would be like forcing it), this one DOES finish the whole arc of the story in a magnificent way. LOTS of GORE (more than usual, I would say); and yes, at some point you feel betrayed because it moves from the "Saw style" into the "slasher" genre, but just when you think that it will suck.. kaboom! It goes back to the SAW style we love and delivers the FINAL twist (with the "Hello Zepp" score!). Loved it! I will watch them all again once it hits DVD! GO WATCH IT!!!

Despicable Me (2010)

Despicable... Au contraire!

[10/10 · 17 June 2010]

First of all, I am real, not one of those big studios planted minions that come to IMDb to talk wonders about their new releases. You can check my history to prove that.

Second of all, to make your time worth, let me tell you what kind of movies I like and/or dislike (you know, to see if my taste is compatible with yours).

Taking into account only what would be considered "family friendly movies", Pixar cannot be topped. From Pixar I believe that "The Incredibles" is its under appreciated best product, although I have a soft spot for "Finding Nemo" and "Up" (hey, I agree, "Toy Story" and "Monsters Inc." are awesome!). Their worst effort is without a doubt "Cars" (I almost don't even like it), but even that is above a lot of other crap from other studios.

I like the first "Shrek", "Kung-Fu Panda"; found "9" and "Coraline" a little bit boring (but interesting, both!), and totally dislike "Shark Tales", "Planet 51", "Space Monkeys", "Surf's Up", the first "Madagascar" (except for the penguins and the king lemur, lol).

In a broader sense, my all time favourite animated movie (although not CGI) is "The Nightmare Before Christmas".

Enough of that! With that very well established, let me give you my opinion of this movie.

It is amazing! It is charming without being corny; hilarious without resorting to stupid pop-culture references; exciting without being overly loud.. and the best thing: it plays like a fable.

It is absurd! ... but in a good way. The whole plan is to steal the moon, for crying out loud! How ridiculous could that be? And yet, we are led to root for the evil genius to be able to do just that. The whole thing is so tongue in cheek that you will pee in your pants laughing at the effects of having no moon for a few minutes (it is a quick flash of things, for they are so funny).

The movie is incredibly intelligent. The jokes are dead on and VERY imaginative (for example - and this is not a spoiler - pay attention to how they manage to produce light when Dr. Gru and two of his minions are in a ventilation duct at Vector's fortress - just delightful).

You will fall in love with his minions, and if you have a soft heart, with the three orphan girls.

OH, I almost forgot!! The 3D... this is the best usage of 3D I've seen (excepting "Avatar", of course) in a movie. There is a roller coaster ride scene that will literally "tickle your tummy" (like my kids said). For the first three seconds it easily compares to the effects found in "The Simpsons Ride" at Universal Studios.

The action sequences are thrillingly enhanced by the right amount of 3D, and make sure you STAY while the credits roll on. There are some OBVIOUS usage of 3D on those scenes with very funny results. Actually, here's a hint: sit down and enjoy these scenes while the people in the rows in front of you try to exit the theatre; the point of reference they offer will enhance the 3D in such a cool way that it will seem that they will bump into the staircase and the minions protruding from the screen (I suppose that was the intention of these bonus scenes, and boy they nailed it!) All in all, do yourself a favour and go WATCH it... I am sure I will do it again!

Cheers!

P.S. Be sure to learn a little, tiny bit of Spanish so you can "get" one of the jokes... my family was the only one laughing like crazies during that scene.. cheers again!

Daybreakers (2009)

Cheap looking and mediocre

[6/10 · 8 January 2010]

I feel this movie is just mediocre. Not bad, but surely not good either. The premise is awesome, but that just makes you realize what a wasted opportunity for a great movie this is. It is painfully predictable in a way that you cringe at seeing at the end one of the bad guys (who, obviously you thought it was a good guy until a few minutes earlier) standing in front of our "heroes", about to shoot them while he says: "I'm sorry, but I can't let you leave/live/get away with it/etc"; the you see another of the good guys coming out of nowhere and shooting/killing him right after he spends his last seconds giving the "Dr. Evil" diatribe that all heroes/victims hear just before they are miraculous saved... I mean, c'mon! Photography is awful (Ok, I supposed that was intentional, but it looked like a movie from the 70s/80s). CGI was good most of the time, but pretty fake at moments. Dialog CHEESY as hell. Acting decent, except for "Frankie" sometimes, and Willem Dafoe's character "Elvis", but I bet is not his blame. I can almost see the director telling him: "Cheesier, Willem, you have to overact your part!". It should be a good rental (I watched it on a free screening last night, so I can't complain), but I wouldn't pay a full movie ticket to watch it (believe me, the trailers from this movie are deceivingly better than the movie itself). All in all, if it was worse than what it is, maybe it could have fallen in the "so bad it's good" category, but unfortunately, like I said from the beginning, it is just plain average.

Paranormal Activity (2007)

Validates The Blair Witch Project

[6/10 · 30 December 2009]

First of all, I liked this movie. Is not ground-breaking, is not the best horror film ever, but it is a very decent take on demonic possession and faux-documentary movies. The acting was very good (specially Katie.. Micah I felt was a little overdone) and the first half of it promised a lot horror-wise, IMHO. What I mean by this post's subject is that this movie did exactly what the people who dislikes TBWP criticized that movie for NOT doing. The main criticism I've heard of TBWP is that there's almost nothing in the whole movie to be scared of. Sticks and stones are moved around overnight, the film crew gets lost in the woods, they freak out over noises from the woods... other than the final minutes with something hitting their tents and the final showdown in the abandoned house/cabin, there's almost nothing that can be considered "paranormal" in the movie (I mean, all these other things could be logically explained if you wanted to). Nowhere is the witch to be seen. No monster is shown. No real supernatural things are shown in camera. And it still freaked the hell out of most of the people who watched it. This movie (PA) does the opposite on the second half of the movie. It all starts with that Ouija board moving around and being magically burned. Then we learn that the demon is a giant chicken (footprints). And the final scene is just plain ridiculous (the demon face eating the camera in the final shot). That, for me, killed the movie. I insist, I still like it, but it could have been WAY superior had the makers stand their ground of NOT showing too much like they finally did. Once you know the demon is a monster like in any of those cheap B-movies, the movie moves from the realms of deep, real horror to the lighter horror-fantasy. For years I wondered if TBWP would have been better if only they showed a little bit more of the actual witch and/or what she was doing to the film crew, but now I know that the answer is a rotund NO. I am not comparing these 2 movies to say that one is better than the other one, but to say that what one lacks (showing too much in PA) is the strength of the other one (TBWP).

Astro Boy (2009)

Amazingly BETTER than expected

[9/10 · 17 October 2009]

I just came from an advance screening of Astroboy where I dutifully took my kids at 10 am to watch "this" thinking that if I was lucky I would be able to doze off for a few minutes during the movie. Boy, I couldn't! The story was captivating from the beginning. Yes, it was very directed at kids, you know, the far off humour and such, but when I saw Toby, the genius' "kid", I felt that the movie was after all NOT just a Pinocchio rip-off where an old man made a robot-boy because he was bored or lonely... the reasons behind the creation of Astroboy were tragic and even mature. Of course, if you are a manga aficionado, you may be thinking "duh! that's how's supposed to be", but I am NOT. I barely watched a show now and then when I was a kid (I'm 36 years old... too young for Astroboy), so I wasn't really aware of the story. So I thought, well, this development has to be a fluke inherited from the original story, from then on it should go downhill... but it did NOT. The story is full of tragedy, though decisions that if you think them through you can even understand (like a father understanding that memories cannot truly replace his son), and redemption that may be obvious to superheroes experts, but are very well exposed to a new generation of kids that will witness a clear fight between good and evil (positive and negative forces) adorned with an excellent and adequate portion of comedy. Not just a kid's movie, but a movie that I will surely watch again when my kids "force" me to buy it and to watch it with them dozens of times. Go, Astro!

The Haunting of Molly Hartley (2008)

The Omen Meets Bratz The Movie

[3/10 · 13 March 2009]

OK, in short, SAVE YOURSELF AND DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE. That last sentence is directed at you, horror film fan who enjoys anything from campy slasher films up to classics like The Exorcist, The Ring, or The Omen. If you like teen comedies, or the remake of old classics like The Amytiville Horror, you MAY like it a bit (but I even doubt this). This movie is a ridiculous take on deals with the devil (?) mixed with some sort of Antichrist religious thing.. but not even this is clear. Is like when you get a kid to tell you a scary story and they use all the clichés kids know (darkness, hands on shoulders, mirrors, etc) and at the end say "..and so, it was scary like that.. yeah...") WHAT? What was the whole story about? I get it, I know what's supposed to be, but this was so clearly presented in a way that pre-teens could watch it, that they removed ANY hint at obscurity from a "semi-promising" idea... Really, save yourself the time if not the money, and rent either a teen movie, or a real horror one. You know what, go rent Harry Potter, that's scarier.. pppfttt. P.S. My 9 year old daughter is telling me that this is one of the most boring movies she's seen "thank you dad.." LOL.. sorry kiddo.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

Indy for the new generation

[8/10 · 27 June 2008]

Yes, I liked it. No, I didn't liked it as much as the first or second ones... maybe as much as the third one. Is that the movie's fault? Not really.. it is MY fault: I grew up! But I took my kids to watch it, and surprise, surprise, they had a helluva good time with it, maybe as good as I did back in the 80's, and that an excellent compliment for a movie like this amidst all that noisy crap that Hollywood gives us these days (crap, that I must confess, I like and watch!.. but it's still crap). So, if you haven't seen it, do yourself a favor and not just "watch it", but ENJOY IT for what it is: Another Indy adventure! Cheers! ... this stupid thing asks me to add more "filler" lines.. OK, here they are :P

No Country for Old Men (2007)

Fairly Entertaining... Very Weak Script

[5/10 · 17 March 2008]

So I gave the Coens another chance. I'm one of those guys who after 2 or 3 disappointments always VOW to never watch another movie from such director(s), but then almost always fail and find myself watching the new stuff they bring to the table (I said almost, cause I've had it with Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez). The movie started and I had fairly high expectations after all the hurrays it's been receiving. My feeling that this was one of those movies that self-important critics like to put in the spotlight as THE new masterpiece was sent to the very back of my mind. The ambiance, I like, the pace at the beginning, was good. Bardem's acting convincing (not so chilling as I read everywhere, but good nonetheless). The whole story ahead seemed very interesting, until we find the Mexicans... The slow pace (which I liked... not every movie has to be a frantic teenage million shots per minute MTV video) gave me a chance to savor what was happening, and I was contemplating in my mind what would I do with the money found, with practically no witnesses (just that thirsty guy, most surely dead by now) and with a head start over everybody who would be looking for it. But then, out of WEAK writing, the character gets up from bed and goes to serve a glass of water to some dying man in the desert! What a STUPID idea. And I don't mean the character's idea. Unless they wanted to present the character as a mentally impaired person, or just a total moron, there was no way ANYBODY would have done that. I can think here of many better ways to give the Mexicans a way to know who this guy was: 1. Make him go back to KILL the dying man; maybe he gets scared that he may live long enough to tell his friends about the mustached gringo who came earlier, or whatever. Maybe he realizes that he screwed up by leaving that guy as a witness, but to come back many hours later to help a guy barely breathing? C'mon! 2. So, you want to make this character more likable, less dark than someone willing to kill an unarmed and dying guy just for his filthy money, OK, that's easy... make him greedy enough to come back for MORE money. Maybe the dying Mexican is armed and he has another bag full of money (split the 2 millions in 2 parts, he founds 1 million under that tree with that dead Mexican, and the other million is between the dying Mexican in his truck). So, he has the option of killing the Mexican and get the second million, but that's to mean for him, so he settles for just the 1 million he found. Goes back home, and figures that maybe the other Mexican may have died already and there's another million up for grabs.. yeah, it's pretty dumb to go back after so many hours (he should have stayed waiting for the Mexican to die) but not as dumb as taking water to the dying fella! From then on, I knew that the movie was going to be a series of illogical situations forced fit for the sake of whatever the directors wanted to show us. Fortunately, it wasn't so, but that spoiled the movie for me: illogical or inconsequential scenes/characters thrown in for the sake of nothing! So, we have Woody in a Texans suit, very bad-ass, he gets killed without showing us why he thinks he's such a bad-ass. We have Tommy Lee Jones acting the same character that he seems to know lately... is he a real sheriff nowadays? Because I've seen at least 3 movies lately with him and this character, the same one! He's after the killer, but I hardly think that he will get him sitting and talking nonsense in the local cafeterias. The bad guys, the ones who "hired" "Sugar" (whatever his correctly spelled name is). What kind of morons hire a psychopathic killer? Now, here's another stupid idea from this script. The Woody Harrelson's character is apparently thrown in to let us know that Sugar is a real crazy M.F. He will kill Death if the Reaper looks him in the eye, or so he says. Sugar seems to be a pretty bad ass but too psycho for the job (for ANY job), and everybody seems to know this, but they keep hiring him!? Gimme a break. And the Mexicans... well, they - SPOILER - kill the main character in a hotel in El Paso... but that seems to be of no importance for the directors. I wasn't expecting a big shoot-out, or a grandiose action scene where maybe he would get killed, but at least a little dignity to this character would have showed him being killed, not just dead in the floor... I actually didn't recognized him at first (I guess I'm bad at recognizing dead guys), and my wife was the one who told me "they snuffed him already".. I was like, what? no way, that's a Mexican, don't you see the moustache. But not only Mexicans wear moustaches in this movie... And at the end, the accident........... so, what? This movie is just a big pond of pseudo profundities that will make you feel that your watching the new big thing in crime drama... if you belong to the club of the "critic's watch". For normal people, if we wear sunglass to avoid the extra shining added by marketing, this is just a fairly entertaining movie.

Transformers (2007)

Starscream!!!

[10/10 · 3 July 2007]

First of all, this movie is AMAZING. I loved it, and so did everyone around me at the theater, clapping at the end while the credits rolled (not a very usual reaction from where I'm from: Winnipeg, in Canada). BUT!!!!!!!! The movie concentrated too much on the Autobots and the Decepticons were left out as just a menacing, violent group of soldiers who can really kick ass. With less than 20 minutes of screen-time, the movie missed the opportunity of showing a crucial aspect from The Transformers, and that is the struggle between Starscream and Megatron. You know Megatron disdains Starscream by the very first thing he says to him (You failed again, Starscream!).. that line made the movie for me, but Starscream's part seems more like a cameo than an actual part of the movie! WE NEED MORE STARSCREAM!!! WE NEED MORE DECEPTICONS!!! I REALLY hope that this is will be fixed in the sequel. Of course, I WILL be there again for the premier next year, or whenever it comes out.

Nemesis Game (2003)

Spoiler would be watching it...

[1/10 · 27 June 2007]

This movie had a very unique effect on me: it stalled my realization that this movie REALLY sucks! It is disguised as a "thinker's film" in the likes of Memento and other jewels like that, but at the end, and even after a few minutes, you come to realize that this is nothing but utter pretentious cr4p. Probably written by some collage student with friends to compassionate to tell him that his writing sucks. The whole idea is … I don't even know if it tried to scratch on the supernatural, or they want us to believe that because someone fills your mind (a very weak one, btw) with stupid "riddles", the kind you learn on elementary school recess, you suddenly come to the "one truth" about everything, then you have to kill someone and confess…. !!! What? How, what, why, WHY? Is just like saying that to make a cake, just throw a bunch of ingredients, and add water… forgot about cooking it? I guess these guys forgot to, not explain, but present the mechanism of WHY was this happening? You have to do that when you present a story which normal, everyday acts (lie solving riddle rhymes) start to have an abnormal effect on people. Acting was horrible, with that girl always trying to look cute at the camera, and the guy from Highlanders, the series, acting up like the though heavy metal record store (yeah, they're all real though s-o-b's). The "menacing" atmosphere, with the "oh-so-clever" riddles (enter the 60's series of Batman and Robin, with guest appearance of The Riddle) and the crazies who claim to have "the knowledge" behind that smirk on their faces… just horrible, HORRIBLE.

I'm usually very partial about low budget movies, and tend to root for the underdog by giving them more praise than they may deserve, in lieu of their constrictions, you know, but this is just an ugly excuse for a movie that will keep you wanting to be good for an hour and a half, and at the end you will just lament that you fell for it.

Superman Returns (2006)

I liked it. .. but...

[6/10 · 28 June 2006]

Do I think is the best superhero movie ever? Hardly. Would I see it again? Sure, if it's for free... if not, I will rent it when it comes out on DVD. I really want to be more enthusiastic about this movie, but I really don't feel it deserves it. If I analyze it piece by piece, I can't find too many objections, but the movie as a whole just doesn't make me want to watch it again right away. When I think of all the years waiting for this movie, I'm sure I was expecting a LOT more than what I saw. The story is weak. Nothing spectacular. Nothing we haven't seen dozens of times with at least the same (many times even more) intensity in other movies. So, there's a lot of drama going on between Super and Lois Lane, but we don't get to feel Superman's regrets or pains. We get to see a VERY bitchy Lois Lane because of that.. maybe too much (I got to the point where I wanted Lex to show up and shut her hole up for good). There is a VERY nice surprise in the plot, something that caught me by surprise. Now I feel it payed off to watch it in the first few days before everybody starts talking about how the Superdude has a ... in this movie. Spacey's Lex Luthor.. well, I would say it was the best Luthor I've seen, but that's not saying much. Is not as goofy as Gene Hackman's interpretation (but he is still kinda goofy), nor so dry and sour as Michael Rosenbaum's interpretation in "Smallville" (I don't like him either, but I tend to believe Lex would be better as a real villain, and not a Sunday strip villain like he is in the movies). He gets intense sometimes, but not enough to really feel anything towards him (good villains make you feel that you fear and/or hate them). I guess the stakes were never raised too high for such a STRONG super hero. I would have loved to see him in real peril (Doomsday, anyone?) against maybe Brainiac or some really good plan from Lex; but the scene with Lex shoving Kryptonite in his face is way too predictable. I mean, c'mon... is that all you could think about in like 10 years!? X-Men has the comic book movies throne right now... Spidey is next with his symbiote.. may we see Venom? Don't think so, but PLEASE prepare Spider-Man 4 with the best villain ever, and DO NOT TONE HIM DOWN! (who am I talking to? )

Cars (2006)

First Pixar... failure?

[6/10 · 18 June 2006]

Pixar finally made a not-so-good movie. OK, it was good.. sometimes it was actually pretty good.. but most of the time it was just OK... and there were moments where it was, mmmh, how to put it, mmmh, well, almost bad. If there is 1 sin that I cannot forgive in movies, is Boredom. For me, a movie can have bad acting, bad effects, bad music, bad direction... but if it has a bad screenplay, it better NOT be because it's BORING. And Cars, unfortunately, it has a small dose of that. The movie runs for about 2 hours, and there were many times when I caught myself thinking things that had nothing to do with the movie (did I left my PC turned on when I left home?)... the story was simply NOT engrossing enough. You may say that maybe I wasn't in the mood for an animated film, but you would be wrong. I was in the mood. Besides, the best judges in the theatre could corroborate my words: All around me, kids were starting to lose any interest in the movie by the second half of it. Even my kids where apparently more excited to play with their Cars action figures than watching the "real thing" on the screen. But enough with the bad... wait, I'm not done. The movie seems to be directed to... I don't know who, but not to the people who liked the other Pixar films. I mean, now I know what my girlfriend felt when I made here watch with me films like "Any Given Sunday". I felt lost as to why those Cars were making such a big deal of a race. Things like having a "cameo" of this driver guy Schumacher (totally sic) flew over me until after like 10 seconds when my brain woke up and look for his name in the file cabinet for "unnecessary general culture/pseudo-sports" (btw, he's this big-shot driver, kinda like the Michael Jordan of racing, I guess). Then, if you'd know me, you would know that I'm a guy with a very, VERY good sense of suspension of disbelief. Throw me all the wizards, unicorns, aliens, ghosts, superheroes, valiant reporters, gooey masses, talking animals, living toys, God, the Devil, whatever! I will hold my brain "on hold" and believe it all for the duration of the movie, so I can enjoy it, you know. But here, I just couldn't do it. I've heard the expression "leave your brain at the entrance" many times, but this is the first time that I've actually wish I could do it. How in the HELL can we believe in a world where EVERYTHING is cars-related! As hard as I tried, I couldn't stop from thinking that the damn machines do NOT have hands! There's no way they can "create" anything, let alone something as sophisticated as, well, human-like lifestyles! I now realized that in every movie there's always something/someone with hands. This idea, a world populated with cars, may work in shows like Thomas The Tank, or maybe Bob The Builder (but there Bob has hands), BUT these shows are segments of 20 minutes tops, and they are idea-based on some moral argument directed at 2, 3 or 4 years old kids! They're like a naptime story that you usually don't have to explain because the point of the story is the idea of "sharing", or "be nice to your siblings", or some other brainwashing message to have better kids. Here, in a movie that's supposed to be fun for little kids, as well as for adults, or just kids that are potty-trained, well, it just didn't worked. The good things are what make Pixar probably the best animation company out there. The graphics were excellent as expected. The highlight would be the short animation "One Man Band". Totally hilarious with a lot of emotions mixed in its scarce 5 or so minutes. Probably my second favourite next to "Yak-Yak Attack". I would say that the short film made it worth going to watch Cars, but I still wondered why didn't I left my wife with the kids and went to watch "Nacho Libre" instead. OK, I gotta stop myself. I started writing this saying that the movie is OK, but the more I write about it, the more I'm actually hating it. That wasn't supposed to happen. I know that you will see for yourself if this movie sucks or not, I just hope that you have a better control of your brain that I do, and that your day is REALLY relaxed, so you can stand the boredom of s stroll thru Route 66.

21 Grams (2003)

The most stupid way of making a movie...

[1/10 · 10 January 2006]

... or how to destroy your own movie trying to be inventive (and fail).

It goes like this: If you want to watch this movie (which is 2 hours long) in 50 minutes, all you need to do is watch the first 40 minutes, then fast forward to minute 110 and watch for 5 minutes when a "revelation" happens, and if you really want to have "closure", fast forward to when the credits begin to roll (ignore the dedication, it's way too pretentious).

Normally, I don't comment on movies I hate, why waste time, right? But this one is different because it bothers me that IT COULD HAVE BEEN GOOD in the hands of a real director, not a spoiled baby like this moron from Mexico.

The acting is what you can expect from Penn and Watts, very good. Even Del Toro, who I normally don't like, gives an excellent performance, despite the flaws in his character's script.

But why, oh why, did Gonzalez (the "director") choose to try and "pull a Tarantino" again like he tried (and also failed) before in "Amores Perros". Can someone please explain to him that the way he edited the movie looks like a freaking 2 hours long trailer of a movie that we actually may want to see? In the first 40 minutes you know 98% of what the whole movie is about. There's only the question of "Who shot Paul in the end?". That amounts to the missing 1% of the movie, and the other 1% of the movie is the "revelation" that happens in the 110th minute, which I already mentioned.

Why would I care for Jacks struggle with his conscience if I already know that he will make it to the end of the movie without killing himself? Why would I care for Paul's wife's strange desire to have his child if I already know that he will end up with Cristina? ... Wait! Do you think I'm spoiling the movie here for you? No! You can see all that in the very first few minutes!

Most of the movie you spend it having this mental exercise of trying to identify if this 30 second scene belongs before of after what you just have seen. Its fun, believe me, but it does NOTHING for the movie.

Tarantino KNEW how to do it with his Pulp Fiction. Nolan PERFECTED this kind of weird narrative. But when Tarantino decided to go for it as a kind of imaginative and innovative way; and Nolan used his backwards narrative with the justification of getting us into the characters reality and the way he perceived his world (which IMHO is the best example of how to get the audience INTO the movie); this idiot apparently wanted to do it JUST BECAUSE! There is NO justification for ruining a perfectly linear story of life, death, sin, and redemption, with these cheap gimmicks of "pseudo-cinematography".

But don't get me wrong, the story itself is not so great either; I'm just saying that it would have been "not so bad" if they would have treated differently. There are too many senseless sub-plots to consider it a good story, especially when you get to know who shot Paul (that was plainly ridiculous).

Tell you what, rent any Jennifer Lopez movie, stick it into your DVD player, and play it with the "shuffle" function on, and you'll get an Alejandro González Iñárritu movie.

Then you won't have to mourn for all the wasted talent of real actors.

The Jacket (2005)

Jacob's Ladder rip-off or Fairly Good movie?

[31 July 2005]

I've read some post saying that "..Jack died in Iraq. The entire thing took place in his head.." People are saying this not as what they think, but as simple fact. I'm not sure about this, but what I'm sure of is:

1. If what happened was REAL (not because of his wound), then I think the movie, flawed as it is, it's very good since blends drama with fantasy in a level that you, as a viewer, don't really realize until the movie is over and then you start to think about it.

2. If indeed what happens is just happening in his mind while dying. SHAME ON THIS MOVIE! It would be nothing but a bad Jacob's Ladder (one of the best movies ever) rip-off!

So, the jury is still deliberating...

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

Sadistic Jedi

[5/10 · 11 June 2005]

OK kids, this movie is "OK". Way better than the other 2 previous disgraces, not as good as Empire Strikes Back, and brushing against the simple-fun-minded buy-my-toys plan that Mr. Lucas always seem to have in mind. Dark? Not at all. Lucas seems to be almost ashamed of making an allusion to the evil deeds of Vader against kids. But what bothers me is the sadistic way in which the so-called good guy of the movie leaves the bad guy suffering a horrible death with limbs amputated and more burned than my first attempt at a BBQ! The Vader guy is laying there, screaming in pain (ok, he was screaming that he hated the other guy, but that's hardly a reason to leave the roasted guy in such torment), clinging for dear life over a river of lava, and what does Obi-Wan does? He just turns his back and leaves the party (yeah, he seem sad and angry at losing his buddy privileges, I concede that). Why didn't he finished him off! Was is too much to ask to take his "ex-apprentice" out of his misery with his light saber? Couldn't he suspect that maybe the poor guy was suffering needlessly? I already complaint before about the Jedi's being not-so-good sports by attacking 2 against 1 that poor Darth Maul on the first one, but I think that the sadism shown in this movie by one of the only Jedi's left alive is worse. No wonder Darth Vader turned out to be such a grumpy breather! OK... this movie deserves 2 stars because I only fell asleep once. Go Sith, Go!

House of the Dead (2003)

This is the kind of movie I would make...

[1/10 · 6 May 2005]

...because I have absolutely no knowledge of how to make a movie. So, yes, I would make a mess like this one. But it would be OK, because I would then show it to my friends, drink a few beers, then we all would laugh our asses off at the absurdity. Then, when the movie is over (or maybe a few minutes before that), we would take it and burn it to a crisp so no one else would see it and make fun at me. Why the "director" of this.... thing didn't do just that. It would have saved my brain cells... it was a massacre... aaaaaaarrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....... - Not worthy of 10 lines -