The James Bond producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson clearly don't know what to do with the character after Cassino Royale. Yeah, they re-invented the franchise in C.R., but they didn't have a plan for the 007 after that. Quantum of Solace is boring and this obtuse Bond played by this bodyguard, Daniel Craig, is just an uninspired imitation of Jason Bourne. And he looks too old for the job, by the way. Once the producers decided to ignore the character's past and formula and reboot the series, they have the obligation of launch more Cassino Royales in the future not dumb movies like Quantum of Solace (a substandard production that is neither a classical Bond film nor another Cassino Royale). We want more than that.
Reviews
6 Reviews
Irreversible
(2002)
Great film - but only from a technical point of view
23 January 2008
SOME SPOILERS
Today there is a "movement" of filmmakers with incredible skills on filming and editing, but with nothing to say. Perhaps Gaspar Noé is one of those filmmakers. His ability to visually tells a story is clear but would be better if he was less pretentious and more conscious of his limitations. His claim that "we are savages, more than civilized beings" sounds like the statement of a naive and angry teenager, what he probably is in his essence (and perhaps he doesn't know that). In "Irreversible", he shows us the fate of three people that, in a tragic night, "looses everything". The woman, Alex, is raped in a subterranean passage and her boyfriend and a couple's close friend hunt down the rapist and find themselves in trouble with all freaks available in Paris, reunited in a hellish gay night club on the city. The story is told backwards, because, you see, this is an art movie at least is what they say. Is this film disturbing and incredibly well made? Oh, yeah it is. Is the rape scene so disgusting and hard to see that you'll be sick in it's first five minutes (it plays during 10 minutes)? For sure. In resume, is this film worth seeing? Absolutely from a technical point of view. But there is no sociological or humanistic message in this well-disguised horror movie, that is even ironic on it's irresponsible approach of sensitive themes. It's a myth that all men have a secret pleasure watching rape scenes only the crazy ones have it. But I would watch it with no complains if I could learn anything really valid about human condition, or discover why this kind of thing happens. Or even if the film could help me to deal with this terrible situation, if a person that I love would hurt as Alex was in the movie. I didn't learn nothing. I just watched a woman suffering and sometimes I had the impression that the movie was mocking her and the whole situation. For example: the name of the rapist is "La Tenia" (english translation: "the worm") and he conveniently rapes Alex from behind, doing comments about her tight "ring" (her anus), or how anal sex is "goooood" and so on. Later, when Alex' boyfriend finds the rapist, we see "the worm" in a nightclub called "The Rectum" (did you notice the subtle irony?). It looks more a film about Noe's fixation on anus than a movie about rape, and more important: about the consequences of rape. Noe concludes his "important" film with a message: "Time Destroys Everything" in the sense that the rape and the events of that night destroyed the happiness of Alex and the happiness of her friends, completely. You see, there's no hope there's no tomorrow. Noe tells us that there's no point on falling in love, have children, make a family and dreams about better days,because your girlfriend can be raped, beaten and humiliated for a jerk, and no one can survive that. Is that, really? I never had a chance to check it out. You see, after torture me with the rape scene and make me watch a graphic murder occurred in the "Rectum", Noe just gave up the story he doesn't have anything more to say. Did Alex survive to the attack? We'll never know. Did the child that she was carrying died, as a consequence of the rape? Who cares? After all, the "point" was the rape, the murder, the blood, the head in peaces... In real life women are raped and mistreated since the beginning of time and a lot of them survived, had their children and were able to find happiness again, in spite of the trauma and the horrific memories. But Gaspar Noé doesn't know that. He only wants to express his pessimistic (and simple minded) point of view of life that's is much more complex than this well-made (and pointless) exploitation art movie.
Today there is a "movement" of filmmakers with incredible skills on filming and editing, but with nothing to say. Perhaps Gaspar Noé is one of those filmmakers. His ability to visually tells a story is clear but would be better if he was less pretentious and more conscious of his limitations. His claim that "we are savages, more than civilized beings" sounds like the statement of a naive and angry teenager, what he probably is in his essence (and perhaps he doesn't know that). In "Irreversible", he shows us the fate of three people that, in a tragic night, "looses everything". The woman, Alex, is raped in a subterranean passage and her boyfriend and a couple's close friend hunt down the rapist and find themselves in trouble with all freaks available in Paris, reunited in a hellish gay night club on the city. The story is told backwards, because, you see, this is an art movie at least is what they say. Is this film disturbing and incredibly well made? Oh, yeah it is. Is the rape scene so disgusting and hard to see that you'll be sick in it's first five minutes (it plays during 10 minutes)? For sure. In resume, is this film worth seeing? Absolutely from a technical point of view. But there is no sociological or humanistic message in this well-disguised horror movie, that is even ironic on it's irresponsible approach of sensitive themes. It's a myth that all men have a secret pleasure watching rape scenes only the crazy ones have it. But I would watch it with no complains if I could learn anything really valid about human condition, or discover why this kind of thing happens. Or even if the film could help me to deal with this terrible situation, if a person that I love would hurt as Alex was in the movie. I didn't learn nothing. I just watched a woman suffering and sometimes I had the impression that the movie was mocking her and the whole situation. For example: the name of the rapist is "La Tenia" (english translation: "the worm") and he conveniently rapes Alex from behind, doing comments about her tight "ring" (her anus), or how anal sex is "goooood" and so on. Later, when Alex' boyfriend finds the rapist, we see "the worm" in a nightclub called "The Rectum" (did you notice the subtle irony?). It looks more a film about Noe's fixation on anus than a movie about rape, and more important: about the consequences of rape. Noe concludes his "important" film with a message: "Time Destroys Everything" in the sense that the rape and the events of that night destroyed the happiness of Alex and the happiness of her friends, completely. You see, there's no hope there's no tomorrow. Noe tells us that there's no point on falling in love, have children, make a family and dreams about better days,because your girlfriend can be raped, beaten and humiliated for a jerk, and no one can survive that. Is that, really? I never had a chance to check it out. You see, after torture me with the rape scene and make me watch a graphic murder occurred in the "Rectum", Noe just gave up the story he doesn't have anything more to say. Did Alex survive to the attack? We'll never know. Did the child that she was carrying died, as a consequence of the rape? Who cares? After all, the "point" was the rape, the murder, the blood, the head in peaces... In real life women are raped and mistreated since the beginning of time and a lot of them survived, had their children and were able to find happiness again, in spite of the trauma and the horrific memories. But Gaspar Noé doesn't know that. He only wants to express his pessimistic (and simple minded) point of view of life that's is much more complex than this well-made (and pointless) exploitation art movie.
Local Parody
24 February 2006
This movie is a spoof of "Planet of the Apes" (1968) and follows the storyline of the original step by step - in spite of being a crazy parody of the original film. A group of men lands in a balloon on an area (it's not a planet, it's more like a hill) where talking apes rule and humans are slaves. The apes try to transform the guys in monkeys; a simian princess falls in love with one of them; and so one. This film is one of the several movies made for the popular Brazilian group "Os Trapalhões" - Didi (Renato Aragão), Dedé, Mussum and Zacharias - in the seventies, all of then inspired in American blockbusters. It's a very fun entertainment, but the humor is very "local" to be understood in other countries. Oh, yeah, the ape "makeup" is terrible, but that's part of the fun. The movie don't take itself seriously
Planet of the Apes
(1968)
Sometimes, less is more
14 April 2005
There's something very special about this movie. I watched it many years ago, and I though that it was a wonderful experience in imagination, a science fiction masterpiece. It was before "Jurassic Park" and "Lord of the Rings". Then, some months ago, I watched it again and had the same feelings. It's like if the movie itself it's storyline, production values and characters was in a time capsule, save from the present, protected against imitations and spoofs like the new "Planet of the Apes" (2001) or The Simpson's "Stop the Planet of the Apes!". What is the source of its power? The answer, I think, is the absence of special effects and the "realism" of the story. We have a travel to the future, some apocalyptic sets and talking chimps - so, we don't need laser guns or apes jumping like Keanu Reeves in "Matrix". The upside-down world visited by Charlton Heston is absurd enough, and CGI effects (if they were available in 1968) would be too much. It's a science fiction oriented for the adult audiences, what explains the sober tone of the acting and the film-making. The script also delivers a powerful story and an eerie climax, in the school of H. G. Wells and Philip K. Dick novels and the simian establishment, with it's medieval mentality and cold rationalism, represents a real threat to the astronaut/hero Colonel Taylor (a sense of danger totally missed on Tim Burton's remake). In the conclusion of the film, there's no ape army fighting human warriors but a lonely man discovering the ultimate true about our destiny, the fate of our species. Even in these days, when the nuclear nightmare is under control, it's a blasting, impressive view of the future. In movies like "Planet of the Apes", the visual aspects are always relevant. POTA was certainly ahead of its time: the tools used on the film works SO WELL (the ape makeup is still very impressive, along with the sets and costumes) that is easy to buy its premise. The monkeys are very real in their leather clothes, and one can imagine that, if the evolution had been reverse, they would look like that. It's an amazing exercise in imagination. After all this years, with it's subtle sense of wonder and intriguing premise, "Planet of the Apes" remains an amazing movie. The new science fiction and horror flicks could learn from it's legacy: sometimes, less is more.
Planet of the Apes
(2001)
A Deception
13 April 2005
This movie is a deception, in the real sense of the word. When I heard about this flick, I though that this "re-imagining" would be at least visually better than the original film. Well, it's not. The new makeup is more complex than the appliances used in the firs film, but the apes are grotesque. Ari, for instance, has hilarious ape features, and so David Warner's character. The problem, I think, is the "realistic" sculpture of the masks, made by Rick Baker. I don't know if "realism" is a good choice in a movie called "Planet of the Apes". The general concept is quite bizarre, and realism can make things even worse.In the original, the characters looked like apes, but had a more sophisticated appeal, a noble aspect. It's very difficult to achieve this balance, and perhaps it explains why the makeup of the new "Planet" wasn't nominated for an Oscar. Add to that a bunch of apes running like rabbits, "primitive" humans that think and talk like evolved humans and poor sets, and you have a natural looser. But what really upset me about this film is the title: it should be "THE VISITOR", as Burton had originally envisioned. "THE VISITOR" is more accurate in the sense that the movie is a "re-imagining", not a remake.
The Punisher
(2004)
Bad, really bad
13 April 2005
This is a bad, stupid film made for stupid audiences - people that read comic books, not real books, and think that movies and video-games are the same thing. They aren't, and this silly film (along with HULK), is one of the big mistakes in movie's history. The script is garbage, the performances are hilarious and the stunts are bad. There are some good things about it (like the soundtrack and the references to Sergio Leone's westerns), but the film doesn't work. It looks like one of those cheese Van Dammes's movies. Don't waste your time. If you like HQ's adaptations, go for films like SUPERMAN THE MOVIE and X-MEN. Forget this crap.
Tell Your Friends