Change Your Image
DrFontane
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Prometheus (2012)
It's hard to say whether Prometheus has landed or just crashed with style.
No one can argue that Prometheus looks incredibly impressive. It has a convincing atmosphere and makes use of an old-school look of science fiction which still feels fresh and hits all the right nostalgic buttons. The film keeps creeping up in my mind, its vagueness making me wonder how everything fits together and its style bringing about a lot of nostalgia for the things I love about Alien, one of my all-time favorite films. This would be a bigger advantage if my recollections weren't a mixed bag of excitement and disappointment. It's hard to say whether Prometheus has landed or just crashed with style.
There are aspects of the plot that are genuinely interesting, where its vagueness benefits to make you ponder over posed questions. There is, for instance, an aspect of the relationship with your father (or your creator in general) that I quite like. Your father is inevitably superior in hierarchy and even though you might surpass him. He has to die in order for you to be fully independent. It is an engrained consequence of the Prometheus myth without being previously (to my knowledge) explored. But there are at least as many other questions where the possible answers show a definite lack of imagination or intelligence.
One such question is how the aliens created us. The opening scene shows, if I'm correct, an alien sacrificing himself to grant the components of life to the waters of the earth. Now, either life evolves separately on earth from these components. If that is the case, then the human organism evolved entirely separately on a different planet, over the course of thousands of chaotic years (including the dinosaurs losing dominance over smaller mammals due to environmental impacts), into practically the same creature as the aliens (with almost the exact same DNA-code, mind you). This would be highly and deeply unlikely. Or we didn't evolve, but were created; our DNA-code was granted to us by this alien creature. That begs the question of why there are so many animals on this planet with whom we share huge amounts of DNA with. This bothers me, really bothers me. If it's a question of suspension of disbelief then don't be so vague about it. Neither is it something small that can easily be ignored. I don't expect all the science to be completely plausible in science fiction, but this incident isn't just some fictional science; it is engrained in its themes and its central question. The entire film soothes with questions that feel intentional to make you think, so don't punish us for doing so. It adds up to something somewhat incoherent and can feel a little underwhelming.
The structure of the story is familiar; perhaps a little bit too familiar. At times it feels like it's going through the motions. Some of those motions are awkwardly uninspired, but more often they are obviously cared for and still manage to thrill and bring about a sense of awe. The creatures are better than almost any monster or alien these days and although it is a big budget blockbuster, it still understands that tension resides in mystery. The ending, however, feels a bit too rushed at times for tension to build to its peak.
Noomi Rapace brings a wonderful performance, but truth be told, Fassbender steals every scene he's in. David is the star of the film. Ironically, the robot is the most fleshed out character of the entire film. Almost every other character though, has no development, no third emotion (the second emotion for all, except David, being fear) and they tend to just be plain stupid. Their manner of thinking is much more akin to a typical character of horror-films than a scientist. Jumping to conclusion seems far more logical in terms of the plot-development than as part of any scientific method. The actors, however, do a good job of making these characters feel like real people even though they fit so perfectly and obviously in the required stereotypes.
Prometheus lies somewhere between a creature-feature and hard sci-fi. Although sadly it isn't the best of both worlds, but a clash of the charm and flaws of both. It has some wonderful spectacle, interesting creatures and it has some big existential questions, attention to detail and mysteries. But it also has idiotic characters, badly recycled structures, ideas and generally falls short thematically. It's too well made to hate, but too poor to love.
Inception (2010)
A rational ride through a dreamworld
Both Christopher Nolan and James Cameron had a rather lengthy film in them that was about a decade in the making. The difference between both is that Nolan focused on ideas and the crafting of a screenplay which he tries to breath into a comprehensible narrative whereas Cameron focused on technology and breathes it to life via a recycled a lengthy version of a childishly simplified story. Personally I'd take Nolan's story- crafting over Cameron's effects any day of the week, but does that mean Inception works?
What is used is a not very complex idea to create a world with its own rules and a dreamlike quality even though it doesn't feel dreamlike. Then again, dreams don't feel very dreamlike either. Everything looks removed from the real world while at the same time feeling very real. The crafted world doesn't feel like they're just special effects and there is a definite feeling of reality to the physically impossible. In this world unfolds a complex story wherein we explore various themes such as guilt, illusory happiness and the nature of reality. Although there is enough food for thought, it is not confusing in any way that would hurt the story. The story is told very neatly and visually, without extensive use of talking to explain the plot. Neither does it needlessly linger. Even with its 148min running time I don't think it took much longer than it needed (and I think most films take longer than they need to). The actual difficulty of the film would simply lie in the requirement for you to keep up. But you are rewarded for doing so.
Every time I watch a film I have a slight fear of what I'm in for. Sometimes it's a reason why I need to see a film a second time to really appreciate it. Watching a film is like going on a journey where you are lead through an experience that you are not likely to have in such an interesting and detached way as at the movies. Too often do I feel cheated when it all builds up to a form of idiotic propaganda. With Christopher Nolan, I feel in capable hands. Much like with Kubrick, I feel that everything is calculated and nourished. He explores his themes without preaching. Even when there are tendencies for it, his filmmaking is too removed to show it as anything more than an opinion. There is a reason for it being removed though.
Inception is a rational film above all else. When I say that, I mean that its beauty lies within the left side of your brain. As the story was unfolding itself, my emotional bond with the characters was not what kept me captured. Neither the stakes nor the opposition was ever truly personal and it wasn't the emotional catharsis as much as the solving of the "puzzle" that I was interested in. It's a form of intellectual (but accessible) ride. Even at its most emotional I felt an interest from an rational distance which I don't think was just me. So, although I should say the characters and their development is not the strongest feat of Inception I should also add that it's not the reason to watch Inception for.
It is rather unique being a big budget film about ideas and Inception explores them with thoroughness, an ambiguity and a resolution without making any simplistic statement. It doesn't treat its audience like they're a bunch of idiots and is a very rewarding experience for everyone that takes the trouble to go along for the ride.
The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)
The Propaganda of Emily Rose
The Exorcism of Emily Rose is an OK film. It is occasionally nicely done and would indeed be scary if I had seen it alone. However, some things are downright ridiculous and the plot focuses far too much on the trial, which is full of religious propaganda.
I would like to make an ethical note on this film of exactly that: I think it is very representative for how the medium of film lends itself very easily to such a purpose. I'd like to share some notes on it, because many films play on something similar. Before I begin my note, I'll first justify why I at all bother (apart from the fact that I enjoy it). We draw experience and moral lessons not just from our own experience, but from the experience within films as well; If not literally or consciously, then still unconsciously. Considering its experience was brought to us by a writer rather than life, it can't hurt to be even wearier of what it teaches us.
The Exorcism of Emily Rose is inspired by the true story of Anneliese Michel. Let me first say that I love films that are "inspired by a true story", if not only because almost every film ever made is inspired by a true story in some way. Emily Rose and Anneliese Michel share a fate, being that they suffered from either possession or a severe medical condition (most likely a form of epilepsy) and died of either the unsuccessful exorcism or the medical negligence of her condition. The film focuses on two interlocked story lines: one being the exorcism of Emily Rose (in the past) and the other a trial of her priest, being accused of negligent homicide (in the present).
What's very convenient about films is that they have the capacity to already make its premises true before they even begin to argue (and this film clearly tries to make an argument). We already know that the priest is a good man who did the right thing in carrying out his exorcism, because Emily Rose was quite clearly possessed (as we've been shown). In court, he is opposed by someone who tries to explain everything "scientifically". There's already quite a manipulative setup in that this guy makes a questionable use of the words "facts" and "evidence". The film ends with the previous skeptic lawyer who makes an even more questionable speech about "facts" and doubt. I'll quote a part of it:
"The prosecution wants you to believe that Emily's psychotic epileptic disorder was a fact because facts leave no room for reasonable doubt. But this trial isn't about facts. This trial is about possibilities. Is it a fact that Emily was a hypersensitive as Dr. Adani suggests? A person who's more likely, by her very nature, to become possessed? I can't say that, but the question is: Is it possible?" (
) "Is Father Richard Moore guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, of negligent homicide? Did he, in fact, neglect Emily's needs in such a way that her death is now on his hands? No! That is not a fact. The only fact the only thing I know beyond a doubt in this case is that Father Moore loved Emily with his whole heart."
I find that use of "fact" and especially the morality of it not only questionable, but dangerous. I can agree with her on one thing: Emily's psychotic epileptic disorder isn't a fact. It's a fact that there was something going on with her, but a psychological disorder (I'm not a doctor, I'm not going to advocate that specific condition) has a probability much higher than possession. There should indeed always be room for doubt, but it is amazing how often science is accused of having all the answers when it is faith that claims to have the absolute truth (without "reasonable doubt") while science always starts from that very doubting perspective, moving up the ladder of probability (not certainty).
The argument of the film is as follows: "The priest was in the right, because his superstition is true. Then that means he would be convicted while being innocent." This is an argument often found in films dealing with any form of the supernatural. There is always an annoying skeptic who is wrong because the superstition is right. We are almost taught that we shouldn't be that guy who didn't believe it and should have listened from the start. But even with the priest being right in the film, I would argue there wouldn't be any good reason for the judge to be on his side.
There should always be room for doubt, but that doesn't imply every possibility is an equally probable one. If there would be ten witnesses of the rape and murder of a girl, with the accused having her blood on his hands and his semen in her temple of womanliness, there would still be the possibility that the minds of ten people played tricks on them and he was set-up in some way. However, that's so unlikely that the evidence before us suggests a high probability he's guilty. Considering we're not all-knowing that's not a perfect system, but it's the best we got to have as least innocent people accused as possible. One last irony I'd like to point out is that the reason we know the priest is in the right is because the film shows us the evidence of it. Why not leave some room for doubt on that?
Avatar (2009)
Pocahontas from Outer Space
Pocahontas from Outer Space took a great many years and a huge pile of money to get made, but it's finally here. Now the question is: Does it live up to its hype? Avatar is the story of Jake Sully, a war veteran who is replacing his dead twin in a mission on the alien planet of Pandorum. The planet contains a very precious rock on which a native people called the Na'vi happen to be living on. In order to connect to the locals, it is possible to enter a remotely controlled alien body called avatars. Colonel Quaritch is prepared to make a deal with Jake if he can manage to get the Na'vi to move. If he can't, it'll be played the hard way. I'm pretty sure you're seeing where this is going. The movie's often been called a revolution in cinema. Well, is it? I very much doubt it. Truth be told, in technical terms this movie has little to be complained about. The CGI is among the best I've seen. Although you don't impress me with CGI (I already assume everything's possible, show me a story instead of a gimmick), Cameron has created a different world that I felt immersed in. If I had to complain about the special effects it would be that the creature design felt very much designed. There, the special effects are fine, I've said it. Let's move on to the story.
The concept of an avatar is a very interesting one. You aren't just controlling a body with a joystick, but you can actually *be* another species (or humanoid at least). There's something existentially interesting about this. As Jake enters the body of a Na'vi and enters their tribe, there's a much bigger connection for both Jake and the audience. You can literally see things through their eyes. Asking Neytiri if she wants to date his avatar feels a bit less like interspecies erotica. However, Jake is still a human being. When the colonel decides it's ready for the hard way, Jake stands by the natives. "Are you going to turn against your own race?" asks the Colonel. And that's about as much depth you're going to get out of it. So much for existentially interesting.
Well, what about the story? If you've seen the trailer, you can pretty much guess what the story is going to be. If you haven't seen the trailer, you'll figure it out as you're watching the movie. You will have plenty of time to do so anyway considering the movie is at least an hour too long for its own good. Not only is the movie too explanatory, but the audience is always 5 steps ahead. There's nothing original here. This wouldn't be so much of a problem if it weren't so long and didn't have such a big feeling of self-importance. Its great big morality is a bit skewed. I'm very interested in the concept of nature and what the positive or negative aspects are of us placing us so far from it. There's a harmony with the earth that is lost. A harmony lost that brings us many of our modern problems including global warming, floods and even depression. There are a lot of flaws in human society. The Na'vi are a people who are far more in touch with their planet. The comparison is made of the entire planet functioning like a brain functions with each separate piece as important. This is a side of life even from our own species' tribal ancestors (and the Na'vi really are just blue versions of Indians) that we've forgotten. But you know what has also changed? We understand that there's bacteria that we can face with medicine, that we don't have to sacrifice children for an imaginary deity and much more. Unfortunately, Cameron's Avatar its moral message doesn't surpass "Greedy humans = bad, Nature-friendly natives = good". They even worship an existing god of nature that takes sides. What morality is this serving?
This is an epic and pretentious version of Pocahontas, in space. Is it bad? Not really. If you treat it as the empty space version of Pocahontas that it is, it is fine. The story is well constructed, however simple, the planet is rich and there's plenty of stuff to satisfy your action and gimmick-needs (including 3D). However, if like me, you want something deeper or original, this movie simply doesn't deliver. There is a lot of absolutely splendid science-fiction out there, but I don't think this is one of them.
Creation (2009)
1/4th interesting 3/4th sentimental (but without being engaging)
Creation was a great idea for a movie, but failed at delivering it.
Both the story of Charles Darwin and his theory are interesting and add something to the other. It isn't a battle against religion, but there's a side-effect to science that pushes you away from God. Both Darwin's theory and life reflect this. However, the problem with this movie is that it's not equally divided and all-together too long.
Part of the movie has interesting scenes that show his theory in relation to life. The bigger part of the movie is trying to be sentimental about Charles Darwin losing a daughter. This would be fine if it weren't for the biggest part of the movie and if it weren't done in such an easy uninteresting way. I've been more engaged by a lot of cliché movies than by this. I can deal with the use of flashbacks, but bringing the hallucination of a daughter in to ease the narrative and form a repetitive reminder of how sad things are, that's too much for me.
If you're going to tell a boring story about a father who has lost a daughter, you don't need Charles Darwin to do that. It's a pity because there was a lot of potential.
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
Did you love part one? Well, you'll like this one.
You have probably all seen the first film and loved it, like all normal people did, but if you read this, there's a 50% chance you're wondering "but what's the deal with Pirates 2?". Well, in short, part 1 was brilliant, part 2 is pretty great.
It doesn't happen very often that I love a film from the first time I see it, but Pirates of the Caribbean was one of them. I fell in love with it from the start. But, part two (and three) were announced, and the people among us that love films know that sequels can really ruin it. I'm a very difficult guy to please with films (and pretty much anything else), so I think there should be some credibility when I say they did an OK job.
If The Curse of the Black Pearl deserved a 9, I rate this one 7,5. Still a very good score, if you ask me. But why is there 1.5 points difference, well several reasons. Dead Man's Chest is a bit less mature, or a bit more Hollywood than The Curse of the Black Pearl.
The use of fantasy has increased. Part one had unrealistic elements, but part two stretches to fantasy (of which the CGI has definitely improved since part one, may I add). Speaking of stretching, the story is all stretched out. While I have no real problems with the duration because I enjoy it so much, it could've easily been cut 20 minutes shorter. Especially considering the story doesn't end in this one. But there is still some good writing at times, and even though it's not as captivating as part one, you'll still enjoy it. They tried to make it seem like the story was meant to continue, and they succeeded in making it seem like that.
The jokes are more obvious and if you compare it to part one, they could bother you. Because a lot of small jokes are surrealistic things. Things that would never happen in real life. I won't give any examples, because I don't want to spoil. But Jack as well, you might sometimes get the feeling they're overdoing him. I did have that feeling once or twice. But it's still Jack Sparrow, and you'll still love him. They haven't fked him up, don't worry. And there's another character, Davy Jones. If you are familiar with Bill Nighy's strange ways, you'll know that he fits in this film and is a lovable character as well.
One last thing I'd like to mention is the ending of the film. You will probably not like it, I warn you. But let's hope for part three to make it all up.
So, people who hate this one just have to get over it. It's still an enjoyable entertaining film, just see it for yourself.
Done the Impossible: The Fans' Tale of 'Firefly' and 'Serenity' (2006)
Only watch it if you really really love Firefly
I read this on IGN, and when I saw the documentary, I understood why. "Only watch it if you really really love Firefly" and it's true, because, honestly, I love Firefly. I really do, but I still often go "it's just a TV-show" while watching it. The biggest reason why is mostly because I can't really relate to any people that much. I admit that I'm a nerd, but I'm a different nerd from most people there (who are not all nerds btw, but so different from me).
Although the story behind Firefly is great, I loved the extras on the Firefly and Serenity DVDs more. When I saw those things, and heard of the story behind it, I had never felt so proud owning a box of DVDs. But the story behind it, how they was destined for doom before it even had a chance to show what it's got, and how the fans understood that, and so many did, and many other put so much effort in bringing it back. It's nice, but they go too deep into the details.
THX 1138 (1971)
Before Star Wars, there was this interesting little film THX 1138
George Lucas made a feature film out of his old student film THX 1138: 4EB. The trailer of THX 1138 (Check above) is incredible. Better than the movie, I can already tell you. Although this is not necessarily bad, since a lot of trailers are better than the actual film.
There aren't really any spoilers ahead, but some people might find this too much information. When you are about to watch a movie, and you know what a lot of things are gonna be like (not story-wise), you can't enjoy it in the same way. But then again, I like to know as little as possible before I watch a movie.
It's not an everyday movie, that's for sure. You don't watch this movie to relax, to have some fun. It needs your attention. Personally, I find it one of the most realistic views on the future thus far, but that doesn't take away the fact that you are dropped in a world you are not familiar with. What I like about the world is that, one, it is already the "used world" of Lucas. A concept which a lot of science-fiction-movies lack, as well as the new Star Wars movies. And secondly, I like the simplicity of it all. It gives a more stylized look to it all. It is not stuffed with fancy details. Not every science fiction movie needs to be filled with technology. And the simplicity and emptiness of everything goes along perfectly with the sense of the movie. I found it to be rather scary. By that, I don't mean the exciting scary of "what's going to be behind the corner". I mean that the tone of the movie made me fear the world they live in. ALthough I did not necessarily feel with any character. The movie, unlike many others, does not ask you to be on THX 1138's side. It never asks you to like anybody. It never brings on the message that anything is right or wrong. As I watched the documentary about the movie, someone said what I felt, and had difficulties placing. "It is not a movie about the future, it is a movie from the future." Also, that it has something in common with Japanese movies, who don't explain you the different rituals that they do, they just show them, and we'll have to figure out what it all is. Hollywood tends to use ignorant people, so they can let people explain the person, and the audience what is going on. THX 1138 doesn't do that. Things are not explained in dialog that often.
I don't know if I can count this as a flaw, but as I said earlier, they don't ask you to be on anyone's side, which has one side-affect. Because there is so little dialog, and because the people are so robotic (I mean this in sense of emotion. Although it very much fits the setting, and is rather crucual for the story, so I would not change it). Since they seem less passionate, you feel less for them, ergo less for the story. This makes the movie a little bit boring.
Another little flaw is that I now like The Island way less, since the only good part of the movie is practically stolen from THX 1138, besides it's differences story-wise.
It is definitely an interesting movie, on many levels. Some parts are interesting for Star Wars fans. Although the story is pretty simple, it is quite effective, and realistic. The world on it's own looks real, and is nicely shown. And of course, it visually looks fantastic. I love the prison, and I find almost every image of THX 1138 looking special stylistic. But then again, I do speak about the cleaned up version (mind that they added a lot of silly CGI to it, which even I noticed were new, and out of place. Luckily, the rest is good enough to make up for it that the new version would probably match with the not-cleaned-up-one).
I rated this movie an 8 even though I found it a little bit boring, and not such a fantastic movie. But after seeing and hearing more about the movie, especially it's low budget. I love what they did. I don't know how to explain. I can compare it to Lord of the Rings. The beginning of for instance Fotr (the books) is rather boring, but you still have an enormous amount of respect for the story, and its background, and everything about Lotr.