damamirlo Reviews

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

I can't believe this has a 7,7 total score!

[1/10 · 19 December 2015]

I had been avoiding watching this for years. After Attack of the Clones, I was so angry I didn't want ANYTHING to do with Star Wars, ever again.

But people told me "oh, you missed on the best" "It's the best in the prequels", "It's not that bad". Most people said this one is the best among the prequels. Some people said this one is the best so far in the whole saga. I took that last one with a grain of salt, but still that raised my expectations a bit.

I was watching the first space battle thinking. "OK, this is cool, I see why some people were genuinely impressed". I even liked Obi Wan's dialogue up to "spring the trap". Then people started talking and acting. Or trying to act with the dialogue they had been given (and in all honestly, I feel for poor Portman and Christensen for the dialogue they had to deal with). When Portmand and Christensen are given good sentences and scenes, they actually do things right. Not on-par with the acting of the originals, but correctly. For Christensen, his chances come in the first scene with Palpatine at the theater (a bit of good acting and dialogue in the middle of the disaster), and his last scene with Obi Wan. Poor Natalie Portman has only one chance to shine, but delivers the wonderful "This is how liberty dies". Those moments of light show us that the actors are not that incompetent. It's just that no actor can endure the dialogue they have been given and look decent. Heck, even Sean Connery looked ridiculous in The Avengers. Great acting will only take you so far.

As for Ewan McGregor, I am a bit fed up of people thinking he is a good actor. He was impressive in the film Trainspotting, as the terribly selfish sometimes sociopathic guy. Because he was impressive there, people keep hiring him, and I keep seeing the same sociopathic smile in all his roles: when he was wooing Nicole Kidman in Moulin Rouge, and certainly here as Obi Wan. He is not a good actor. With the ridiculous dialogue he gets, it's even worse.

But the worst thing is the script. The dialogue is ridiculous (specially between the supposed lovers) and cheesy beyond the bearable. The character development is null. Anakin is super powerful but destroys his life because he wants to save his wife... and then kills her...

Anakin makes a mistakes (kills someone he shouldn't), and as a result, instead of apologizing, goes and kill a full kindergarten. No stupider main character ever disgraced the screen.

If you like flashy lights, you can watch the first five minutes. I enjoyed those. You might find Padme's only good line (This is how liberty ends) in youtube. You will see Hayden's best moment ("You underestimate my power") in internet memes. And the Anakin-Palpatine scene, I admit, was nice to watch.

The rest you can throw away. Specially the supposed romance. The poor kids (Natalie and Hayden) have to deal with the worst-written romance lines ever. Well, maybe those were the ones in Twilight, but I can't be sure.

"Oh, Anakin" "I can go to Naboo and prepare the baby's room" (I almost puked at listening to this one). "You are breaking my heart". Seriously?

OK, I admit the movie does not deserve a 1. That should go for the likes of Dragonball Evolution. As a standalone film, I would give it a four. As a part of Star Wars, considering incoherences with the previous movies and everything it breaks, it should have a 3. However, the vast amount of people who gave this a ten just flabbergasted me. The rating is way too artificially inflated. If the movie in general had a five or a six, I would give it its proper rating (3). But, 7,7 as of December 2015? No way. Someone may actually believe it and no, really.

I will keep on praying for Disney to remake the prequels. There is so much material for improvement here.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

Way to ruin the mystery, the mystique and the nostalgia.

[4/10 · 19 December 2015]

If this movie was an isolated, one-shot adventure movie, it would get a 5. Maybe a 6 at the time, because the effects were particularly beautiful, but that doesn't last. But it's part of the Star Wars saga, the best adventure saga in all time. And the harm it does to the saga must be taken into account, so it gets a 4.

The good: Darth Maul. They got an actor who could really fence, and in one of the scenes he jumps off a bike and is slashing before he even touches the floor. Best thing in the movie, and possibly one of the best things in the prequels.

The average: The effects are so good! OK, the effects are good. Nowadays that doesn't impress anyone. They were pretty impressive in 1999, but still, effects give nothing new now. If the action scenes are badly filmed, CGI cannot save them.

The bad: everything else. I, for starters, was bored. Maybe it wasn't boring for children, but I came from the original Star Wars saga. I was used to action with a reason to care. I wasn't the least interested in these characters. The action wasn't very well done. That pod race had nothing against Return of the Jedi imperial bike races.

The terrible: OK... if a spiritual force is turned biological, that's a way to destroy the mystique. Measuring power in points is DragonBall, NOT Star Wars. The acting was wooden at best, very bad in some cases. Jar Jar Binks. I won't even get into this one. Immaculate birth of Anakin Skywalker? His mother is a slave, couldn't he have a dead father or enslaved father somewhere? This one was ridiculous.

The one that I hate but may be personal: Prophecy? Chosen one? This had been used to exhaustion in 1999, and now it's even older. I like characters having something special, and them working their way into the top. But I don't like them having their destiny set in stone. I particularly loath the idea of the chosen one. It's just bad writing.

I just hope Disney remakes the prequels as soon as they can. Meanwhile, I will try to erase them from my brain. As far as I know, they do not exist.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

The worst in the prequels, which is hard to beat.

[1/10 · 19 December 2015]

OK, if the prequels were not Star Wars related, I would give them a 5-3-4. This one would have a 3 for the CGI. But the dialogue is ridiculous, cheesy and corny, the actors cannot do anything with it. There's Jar Jar.

As the movies belong to the Star Wars universe, and actually contradict the original saga, detracting from its greatness. The Clone Wars were a mystery... if you destroy a mysterious past, you'd better replace the intrigue with something better. To get these answers, I'd rather have the questions. Bobba Fett calling his daddy? Thank God I didn't see this in the cinema. I would have demanded a refund and the complaints book.

I don't think Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen are bad actors. They are not great, but not bad. The script and the love story they were given was IMPOSSIBLE to act correctly. I really hope those two recover from this. I am not going to say this love story is the worst ever, because that infamy is well-deserved by Twilight. However, I would gladly put it in second place.

I think the movie is a 3. Not even the spectacular scenes compensate for the bad acting, the bad plot and the boredom. And nothing compensates for the destruction of the previous movies lore. In the Star Wars saga, it should get a 2 (only because the 1 must be reserved for stuff like Dragonball Evolution).

Normally I give the stars I think the movie deserves regardless of how other people are voting. But I think it's an insult to the collective intelligence of mankind that this movie has anything over a 5. So it's getting one star.

I will now proceed to re-erase it from my brain, and beg Disney to remake the prequels. With a good writer.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 (2015)

Disappointed. Feels being milked like a cow. Not going back to the cinema in months.

[6/10 · 6 December 2015]

In all three previous movies of this saga, The Hunger Games, Catching Fire and Mockingjay part I, there are moving scenes. Interesting dialogue. Exciting moments. Impressive soundtrack.

This movie was poor, disappointing. Correct. 5 in all. It gets a 6 due to the amazing acting jobs of some of the leads (Lawrence is fine, Moore is good, Sutherland is great and Hutcherson is IMMENSE).

Without thinking much, I can remember some impressive scene from any of the previous movies. The Tributes' Marches. Rue's four notes. Safe and Sound. Isaac's Daughter. The Hanging Tree scene.

In this saga, I used to care about the characters. I used to feel with them. I felt moved.

This movie was empty. Void. The actors did their best, and so did the director. But the soundtrack was non-existent or forgettable. The script wasn't very good. In Mockingjay I, I could feel how Coin's speeches were getting better, and why they were moving. In this one, no speech was moving. No scene was moving.

My favourite in the saga is Catching Fire. Mockingjay I was clearly a transition movie. It didn't have an end, but it certainly had moving moments. Memorable moments.

I got out of the theatre after Mockingjay part I with a burning desire to hear "The Hunger Tree" again, and thinking "if the next one is just as good they're going to finish great and will get a cult saga!"

I got out of the theatre after Mockingjay part II feeling unmoved, empty... As time is passing, I feel disappointed, cheated and milked.

It was obvious that the production had suffered cuts. In the soundtrack, in the special effects, in the settings (the scenarios were much smaller, less epic), in the soundtrack, in the script.

Lionsgate knew we were going to see it at the cinema, and instead of finishing with great fireworks, they chose to milk us for the minimum.

You should milk cows, not fans. Or you will lose them.

I wanted to buy the DVDs for the saga. Now not only I will not, it's going to be months until I go to the cinema ever again.

I can't believe they destroyed the potential of this saga with such a poor ending.

And it's not bad. It's poor. But I wanted great.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 (2014)

Suzanne Collins is one of the most famous fortunate authors in the world.

[10/10 · 9 December 2014]

She has some of the best adaptation of books ever written. The movies add to the books, since those are only seen from Katniss' point of view.

Everything was impressive: the setting, the acting... and the soundtrack. The music gives great emotion to certain scenes. The "hanging tree" song scenes are thrilling.

I suppose enough has been written.

About the people who found this boring? They should have a look at "Speed" or "Demolition man", those are movies they will like better. This one had character development and acting.

I specially love how they showed Plutarch's influence on Alma Coin... they didn't tell, they showed it.

All in all, impressive. Even if not much happened, I had a wonderful time in the cinema, the two hours passed in a flash, I was thrilled and moved at certain points (the soundtrack is really powerful), and I went yearning for more. Luckily, I still have the books.

This series will be for its generation what Star Wars (first trilogy, back in the seventies and eighties) was for the previous one.

Gosford Park (2001)

How can this movie have a score of just a seven? It's an indisputable ten!

[10/10 · 29 November 2008]

Some times, when voting here in the IMDb, if I think the movie has an unfairly low score, I give it a higher one just to compensate. But this is NOT one of those times. I'm giving Gosford Park a ten out of ten just because it deserves it. It's one of the best movies with the best scripts and the best acting I've ever seen. Everyone in the cast deserved the Oscar for supporting character (since there is no real protagonist).

The only reason why people shouldn't find this movie as great as it is, is if they want action and special effects (you won't find those here); or if they don't like character-driven movies full of dialog (it's all about the characters and the dialog); or if they didn't understand it (if you don't pay attention, you might not get what's happening). For everyone who likes a good plot, good imagery, good photography, good acting, and not being treated like an idiot by both the screenwriter and the director, this movie is a must.

And a ten.

But, I warn you again: if you want action, this is not your movie. It is a movie about characters, personality, and acting. Most of the things that are told aren't actually said, you have to read between the lines or in the faces of the actors. And as someone said, you have to pay attention to who's who and what their relationships are.

But whoever said this is the "worst movie ever" should be banned from voting in the IMDb. You can say "I don't like this type of movie because it's just people talking, though the scenery is great and the acting good". You can say "I wanted some explosions and hotter women with less clothing". But you can't say this is a bad movie. It's a masterpiece. But it's a masterpiece about characters, plot, relationships, acting and setting. Not an action movie.

Troy (2004)

Totally underrated by ignorant people and critics.

[10/10 · 10 November 2008]

Sorry if the title sounds offensive, but that's how it is. This movie was blasted because some ignorant people and VERY ignorant critics decided it wasn't "faithful enough" to the Iliad. I didn't see anyone complaining about how Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy deviates from Tolkien's work. Talk about double standards.

Quick and to the point: The city of Troy existed historically and was destroyed. The only account we have of one of the times Troy was destroyed (because it was destroyed a dozen times), is Homer's Iliad. So the filmmakers used it as a source material, yes. And then, they tried to make the story real, they tried to make a version of how things would have happened without Zeus, Hera or Apollo waltzing around the scene. They tried to make the story both realistic and epic. And you know what? They did an immensely impressive job at it.

Once the direct intervention of gods is out, they pretty much respected Homer's telling. Let's have a look at Homer's character development there:

1. Achilles the cocky show-off extraordinaire. Check. 2. Achilles in love with his Patroclus. Uncheck, it's Hollywood, not possible. 3. Achilles in lust with slave girl Briseis. Check. 4. Paris a wimp. Check. 5. Agamemnon proud, ambitious and dictatorial. Check. 6. Priam stupid, overconfident or unwilling to see what's coming. Check. 7. Hector the most courageous, noble, character. Faithful husband, loving father (Homer described him that way). Whoa, check. Special mention to Sean Bean's impressive acting. 8. Andromacha, Hector's wife, model of loyal wife and mother (yep, Homer also portrays her that way). Check. 9. Ajax a brute force fighter. Check.

I don't think it makes much sense to go on with this. I just find it ridiculous that many people who either haven't read Homer, or just have read the Cliff's Notes for the Iliad, are attacking the movie on its supposed inaccuracy. The inaccuracies are extremely few, and the huge ones were obviously done PURPOSEFULLY. The filmmakers wanted a version of the War of Troy as it could have happened in reality, without gods directly meddling in the action. But the character depth and development, greatly respects Homer's writing and style. Even in the play-down of homosexual themes and the better treatment of female characters, since that's what Homer does in his works. He treats women far better than most Greeks used to do, and doesn't focus much on homosexual themes (though they are there... however, I guess you can't ask Hollywood to put that into a super-production, much less with Brad Pitt on it).

The photography, settings and film-making are impressive. The action scenes are great, with the plus of them not being blurred. You can actually see what's happening, something rare in action scenes of late.

I must add the lightning and photography are extremely beautiful. The soundtrack is more than impressive. Some of the dialog is amazing.

The acting is good when given to good actors. Menelaus, Agamemnon, Ajax, Priam, Ulises, Andromacha, and above all, Hector and Priam, fill the screen when they speak.

Brad Pitt looks great when he fights. He looks ridiculous when he tries to act. At least, when he tries to act seriously and tragically. He plays the pimp-esquire guy pretty believable. It's when he tries to get serious that you don't believe him.

Orlando Bloom makes an über-wimp Paris. But then Paris should be a coward wimp, that's what he was in the myth too.

Helen is very beautiful, but she seems to have Schweppes tonic in her veins instead of blood. Her character was indeed changed from what it is in the book. In the Iliad, Helen is a tragic figure, forced to desire Paris because goddess Aphrodite gave her (yes, gave her as an object) to Paris. When Paris starts behaving as the coward, irresponsible wimp he is, Helen despises her. In the book, of course. If you get Aphrodite's orders out of the question (as happens in the movie), Helen is a blond airhead with no interest at all, just as wimpy and ridiculous as Paris. But then again, without Aphrodite's meddling, there was no way to make Helen the tragic figure she is in the book. Helen's flee with Paris is more understandable by watching Menelaus.

I don't think the movie deserves a 10, I would have given it just a nine for entertainment, epic, good acting and beautiful imagery. But considering its score is artificially lowered by totally unfair reviews, I've upped my score to a 10, just to compensate.

This movie has been treated unfairly by both critics and reviewers. It deserved and deserves better.

Pride and Prejudice (1995)

Best book adaptation. Ever. Ten out of ten.

[10/10 · 8 November 2008]

Now, if you don't like romance, epoque movies, or Jane Austen's ethics of everyday life, you are not going to like it. You don't get much action or sex here.

If you like Jane Austen, or intimistic books, you have to love it. This is simply the best adaptation of a book I've ever seen. It is clearly evident that the series makers knew and respected the original material. I truly believe Austen would have been proud. Plus, the filmmakers added as much "spice" as could be included while being fair to the source material. Yes, I'm talking about Fitzwilliam Darcy's fencing and swimming scenes. There is really nothing out of character or out of period in those, but the results are certainly steamy.

Plus, the acting is great. Jennifer Ehle is delicious, and Darcy is just as he's described in the movie.

The choice of actors is appallingly good, with the exception of Miss Bingley. Int he book, she is described as a "fine" lady, but in this series she's shown as really unattractive. We know Lizzy is the heroine, but she should stand out just on personality alone, not because other girls are made uglier than they should. Charlotte Lucas was plain in the book, and quite pretty in the series. I would have switched the actresses who played Miss Bingley and Charlotte Lucas. It would have been more faithful to the book. Still, the rest of the cast was amazing. Bingley just had the cordial, good-humoured look he had in the book. About the people who complain that Jane, the older sister, didn't look prettier than Lizzy... Hey, please, think with other beauty standards. Have a look at an Alphonse Mucha poster, and you'll see that the actress who plays Jane is almost an exact copy of the beauty ideals for that time. Just because nowadays we think Angelina Jolie is prettier, that doesn't mean she could play a Jane Bennet. Jane is perfectly cast. If you know what was considered pretty at the time, she is just gorgeous.

I don't want to write anymore, because I could fill seven essays about this series. I'll only say I'd pay in gold if I was to be granted this fidelity and awesomeness in all movie adaptations of books I love. Honestly, if producers did this great work more often, they would milk me much more money. Pleasing the fanbase to the extent these series does is profitable in the long run, it makes you sell DVDs for ages.

Funny Games (2007)

Boring, disgusting, repulsive.

[1/10 · 8 November 2008]

It's pretty bad that you can't vote a zero in the IMDb scale. I would have chosen that.

For commentaries on violence, there are other movies. I mean, with all its apparent trivialization of violence, "Pulp Fiction" and "Reservoir Dogs" actually did a better critique of violence than this movie does.

I can stand some suspension of disbelief. I perfectly understand the breaking of the fourth wall. But this movie carried both way too far. The suspension of disbelief was blown off early, and after that it all was unrealistic, boring, slow and uninteresting. The rewind scene at the end just blew it up high.

Some say the movie was meant to make you think. Please, movie directors, do not take the audience for retards. I can think about violence in movies without two hours of boring unbelievable stuff.

Save your time and money. Avoid this. As I said before, you'll think deeper about violence with "Pulp Fiction", "Snatch" or "Reservoir Dogs".

Professor Poopsnagle's Steam Zeppelin (1985)

Is there anywhere to get this series from?

[11 March 2006]

I was hooked to this series when I was a little girl, and unluckily missed many chapters. It was funny, fantastic and for all audiences. It's one of the series I've missed more. I'd love to see it again, but as someone said, it's just like if it had never existed. I hope it comes out in DVD. Even Jem and the Holograms did, why not Professor Poopsnaggle? Nowadays everyone criticizes many of the children's series available, but no one makes the old classics available anymore. This series had everything that would please a parent: kids working together in a team, pursuing a goal, having adventures, learning in the way, an ecological message when it wasn't fashionable and everywhere, and even multicultural stuff when it wasn't the politically correct stuff. And this multiculturality was even better than the one we are being force-fed today: all kids behaved by the same rules, but some of them had a cultural background, knowledge and spirituality that would ADD to the effectiveness and power of the group, instead of provoking any clash. I wish nowadays kids saw it. It was something to learn from, besides great fun.