anon1mat0's Reviews

Red State (2011)

8/10

22 April 2012

First of all, I like Kevin Smith and the Cohen Brothers movies, so I may be biased on the subject, yet I was intrigued and had low expectations after the general ratings currently on IMDb. Perhaps selling the picture as a horror movie does a disservice as horror flick fans would be quite disappointed.

On the movie itself, I agree that there are elements of different genres but I think the flow works much better than what the critics may say even while moving from one perceived genre to another.

Lastly, there is certain preachiness -particularly at the end- that will likely turn off certain part of the public, despite the fact that there are no clear ideological winners (and lots of losers) on the movie.

In general, a great movie if you are expecting to watch something like Fargo.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

7/10

Entertaining but fails the book

11 July 2007

I just went to watch the latest Harry Potter installment with my son. To start with the end (in more than one sense) my son was almost fuming at it. Having read the whole thing a few (several?) times he was very mindful of all the things that changed from the book, but the ending is what upset him the most and from then I started thinking on the whole ordeal. Saying that a movie wasn't faithful to a book is normally stating the obvious and in this case while the main events from the book are there a good part of the spirit of the book died at the hands of the script writer and the director. Don't get me wrong I don't think the movie was a disaster (like that pathetic attempt of a movie called Eragon) but all the teen angst that overflows the 5th book is almost completely absent; is like the anger of a 15 y/o had been shrunk to a 9 y/o's size, and to complete the coup the very last scene is so cheesy that seems copied from a 80's TV series. The book is dark and the movie barely tries, which is perhaps what upset my son so much more than the scissors that made the 2'18" movie possible.

Apart from that, the movie is technically well crafted and quite entertaining. Imelda Stauton does a great job as Dolores Umbridge forcing you to hate her from the very first time you see her on the movie. The combat at the ministry is visually well done although it doesn't fully show the hectic scene portrayed in the book. All in all it would seem that someone tried to make the movie PG (and failed BTW) and in the process the story loses some of its potency. Pity.

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Eragon (2006)

2/10

So very, very sad...

16 December 2006

How to describe a movie based on a lovely book, that could have had a wonderful franchise, but was so hurriedly done, and so poorly directed as to become a horrible flop? First lets say that while the book has some flaws, this movie is really a disservice to it; a more or less complex plot is reduced to its bare elements making it a very predictable ordeal (as any other story would), the photography doesn't reach the standard set by LOTR or HP, becoming quite bland, the casting -while good on the stronger characters (Brom, Durza, Galbatorix)- is really lacking, particularly on critical characters like Murtagh and Arya, and the music -so critical to convey the emotions of the movie- is so corny and clumsily placed that rather than enhance takes away from the experience. So little works on this movie and so many details are ruined using the cheapest tricks, that any sequel would never make it to the big screen (more so when critical plot points were stripped from the movie).

Having read and enjoyed the books with my 11 year old son, we had high hopes and were both devastated with this ... thing promoted as a movie.

It is indeed a sad, sad adaptation, a proof that some movie execs in its eagerness to make a quick buck have indeed killed what could have been a geese of golden eggs.

Hopefully Mr. Fangmeier will go back to do special effects and never return as a movie director. At least I know that I will never see a movie made by him again.

65 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Superman Returns (2006)

6/10

When you enjoy watching the hero being kicked...

2 July 2006

OK, first the disclaimer, I am not a fan of the comic series (I was when I was 10, long looong ago) so I wasn't expecting the best movie ever, but I am disappointed.

To enjoy a movie you need consistency, the world you outline must be consistent in every way or -if you are dealing with a demigod- as much as you can at least. When your world isn't consistent your plot falls piece by piece and, I'm afraid to say, that is what happens with this movie.

The acting, well, even Spacey was weak. I have to admit that Brandon Routh does an amazing job as Clark Kent, the character of nerdy moron suits him quite well, sadly in that other role he is quite bland. As a technical note, if you want your actor speaking through his eyes, don't use contact lenses! Or at least cast someone with blue eyes if the script requires it.

Reading reviews I realized what I liked most of this movie: the beat up in the island. Is crude, quite violent, and has a really dark atmosphere. Sadly for me (and for the benefit of the plot) Superman doesn't die there. Or perhaps he did because I'm not loosing more money on him.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Brothers Grimm (2005)

8/10

The other Terry Gilliam

28 August 2005

There are two Gilliams. One is the maker (or troublemaker should I say) of Brazil and 12 Monkeys. Other is the guy from Monty Phyton and Time Bandits. This is the second one. You can see his signature on the photography and the inner jokes not easy to catch by an *outsider*. While having certain affinity with Sleepy Hollow, you can see clearly the difference in approach.

Of course I would love to see the first Gilliam, the troublemaker, but as A Man in La Mancha proved, the studios are not very keen of such projects. Shame on them, but still, if you like Gilliam here he is. It might not be his best (by far...) but fun and full of subtlety.

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

War of the Worlds (2005)

7/10

Don't take kids to it

11 July 2005

Warning: Spoilers

Well before I say anything in particular about the movie I have something to say about the rating. This is supposed to be a PG-13 movie. I consider my self as open minded and take the ratings with a grain of salt or two. Nevertheless I have issue in this case mainly because this movie can be quite disturbing at times. At first I saw the rating and thought, my kid (10) can see this. SW III was PG-13, right? and he has seen some R movies (like the Matrix) with no problem. Of course I wouldn't take it to see Kill Bill, but a PG-13 is OK... Some possible spoilers ahead. In this case I was wrong, a river full of floating bodies, or a machine *fertilizing* the land with fresh blood is not something to take lightly. I do think that this should have been rated R. To end my criticism about ratings I will say that if the movie had 1 naked boob and no blood it would have been R. I guess extreme violence is preferable to the suggestion of sex.... /rant out

Now the movie is OK. And with that I mean, is very well crafted, that suspense and tension are very well handled. The only problem with the utter realism of the movie is that the end is not believable. They've been preparing this for thousands of years and don't know about germs? I guess this derives from the original H.G. Wells novel. Perhaps the approach of Sky Captain would have been more palatable in this case or at least a more satisfactory explanations of how they get sick. In spite of the very weak ending the movie is , again, very well done, the effects are nice and the realism is to a good exempt frightening, which is good.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Day After Tomorrow (2004)

8/10

Surprisingly entertaining

29 May 2004

Well, first I must confess that I went into the theatre with low expectations. After the cheesy Independence Day and enduring the interminable Godzilla, I went in prepared for the worse.

And it wasn't!

Of course this is not a movie for the Oscars, unless for special effects, but the dialogues were decent and the story moved at a good pace. It even had some tongue-in-cheek moments. In general a good popcorn movie.

---

By the way I just read in the discover magazine online (www.discover.com) that the events portrayed in the movie are extremely unlikely but possible none the less.

Hopefully the movie will stir some debate about the issue of global warming.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)

9/10

I usually wouldn't say this: It ROCKS!!!!

13 October 2003

I still will have to watch this thing at least 2 more times, but my first impression was mindblowing. If you didn't liked Tarantino before don't even bother, but if you liked him, this is a must. It has so much "stuff" from making fun to himself to make homage to the classic Japanese samurai films, that I am still digesting it. As with other "contemporary" films the dialogs suck (and I am not talking about the Japanese which seem to work better) but is not the dialogs what will get you going but, the mix of action, gory humor, and visual candy (I loved the anime part). I really can't wait for Vol. II.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Spy Kids 3: Game Over (2003)

6/10

Its a kids movie, fer-christ-sake!!

31 July 2003

I am not going to say that the plot is awful (as it is awful) and while I agree with someone else about the polarized glasses instead of the Red-blue, which brings the headaches that even my son experienced for a while, I am not going to complain about that either. The thing is my son loved the movie. Every piece of it. He was begging for a repeat after it was finished. The movie is no better, no worse than the two previous installments, so, what is the big deal about it? Its a kids movie, no more, no less, it doesn't have to be smart or have subtle adult jokes (That would be a plus for the God forsaken parents that must endure the punishment), so, move on, people, and let the kids enjoy their stuff.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Kangaroo Jack (2003)

5/10

I've seen far worse...

22 January 2003

I went in because my kid begged me to, and considering there is nothing else to see... I was expecting a really bad movie and the truth is that is not as bad as I feared. That said, is not precisely good... Anyway, for someone who has nothing else to do/see it has a few funny scenes, perhaps not worth paying full price but, hey! with that title you can't expect Shakespeare. 5/10

3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Ghosts of Mars (2001)

2/10

Bad, bad, bad, bad...

29 August 2001

The plot is weak, the acting is cheesy (to say the least), special effects are almost nil, the story is told in the most awkward way repeating the scene where the action subdivides. The few moments of suspense are killed by the very amateur way of pulling the story. A real waste of money...

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Hannibal (2001)

8/10

Not bad... for a sequel

1 March 2001

Ok, this is a difficult one: No body likes to do a sequel of a good movie. Some would argue that this is not a sequel but the truth is that the public has the Silence of the lambs in their minds while in the theater so the reference is unavoidable. For my taste, the movie has a lot of good things, including the gorgeous photography, the music and the tone of the movie. How do you make a very disgusting subject appealing? How do you blend the gruesome with the tasteful? I think that Mr Scott made a wonderful job with this movie even though there will be a legion of detractors complaning because they went to see another movie. I agree with the fact that some times the rythm is lost, but at the same time that is the main attraction of this movie. Just a little warning: this is not a Horror movie nor an Action movie. Watch it with an open mind and you might enjoy it.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Pink Floyd: The Wall (1982)

10/10

Not Only for rock fans

19 May 2000

One of the things that had amazed me reading the comments on this movie is that almost everybody who comment on it is a Pink Floyd fan or related. Perhaps it shouldn't come as a surprise but the issue here is that the movie has to be valued as a movie and not as a 90 minutes MTV clip. Almost all of what is said in this movie can be applied to not only the british but to the western society as well. The fans (and I have to admit that I also love the music) put to much attention to the personal facts of Roger Waters and forget that this is not a simple personal case of madness but the simptoms of a sick society which still carries the burden of the war, racism, and the overwhelming cult to its "successful" individuals. This movie is a piece of art, perhaps one of Alan Parker's best.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Fifth Element (1997)

9/10

Not only good but smart!

25 April 2000

It's amazing that some people didn't like it!. Mmm, no, perhaps it is not that amazing because the average American viewer is to dumb to understand something different from the average. Yes, it has a lot of comedy but is at the same time a very well done action movie, very high paced with awesome dialogues and lots of surprises. Not for the weak, and certainly not for the dumb! It is a very good movie (as usual in Luc Besson) and deserves to be seen carefully to catch all the details.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Romeo + Juliet (1996)

9/10

A different point of view

2 March 2000

This movie is different from other interpretations of the long known drama, and perhaps this is why its review is so mixed. First of all, if you are a purist, don't bother. Go rent something else. But if you are not, this is a wonderful play very well done, with a very good cast (I particularly don't like di Caprio but here the guy is good). From my point of view, this movie keeps the essence of the drama and puts it on something close to L.A. Hey there are still some people who don't like West Side Story either! If you like the classics and you are open minded this is a movie worthy of your time.

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

City of Angels (1998)

Could be worse

20 December 1999

When I first saw this movie, I though about it's interesting concept (despite it's silliness), which at that moment seemed, somehow, different for an American movie. Then I saw the original from Wim Wenders and every thing became clear. It is strictly necessary destroy a wonderful movie, in order to make it "acceptable" for the american public? Anyway, there are some nice things like the photography, and some production issues (clearly plagiarized from the Wim Wenders filmography) which make the movie acceptable for the people who had not seen the original or any of the Wim Wenders' angels series.

A last comment: Why on earth American movies need to explain everything in the ending?

12 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

anon1mat0

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed