Change Your Image
keremrs
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Universal Soldier: Regeneration (2009)
Better than you expect!
This movie really deserves a 7, at least. Jean Claude has a smaller role than general because director kind of makes you witness a time-line of terror related events. So it's not a one-man-show. The Universal Soldiers are ruthless and terrifying. Differently than the first two films, this one makes feel grateful that this type of a soldier does not exist (yet)!
The details are not ignored and a lot of expense was made for this movie, obviously (in comparison to the first two)The result is a fulfilling movie with lots of adrenaline.
No messing around. Real,solid action! Probably the best of the three, so don't miss it!
Kirot (2009)
A must see!
This film is really good. Although there is more than enough adrenaline , I don't think of it as an action flick.
The story and the characters are very good. The human aspect of the story is very well conceived. Everything is brutally natural and realistic. Although there are some scenes with some problems, I was so grasped by the film that I didn't care. Although the story is kinda sad, it is never boring.
The cast and especially Olga Kurylenko is very good too. Some may say the opposite but yes; I do believe that an ordinary woman without a specific background can be a hired gun as good as Galia. (Dont worry, this is not a spoiler)
There are many things in every scene that is so familiar with everyday life but also striking. The "trivialised" woman trafficking and prostitution could not be told any better without the audience looking away once in every 10 minutes.
The directing hides itself behind the natural flow of the story but silent quality of storytelling is in every scene. If you are looking for an "entertaining" action movie with a lot of bloodshed, this one is not for you (except for the bloodshed)
Well done to all the crew.
The International (2009)
Good but could have been much better
It was hard for me to rate this movie, but still think it's a little bit underrated. Here I go with no spoilers...
Down Sides: Clive Owen who is much more than a promising adventure-movie actor is not very committed to the role. His grim and cool stance may easily be mistaken for a catatonia case. Maybe it can be justified by the hard days he's been having but still, he could have done better...if the screenplay allowed him. Same goes for Naomi Watts...
Yes, the screenplay omits the personal side of the the struggle. The psychology of going against all odds could have added much to the film.
Also there are big and small logical defects in the script which, although I am not the kind of guy that enjoys finding them, I was disturbed to be distracted by so easily...What is the real motive for the assassination, how can a bunch of guys with Uzis enter a public building with considerable security and why bother choosing that place for "severing all ties with the consultant", why does no policemen come, why does Naomi Watts not look hot enough in this film???...the list goes on.
After all these years, I was looking forward to a better end in such a movie. A twist, a very good monologue etc. if not a total surprise. At the end I did not know if it was the end until I saw the credits. I wish I was 17.
Now the Up Sides: Clive Owen is still a good casting choice for this kind of story.
The plot sums up almost all basics for this kind of dark-international-money laundering-government ending-conspiring story very successfully. It is a must see for fans of this kind.
The dose of action is good; it is not Die Hard, nor is it The Interpreter.
The conversations explaining "the way of the world" are very good, with some gems to be remembered.
Sphere (1998)
No spoilers except that your taste will be spoiled!
Many things can be put up with while watching a mediocre movie. The storyline can be weak, the acting can be poor etc. etc....But besides that a movie must be able to tell a story by cinematic methods. This movie lacks this basic virtue:
- We don't see any details that will make us feel surrounded by the environment and the events (and I don't mean the film set which is very good)It feels like some machinist in an open summer theater cut off some burned parts and aired it still...
- The sphere which gives the movie its name is totally irrelevant and dim as an entity, rather than mysterious. We rarely see it, hardly feel it, its existence is not cinematographical but based on people's dull conversations. People don't really analyze it and when they do, it feels like the song "We are the world"
- Conversations are so bad that the 3 big actors don't have the space to act. I also kinda felt that during the shootings they were kinda uneasy about something; I don't think they committed themselves.
- Although the effects were nice, the camera failed to focus on them properly. I don't care about the budget: this is totally unacceptable in a SF movie. There are artistic ways of evading expensive scenes!
- Despite the 2-hour length of the movie, the depth of characters or their backgrounds is not conveyed sufficiently.
- SF is often about trying to find reasons/explanations for what the hell is happening in general or in a specific scene. You can forget this privilege in this movie.
One last thing: If anyone is comparing this movie with "The Abyss", I suggest him to get a life.........in a far away land where there is no internet.
Moscow Zero (2006)
A good plot gone to waste
I think this film is a bit under-rated(3.4) Well, first the upsides: The plot is quite good. There is a sad and chilling main story behind, that is genuinely impressive. There is a certain atmosphere mainly depending on the space. It is suffocating and has a morbid effect on the viewer. The children's discretion adds up to the dark aura of the film. This is not the kind of film for an average viewer with an expectation to be entertained; you must have some patience to get some taste. I think it is not a typical thriller/horror film with cliché Hollywood scenes. It feels kind of experimental and some credit must be given for that.
The downsides are many: this is also not the kind of movie that can satisfy any good viewer (sorry to say). Despite the toil of all the cast and crew, the result is not bright: -There is a great cast but the acting is somehow missed by the camera... -Although I am a huge fan, I am starting to grow an opinion that Val Kilmer doesn't really know how to choose a right project. Not only is he seen only as long as a cameo, his awesomeness is also totally ignored. How and why his group is dwelling there is a boring riddle that I don't want to solve... -Someone must tell Vincent Gallo that despite having a very characteristic face, being expressionless all the time can only be afforded by great and aged actors... -The screenplay is also bad: the dialogues are not integrated, nor able to add up to anything... -Misleading without intention is frequent. A more dedicated director could have made a great film with this story because here, opportunity to boost the mystery is lost while also some explanatory scenes were omitted as well (such as the revolution incidents) -The motive of the children (are they all children?) is also not clear: is it fear or vengeance or protection or punishment??? Also the sadness of the situation could be emphasized someplace. while a simple reflex of grudge must not be an issue here. -Tension and relief is a chemical must for such movies even for a marginal example. Here both the dialogues+acting and the maze shoots are monotonous. -The relationships between the main characters are totally vague and without any depth. - Just a little more effort on the visual effects could have been much useful. And I don't mean expensive CGI, but some some sweat for editing.
Last word: This movie is only for freaks like me who love to experiment and review new possibilities in cinema and choose to waste time on it.
Day of the Dead (2008)
These zombies eat all joy!
In fact I would never waste time to write on such a bad film. But since the director Steve Miner had a place on all horror movie lovers' memory by directing "Friday the 13th" 2 and 3, I want to say a few words. After all those years without shooting a blockbuster, Miner gets a cast which is above average, gets a decent budget, he also gets the name "Day of the Dead" (being a remake of George Romero's original one from 1985). The sorry thing is that he blew this chance. The main reason being that; Romero's original film has been affecting all horror movie makers for years, describing some standards for this genre. Everyone is familiar with this realm. Yet, Miner successfully lacked a single spark of unique interpretation, let alone adding anything original. Result: Nothing will thrill you, unless you are 12...period! Which reminds me my new opinion again: I think less movies should be made. The more they make, the less we care...
300 (2006)
A stunning videoclip and .......that's all!
Before getting on with 300, I must remind to those who don't know, that the story -or even the scenario- was taken from the comic novel of Frank Miller (also the creator of Sin City), bearing the same name. Though being a great fan of him, I must admit that it is far from being one of his best works. The saddening thing is that he is also the executive producer in this feature.
The film has awesome visuality. Every single frame has photographic value and are well composed. One is awed by the beauty of each scene. The battle choreography is well planned and very vivid too. No need to say that the story is quiet exciting.
The thing I mainly disliked was the inevitable feeling of artificiality. The environment, buildings, sky, people...you can't help but be irritated by your own awareness that too much CGI or Photoshop was involved. Thus, you cannot really surrender yourself to the film and savour it. While watching my mind kept thinking if this was a deliberate method of Director Zack Snyder, creating a set decor-like environment and obtaining a theatrical splendour. But there wasn't any depth in the story or the directing to meet and justify this artificiality aura. It felt rather like a regular blockbuster ordered to a former director of photography. Director Zack Snyder has a superb taste for photographs indeed and I am afraid that is the reason why he overdid it, leaving any concern of making this a movie, rather than a very long videoclip of antique heroes fresh out of gym.
A sad thing that it is turning from "trend" to "accepted mainstream" to make films abundant with CGI or new visual technics and leaving the acting, the story, the "meaning" aside. 300 is another example. (On the other hand, thumbs-up for same director's "Watchmen") One other thing: How can we accept an invader eastern king to be portrayed as a pervert, psychotic, coward, mass murderer freak while it is generally just the other way around with an invader western king. In this sense I recommend "Alexander" by Oliver Stone to everyone who loves movies about heroes and invaders.