Reviews

22 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The Descent (2005)
9/10
A near-masterpiece of slowly mounting horror and tension.
24 January 2006
This is a truly remarkable film. The opening is full of subtle tension and the first shock of the movie is timed impeccably and executed very believably. This early first dramatic moment is essential in reminding the viewer that this is a horror film and creates a sense of anticipation that will be sustained throughout the rest of the film's introduction. The remaining half hour or so of introductory and character-building scenes is occasionally punctuated by a cheap shock - something which I think undermines the overall slow mounting tension of the rest of the film.

The film's strongest point is the way it portrays the fear of the unknown, of darkness and of confined spaces. Soon, these mundane, but very effectively conveyed, fears are eclipsed by the first glimpses of the lurking horror. This quickly brings on a change of pace and character in the film, with the amount of gore increasing considerably, though the fact that everything is shrouded in darkness mercifully hides some of the horrid details (though perhaps they are more strongly pictured in one's inner eye than when shown explicitly). The last part is composed of action-packed scenes punctuated by brief delirium, terror and anticipation. The final crescendo is triply surprising, though there is another cheap scare that almost destroys the cumulative effect.

The characters are very strong for this type of film and elevate it to something above almost any other horror film you might have seen of late. The musical score works extremely well with what is going on. The photography, camera angles and camera movements are executed flawlessly.

Apart from a slight overindulgence in shock scenes, which might merely be a matter of taste, and the fact that a few times the movie makers seem to underestimate the audience's intelligence, the movie is well worth watching. As an extra plus, for once the interactions between characters are important and add substantially to the tension.

Some very minor spoilers follow.

Firstly, the shock scenes. I am not sure why they had so many of them, but it appeared as though they felt that they just felt they had to maintain the interest of the more gaze-wandering part of the audience. On the other hand, some of the shock scenes were very realistic and useful. One such scene was the one with the crows over the corpse of the deer. Since I have once encountered a similar scene while walking around in the woods I could empathise with it quite a bit, though I must say it is not nearly as horror-inducing without the stench. But it does foreshadow the hidden threat very effectively.

The cave system itself is depicted wonderfully; it gives one a sense of awe in its juxtaposition of large and small dimensions. The climbing scenes are extremely believable as far as my limited experience goes, and the dangers of wandering around in dark places are portrayed nicely, though I am not sure it is possible to get severe rope burns while wearing gloves.

The creatures themselves are wonderful, though I would have preferred them to be almost completely silent minus gnawing and rending sounds, as were the monstrosities in the very similarly themed Lurking Horror.

I think that sums up my complaints. Do watch.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Troy (2004)
5/10
Disappointing
30 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I found Troy an extremely disappointing movie. It is filled with dialogue scenes that remind one of soap operas. Much of the acting is deplorable. The battle scenes are great, but the pacing is flawed: the switches between dialogue, action and suspense do not work at all. The score composer seems to have had a hard time filling up the void. But the weakest point of the movie must be the story and the character development.

The movie makers decided to expunge all references to the more romantic aspects of the myth (i.e. the gods), which in itself might not have been a bad move. There is a big enough story to be told (in fact the Illiad is restricted to merely the events between the fight of Achilles and Agamemnon over Vryseida to the death of Hector) and plenty of heroes to become acquainted with, so the presence of gods is not strictly necessary. Thus, the altered story was not really a downside. However, the way the story is told is agonisingly bad, particularly because the lack of character development in the part of the Greeks is so great that there seems to be no motivation for their actions.

The Trojans, Priam, Paris and Hector and their wives all carry their characters reasonably well. But the Greek heroes are just deplorable caricatures. Achilles, for all the time he takes up on screen, only manages to come out as an adolescent whose parents don't let him play the music as loud as he wants. His wrath against Agamemnon is played out in a 10 second scene. He spends all of two minutes talking with Patroclus, and yet he is enraged when he is killed. Maybe Peterson's point was that Achilles was never really enraged.

To sum up: Visuals: 10/10 Music: 3/10 Pacing: 4/10 Characters: 5/10 Plot and dialogue: 3/10

Overall: 5
0 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Flawless
30 December 2005
This movie not only has some of the best acting I've seen in a while; but also it features a full cast of interesting characters - from the protagonists to random encounters, each one seems... to exist somewhere beyond the screen. Top notch photography, emotionally wrenching, dealing with complex issues of today's society and depicting everything unashamedly, this movie is simply awesome. Every little detail seems to have been worked at, pondered over and hammered out until it was just perfect. Every single character is memorable. Every single shot is beautiful. I could simply find no flaws with it.

While some may find the subject of the movie distasteful, I found the manner in which it is approached to be just perfect. There are of course clichés - these are inevitable. But the attention to detail brings this movie to such heights of perfection that you cannot help but twist your face into a satisfying grin while the movie is on, and for much time afterwards.
88 out of 112 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Match Point (2005)
6/10
Different from usual Woody Allen, well-made, but bland
30 December 2005
The movie is apparently written and directed by Woody Allen. It did seem rather different from anything else I've watched of his; somehow it brought the Hitchock Presents short film series to mind in how they seemed to be have been made with Hitchock's advice, but without him being very much involved personally. This could be an explanation, or perhaps WA is exploring new directions - or possibly he did this kind of thing before in a movie that have not seen.

The movie is paced amazingly well - the visuals are not breathtaking, but they are not the important point. The important point is the characters. The acting is great throughout, and although perhaps we see too much of the protagonist altogether, the supporting cast never fails to deliver and come off as truly genuine and complete characters.

The following, why not directly spoilery, will help you guess at some events before their occurrence.

The story is reminiscent of Crime and Punishment in some ways, with the obligatory Dostoyevsky references and heavy opera music. It is extremely easy to follow as everything is relatively subtly hinted before hand. The climax to the actual crime follows a pattern: the protagonist just keeps on going, saying: I decide I want to do A. To do that, I'll have to do X. So he does it. When circumstances change, he never considers maybe doing something other than A instead. A is what he had decided to do, and A is what he will keep on doing.

There is a brief passage in the movie where he discusses whether he wants to continue with A or not - and from this discussion he immediately realises that he is going to continue with A. And when something gets in his way, he will stop at nothing. And thus the crime is committed.

The inexorable progression towards the perpetration of this crime mystifies me completely. The character's actions were simply not believable. This is not a problem with the acting, but with the script. And with a story centered around 'real' characters rathern than space/action heroes, one expects a certain realism for character motivation and plot development. Unfortunately, this was completely lacking in this movie.

So: pacing, acting, music, all excellent. But plot? Abysmal.
1 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Tedious
31 May 2005
Compared to episodes 1 and 2, there is a higher level of action in this film, which could have been a good thing if only because it minimises the amount of dialogue. Alas, that would have been the case only if the action scenes were actually GOOD.

The movie features chaotic battle sequences through which the heroes travel through without even a hint of danger of damage (while flying their spaceships, riding their bikes/animals, or on foot). Another highlight of the film are the inane light-sabre fights. These are filmed in such a way that you are not going to witness any finesse or skill. Just blurred arcs of light and lots of bzzzt sounds. At some point limbs fly.

The new evil guys serve little purpose. They are introduced only to be summarily dispatched and serve other role in the story than an excuse to provide some action. Like in episodes 1 and 2, you are left feeling that you are watching a series of stunts rather than a coherent story.

The dialogue is as stilted and boring as in the previous two episodes, while lacking the 'cult' nature of the original trilogy. The acting is not convincing and the character motivations are confused (not confusing, but confused as if the people responsible didn't know how to do things properly and just threw things together).

Visually, however, the movie is stunning. And the sound effects are good. (BZZT)
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Matrix (1999)
8/10
Interesting, well-delivered concept
22 May 2005
This is a cult movie. It includes many interesting techniques, spectacular effects, a good story that is built up with perfect pacing. The sense of mystery and suspense pervades the first half movie and is what is gives it its unique character. The chase and action scenes are spectacular and interesting. The characters give just enough details with their dialogue in order for the viewer to get a glimpse of what is going on, while maintaining a sense of intrigue. The dialogue and acting leaves something to be desired, however.

If you like good, dark sci-fi action films, then this is for you. The pseudophilosophical exchanges might put you off.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Boring.
22 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This is the second installment of the series. It does not work.

a) It relies extensively on computer graphics. Too much. Furthermore, the graphics are obvious.

b) Tiring fight scenes. Why do we need to watch TWO fights with hundreds of participants that never seem to end? c) Boring chase scenes. Why do we need to watch yet another chase scene? What does it have to last so long? d) Useless characters. Lots of characters are introduced, for no apparent reason. They are thrown away aftwerwards. They do not contribute to the plot.

e) The acting is horrendous.

Still, the movie does retain some of the mystique of the original, but well.. I'd give it a miss.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The best movie ever?
20 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
There are so many aspects of this movie that are perfect that any effort to praise it is doomed to do it injustice. Should I begin from the spectacular use of music, in combination with visuals? The perfectly timed cuts? The breathtaking portrayal of gyrating stations? The unparalleled mix between human actors and wildlife footage that creates one of the most touching sequences in cinematic history? The appropriate use of silence - filled with mute agony? The sparse, but extremely realistic dialogue - as witnessed for example in the video-conferences of astronauts with family members? The lack of overacting? Visually the movie is spectacular. All of the shots are perfect. The desert shots, with deep contrasts of colour. The planetary views are not realistic with respect to the planetary alignments, but nevertheless such spatial arrangements bring a certain sense of .. art in the shots.

The DVD I watched also included the trailers for this movie and for 2010. Watching the trailers for the latter, I got the sense of a Holywoodian reheating of the same ideas, with a lot of inane dialogue and 'action' thrown in. After having watched 2001, this trailer made me laugh until my sides ached. I don't think I'll ever watch 2010. (And does this dolphin have something to do with seaquest?)
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Solaris (1972)
8/10
Very good, minor technical problems
9 September 2004
Warning: Spoilers
So, I have finally managed to watch the original Solaris. This was after I had seen the 2002 US version and read Lem's novel. I found this to be better than the US version, for a number of reasons. I'll break down this review into sections, where occasionally I make comparisons with the novel and the US version.

Plot: (This section contains spoilers) The plot is almost identical to that of the novel, with a couple of exceptions. Firstly, Tarkovsky cleverly decides to place the background of the movie in a form of a message from Burton and a visit to Kris father's house. Secondly, the ending is altered - it is similar to the one in the US version, but in my opinion is much better presented and leaves the possibility of Kris being a visitor or himself open-ended. The movie also leaves out some of the distrust between Kris and the other two crew members and his distrust of his visitor. However, there is no easy way this could have been conveyed properly.

Dialogue: Most of the dialogue is lifted directly from the novel. This makes it not quite so natural and the actors seem to have a hard time with the lines. The dialogue here touches mostly philosophical points of man's purpose, the purpose of science, the question of man's identity. A major theme in the movie and novel is the reason why man seeks contact with alien forms. What does he expect to find? How does he expect to communicate? The subject is touched upon during some of the dialogues, but it is mostly something that Tarkovsky, with his slow pacing, expects the audience to think about, rather than explicitly having a character proclaim these thoughts.

As far as I can remember the US version does not mention these subjects - it opts instead to explore the nature of personal relationships.

(minor spoiler) Some of the conversion of the background to dialogue did not work so well. Burton's testimony, which in the novel is something that you anticipate because of prior build up arouses curiosity to the extreme. However, in the movie you soon get tired - while in the novel I was feeling angst for the committee's refusal to listen to Burton, the movie did not manage to convey me this feeling. The characters do act well, however too many things are said too fast - there is an apparent haste, which does not let the ramifications of everything that is being said to set in.

Cinematography and pacing: Tarkovsky's likes to let the camera linger, which is not a bad thing. However I found that in occasion the things that he focuses do not convey much to the viewer. An example is the 'river weeds' frame. While it is nice to have images like that, it struck me that this particular one was not very interesting. Most of the other images though, in the flashbacks of Kris, are very well delivered.

The change in the relationship between Kris and visitor is depicted relatively well - the route that the visitor follows when near its breakdown is not very clearly depicted, however.

Technical: There are some bad cuts, which detract from the slow, deliberate pacing. The Ocean imagery seemed to have three states: Water, Lava and Bacterial Growth. The transitions between the three were a bit abrupt. Maybe Tarkovsky should have used only one, or alternatively used overlaying with clouds to soften the transitions. Not bad, but distracting.

Music: The music was excellent. A particularly nice touch was the electronic water drops sound that played a little tune after the rain.

Overall: Very good movie, if you have time for it. If you invite friends to watch, make sure they will not ruin the pacing by excessive comments and that they also have the time and patience for it.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Disconnected
6 September 2004
The movie feels extremely disjoint. Three (counting the Xmas calls) years of Frank being tracked down compressed in less than two hours do not make for very exciting story telling. It is merely a case of Frank jumping from one role into another. His ability to act these roles proficiently is only tested once in each situation. However, a year in each of these roles would necessitate the construction of a more elaborate personality for Frank than what is depicted in the movie.

Some scenes seem to have been put into the movie without reason. For example, the whole set of scenes starting from the 'james bond of the skies' comment to the scene at room 3113 serve no purpose. Frank at another role. What does it tells other than that Frank likes role playing?

Overall it is somewhat enjoyable... but Frank's character is not interesting enough, despite its many transformations. The movie manages to take an interesting story and transform it into a purposeless mess.

Positive aspects: The music. Negative aspects: Ill-placed emphasis on the plot and bad pace.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Cold Mountain (2003)
4/10
Glacially slow, cliched, messy and uninteresting.
2 August 2004
This movie talks about the civil war. The main downfall of the movie are the numerous pointless scenes.

Do not get me wrong. In general, I enjoy slow movies - if they are well done. i.e. I loved 'The gaze of Ulysse's' and 'Das Boot', both extremely long movies that tell quite a simple story. However, the longer scenes in those movies aid characterisation and immersion. The scenes in 'Cold mountain' are one of the following types:

1. The heroine's voice reciting love letters to her love. 2. Pointless scenes of havoc and violence. 3. Depiction of unbelievable cruelty by the 'villains' 4. The hero wandering around.

This is all packaged with very badly thought out characterisations and motifs that follow really trite cliche's.

During the course of this overlong movie, nothing is learnt of the protagonists. I felt no empathy for them, or for their quest. The letter-reciting is particularly loathsome and does not add *anything at all* to the movie. Also, no matter how many times you show the hero not letting himself to the pleasures of another woman, or how many times he looks at her picture, it does not make us feel that he loves the heroine.

A lot of characters are introduced quite briefly. Given that this movie is so long, it would have been better had the characters been given some more time to develop rather than have all this letter reciting. Maybe it is better that they are not, since all of their lines are just patronising monologues.

This movie has no romance, no interest and no soul.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Das Boot (1981)
10/10
A journey
2 August 2004
If you are prepared to sit through three hours of film and are not feeling uncomfortable with world war two-era Germans being portrayed as 'heroes', then you should watch this movie.

The story is simple. A german submarine crew undertakes a routine patrol mission at a time that the tide of war is turning against the Germans. You will have plenty of time to empathise with the men, get to know them, be bored with them - scared with them - rejoice with them - feel guilt with them.

The movie portrays quite simple and yet, tragic, events. This is a movie that does not need to show blood and cut limbs in order to provoke sympathy and passion. All the casts act superbly well and the claustrophobic camera angles and beautiful sound add to the atmosphere. What is life in a submarine all about? Long stretches of silence, broken by intense sequences of stressful anxiety. Thinking about the war, about loved ones. Unlike other movies (Cold Mountain comes to mind), you really do feel there is a chemistry between the wretched sailors in the U-boat and their unseen sweethearts, even if no looks or words are exchanged between them.

Das Boot is tragic in many levels more than 'simple' love. The ambivalence of feelings towards one's country and the enemy is examined.

The simultaneous desire to defeat the enemy, the joy of winning - juxtaposed to the fear - the guilt - the pain - the distrust.. and the feeling that you and everybody around you are becoming crazy. All characters in this movie have a distinct personality and distinct moral values. They are all so uncommonly seen in recent movies, yet they are no caricatures of human nature. (Their depth is amazing. I can't believe that the director of this film also directed 'Troy', but then again, Troy depicted events hapenning over an extended time period and represented a harder endeavour. In the isolated sub environment, time has no meaning. It might as well not pass at all.)

Furthermore, do yourself a favour and do not watch the movie dubbed, as the US dubbers made a really bad job out of this movie. There are not many lines for you to read anyhow.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ripley's Game (2002)
2/10
A patchwork of incompetently shot scenes
31 May 2004
What can I say about this movie? It is just a set of badly shot scenes, acting and dialogue, strung together in a completely idiotic way. The trailer of the movie is hundreds of times more exciting than the movie. In fact, just watch the trailer. The movie adds nothing more to it than boring, badly acted scenes that serve no purpose at al. names of italian food and painters, some nice italian landscapes. The plot is ridiculous and the motivations of the characters are implausible. Avoid.

To go into some more detail. The main actor acts in his usual, semi-detached way. His cynic comments are the only worthwhile thing in this movie, if you find sarcasm funny. Others might find him idiotic. The relationships between the couples seems cold and distant, not because the couples are supposed to be cold and distant, but because the actors make a lousy job of it.

The characterisation is lousy and the plot is full of holes, half-baked plot-devices and absurdities. Give it a miss.
6 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Snatch (2000)
10/10
Don't read the review, watch the movie.
6 October 2003
This is a fantastic movie. Really great characters and performances. Great laughs to be had throughout. The plot is.. well, you have to watch it.

Be warned that people that do not speak english fluently may not enjoy this movie as much.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Beautifully made
1 October 2003
I loved the characters of the movie - the people were really *there* you could see them. Even though I did not understand the language and the subtitles were in French (which, since I am not very proficient in French, I had trouble reading sufficiently fast), I did appreciate the emotions conveyed by the protagonists. This movie might be a bit slow for some people - however I found the timing just right. A minor gripe is the sound - the recording is not particularly good and a lot of scenes are completely silent, apart from the audible tape hiss. The result is a a minor loss in atmosphere (The crackling of the fire, the sputtering of the lamp, the shifting under the blanket, the shallow sleeping breath, all could have added a lot to the silent scenes, if they were added at the barely-audible level).

Apart from that, it is very good. Check it out.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Solaris (2002)
5/10
Uninspiring - feels like a soap opera.
29 September 2003
I had originally thought this movie was a psychological space drama. It turned out to be an overlong, poorly thought out flashback into the romantic life of the protagonist.

The direction is quite good, it is just that we see the wrong scenes all the time. The first couple of scenes (until Mr. Handsome Psychiatrist gets to Solaris) are well made - and promising. Good use of sounds and photography lead you to believe that you are about to watch a gripping space thriller/psychological drama. However, the arrival of the good doctor to the station is.. lacking. He sees blood - but there is no sense of mystery or suspense when we see the blood. He wanders around the station alone - he talks to a couple of characters . It is not cohesive. At all. Just like. I don't know. It is not that the story does not make sense - the problem is the ill choice of scenes. The director chose to concentrate on Chris - a lot of scenes are wasted exploring his past with his wife. We don't need to know his past - it's irrelevant. And yet, it takes up more than half of the movie. That, and seeing him sleeping in his bed. It's boring.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pitch Black (2000)
4/10
Oh, it's so dark I must be getting scared.
29 September 2003
Full-of-himself protagonist delivers idiotic one-liners in deep I-am-so-cool voice and fights hand-to-hand against pathetic aliens. Effects: The crash scene is nice, all the other effects are horrible. Story: There is no story, really. Escape before the aliens get you. (i.e. Alien II) Atmosphere: The atmosphere is ruined by the fact that there are so many completely whacky characters in the group. It is just insane. The aliens themselves are not frightening. The psychological exploration overtones make the movie even more silly. Alien II had done it much better, with (relatively to this movie at least), subtle variations in the psychology of the group. Acting: This is so bad that I was laughing throughout the movie.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Interesting, some minor flaws
3 March 2003
This is an unusual film. It revolves around a group of characters that are slightly connected to each other through their artistic tendencies and/or political beliefs. The group is presented well - it is quite realistic, even though it is so colourful. This is perhaps because the criteria for being part of the group are so 'normal'. Friends, people with similar interests.. acquaintance networks - this is something that is presented very well in the film.

A sinister undercurent pervades the whole movie: a background plot that is never revealed, or shown directly - it is something that the characters speak to each other about and make reference to. While in other movies the conspiracy plot would have been the central theme, here it is pushed into the background, delegated to a simple object of discussion - the movie instead revolves around the lives of the characters and in particular, the protagonist's, from whose point of view the situation is seen. By bringing the focus onto the characters and their daily lives, illusions and aspirations, the movie manages to to breathe fresh life into what would have otherwise been just another conspiracy film.

A few technical things: The acting is not very consistent. The parisian scenes were very good and the photography was aesthetically pleasing. The music enhanced the atmosphere significantly, though some of its psychedelic overtowns were a bit overpowering at points (making the dialogue hard to follow - if the intention was to transfer the confusion/paranoia to the viewer, it was appropriate, however).

It's not a masterpiece, but it is definitely interesting and worth watching at least once.
20 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Ring (2002)
Stands on its own.
14 January 2003
I would have scored this movie higher, but since it is a remake of the japanese film Ringu (http://www.imdb.com/Title?0178868) it loses a lot of points. Let me get into details:

Firstly, the plot. It is very interesting and it immerses you into the movie - I thought it was a quite clever trick, but since this is a remake, the trick is not clever any more. I have not seen the remake by itself, but I think the film does leave a lot of unanswered questions, that if they had been answered they would remove nothing from the film's atmosphere and they would have helped the audience understand something more about the relationships between the various people that only appear shortly. It is good to keep the parents and the daughter mysterious, but the few cryptic sentences they utter do not explain anything nor do they give them much character. I think the best approach would have been to have one of the locals that is already giving away some information to explain a bit more.

I have not seen the original, but perhaps a nice idea would be for the actors to already have known that circulating the tape to two other people (or copying it, or whatever) would save their own lives. This would force them to make, erm... interesting choices.

But the best part of the film has to be the cinematography. It is amazing, the scenes are beautiful, breathtaking and the video itself is disturbing enough to be believable.

In general the film is well-paced; the acting is believable, the characterization does not exactly fit; part of the plot that should be explained is not, there are some inconsistencies regarding the first and last victims of the 'horror'; the music is OK; some SFX are overused, but the sound is crisp and clean; there are some very well done, quite disturbing scenes; and maybe you should watch the original instead, unless you generally prefer hollywood-ized versions.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Gripping
16 August 2002
It is worthwhile watching this movie. It manages to drag you into the dreamworld that the director has created - full immersion guaranteed. The dream seems real to the viewer. It is absurd at some points, but after all it is a dream - and as dreams often do, it touches you somewhere deep inside. It is only broken by brief moments of reality, which in some ways are even more sorrowful than itself...

I cannot recommend this movie more. The acting is fantastic... the ideas are represented thoughtfully and the drama is unfolded masterfully - you will be enthralled (10/10)
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Avoid
16 August 2002
This movie offers nothing new. Technically, it is well made, but the plot seems contrived and the tension wears out as you see the two sides continuously escalating for no real reason - predictably, the protagonist discovers the simple truth and is repeatedly frustrated in his attempts to communicate it. This blocking is obviously just a plot device to heighten tension and anxiety in the audience. But it just becomes tedious.

If you'd like to watch a movie with the underlying threat of a nuclear Armageddon, perhaps you should try "The Hunt for Red October".

Rating 3/10 (Just for the effects and the attempts at acting)
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Irreversible (2002)
6/10
Nothing new
15 August 2002
I sat down to watch this movie, expecting it to be a thought-provoking and simultaneously shocking experience. Unfortunately it has only partially succeeded.

There are two things that set this movie apart from a technical point of view. It features uninterrupted, long, uncut, shots and the sequence of shots is shown in reverse cronological order. However, the uncut shots results in perhaps a bit too much camera movement (which is supposed to portray the psychology of the characters, I imagine) - also, the uncut nature of the shots means that you have to watch prolonged sequence of either inane or disturbing action. As for the reverse chronological order... interesting, but it does not serve as a plot device. It is merely a gimmick. In Memento, a movie there was a purpose behind showing the shots in reverse.. here... it is pointless, as is much of the violence and wandering around..

What this movie does succeed in, however, is to portray the psychological state of its characters, quite vividly. And in the end, this is what makes the movie shocking and not any graphic violence that is being displayed. (Although the violence itself is spicing things up quite a bit).

All in all, a flawed movie, but one that succeeds brilliantly in bringing out the characters' feelings and causing a reaction to the audience, despite the inanity of the plot itself. Prepare to be horrified, amazed and feeling light-headed.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed