Reviews

I had some nice expectations with this movie. No too much, in fact, because I have been deceived so many times ...

One of those expectations was: This film is very realistic.

And it is partly true: Some parts of the film are very realistic. For example the way he creates the potato farm inside the martian base. On the other side, the protagonist is perhaps too ... I wouldn't say too smart. After all he is a NASA astronaut, and you don't become a NASA astronaut being stupid. The word is "lucky". Matt Damon is just too lucky. Even being the best, things can go terribly wrong when you live a couple of years in Mars because of a million things The problem with Hollywood films is that you know from the beginning that there is gonna be a happy ending. That the main character will probably survive (Or perhaps sacrifice to save the group). And that eliminates most of the thrill.

And that leads to the what I really disliked: Never during the film I felt the anguish of being alone in Mars. The faith of the main character is too strong. He is alone on an alien planet, and he never despairs, not even for a moment. That is simply not how human beings behave. It would be OK for an adventure film, but not for one that pretends to be realistic. In that respect I prefer lower budget films like "Moon"

Not a bad film. Great landscaped, visually impressive, but lacks real drama.

2 out of 10. Why such a low score? Is it that bad? Yes and no. One of the reasons I scored it 2, is that Gravity pretends to be something it is not.

Gravity pretends to be a realistic thriller in space, like 2001, and emotive drama, but in reality it is nothing but a disaster movie like Armaggedon or Space Cowboys (Without the funny part).

But there are also other reasons to the score: The plot is really bad, plain and predictable (Not too good for a thriller), and at some points stupid (ie. when Clooney "sacrifices" when it was clearly unnecessary).

The acting is mediocre, being very near to melodrama at some stages. And the "heroine" (Sandra Bullock), survives to the impossible (The Hollywood's syndrome of "must have a happy ending, no matter how").

The film is void as the space where it happens OK, I admit visuals are superb. That's why I scored it 2 instead of 1.

The film describes how some companies in the informatics consulting work (And maybe others in different sectors). Don't know how informatics work in other countries, but in Spain externalization is very common. A company hires an employee just to rent that employee to another company to work there. But there are a bunch of companies that mix this with a fierce corporativism. You are not only an employee, you are a proud member of a sect.

Casual Day perfectly describes one of those companies. Companies where work is before personal life, where flattering the boss is more important than competence. Employees serve the company and feel guilty when day fail to do that. Good education hides an insatiable thirst for profits May be the film seems exaggerated to people who have never worked for such a company, but I assure you it is not exaggerated at all.

For those who have seen the wonderful old movie from 1968, this films does not speak about the first film. It speaks about the born of Caesar and the Rebelion of apes, which corresponds to the fourth film of the series "Conquest of the Planet of the Apes" from 1972.

First to say is that I hate CGI. May be CGI monkeys have shorter legs and longer arms like real monkeys, may be they have improved a lot in the last 20 years (and probably CGIs are much cheaper than human extras), but CGI creatures look like pictures, not like solid beings. The remake film "Planet of the Apes" from 2001 was a horrible film, but monkeys where humans in disguise and they seemed real beings. No matter the improvements made, CGI still looks fake, specially movements. There are some scenes with chimps over a car, and the ceiling does not bend a millimeter, gravity is not properly simulated and movement simply seems unreal.

About the film, I liked a lot the first part, and how Caesar realizes he is a Chimp and what humans do to monkeys. And suddenly everything becomes incoherent and the film worsens a lot. Suddenly monkeys are intelligent, and able to fight like a trained army with advanced tactics. How did they learn so fast? Did they become ultra-intelligent just because they had a good teacher? Sorry, but I don't buy it.

If you don't know the original movie from 1967, you may think this is a good film, with an original plot. But when you compare both movies, you will realize that one of them, the British one from 1967 is far better.

Elegant English humor vs Brendan Fraser grimacing.

A pitiful victim, played by Dudley Moore vs an always overacting Brendan Fraser.

Cynic devil: Peter Cook vs sensual one: Liz Hurley (In the old movie, the devil is not so tempting, that's true, but you have "Lust", one of the seven capital sins, interpreted by a young an sexy Rachel Welch).

And the ending: The cynic ending of the 1967 movie, when God childishly laughs at the devil, vs the typical Hollywood happy ending in the American version (Yes, he gets the girl).

The film tells the story of Snow White, a princess who is imprisoned by her stepmother who also killed Snow White father, the king.

There are two main characters in this film. Snow White, interpreted by Kristen Stewart, and her evil stepmother interpreted by Charlize Theron. May be this is not the best of Charlize Theron films (Not her fault), but she acts well enough to outshine the bland acting of Kristen Stewart. Did you think she was that way in Twilight because that was part of her role? She acts exactly the same way in this film, so I don't think so. The only role of Kristen in this films seem to be making Charlize Theron glow even brighter by comparison.

The plot happens many years after the events in the first Alien movie. Sargeant Ripley and her cat (The only survivors of the first movie) had been in hibernation for a long time in the vessel they used to scape. After some events, they end up in a planet with thousands of aliens.

There are somethings in common "between" alien and "aliens". Sgt Ripley is there, many people dies, and of course the aliens in the second film are the same species as the creature in the first film. But the resemblance ends there. While the first film is a thriller, the second is an action film with lots of guns and firepower. Which of the films is better, is a matter of taste: Do you prefer action or thriller. I personally prefer the first, but the second part is quite a nice film (The third part is mediocre, and the fourth is awful)

I hate Jim Carrey comedies. I just find it's humor too childish, too simple (I know, Hollywood payed him very well to behave in the films like he did). Fortunately Jim Carry demonstrated to be an actor with more pretensions than doing always the same role. As a result, he made this spectacular movie.

The movie is funny, and at some points Jim Carry behaves like Kim Carrey, but the film is far more than the stupid comedies in which he acted before.

Truman is the biggest attraction to spectators all over the World. He was born in a cinema studio, he is property of the studio, and his life is transmitted all over the World: The best of all reality shows, a real life on TV: He has a father, mother, friends ... all actors but Truman who suspects nothing about the deception. But suddenly things begin to work the wrong way. Truman would love to travel abroad, and some members of the cast began to remorse about what they are doing ...

Comedy is one of the most varied genres in cinema. You have social comedy, intelligent comedy, comedy mixed with drama, slapstick comedy, parody, surrealistic humor, etc.

"Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" belongs to a genre we may call "Idiotics comedy". That is, two idiotic retarded dumbasses making idiotic things supposedly funny (If you have seen Jar Jar Binks in Episode I, you know what I mean). OK, to be fair, only Jay is a retarded idiotic. Silent Bob is just weird.

May be some people find that kind of humor funny, but I find it way too stupid to be funny at all, even for children

I really loved the original stargate series, but after the 7th season, every thing just beame too easy to achieve. While it took 7 seasons to defeat the Goa'uld, they defeated the replicants in a single season, and the Ori in 2. Atlantis came then to the rescue. A good series, but I never liked it as much as SG-1. Now comes SGU. I dislike many of the characters, specially Eli, but I don't think it is boring (There is not so much action as in SGA, but there is more sci-fi, something that I really missed in SGA). We can see people in real trouble for the first time in ... well I don't remember when. And I don't speak of trouble because they allowed someone to infiltrate the base, but because they don't understand the technology they are using, and their vessel is almost ruined. The only bad thing I saw is that they used time loops too soon in the series. I hope that was not simply lack of imagination

He visto la película hoy mismo. Esperaba ver una película con muchos efectos especiales, escenarios espectaculares, y una historia simplona. Decir que los efectos especiales y los escenarios son tan espectaculares como me esperaba. El realismo de las imágenes es increíble. Es muy destacable el derroche de imaginación (y de medios) utilizado para crear un mundo totalmente nuevo, con criaturas tremendamente originales. En el aspecto de la creatividad, lo veo similar al señor de anillos. El único fallo de creatividad, es el gigante gaseoso cercano a Pandora, que no deja de ser Júpiter pintado de azul (Hasta tiene la misma mancha característica, por lo que yo diría que es una imagen de Júpiter pintada de azul).

En el aspecto que flojea un poco más es en la historia, que es excesivamente lineal y previsible, una película de buenos y malos. Aunque en realidad es bastante mejor de lo que se podría esperar en una película de estas características (Me lo esperaba peor para ser sinceros)

Lo que si me ha decepcionado enormemente es la tecnología 3-D. Es la primera película en 3-D que veo con la actual tecnología, y tenía curiosidad por ver si había mejorado tanto como dicen. Es cierto que ha mejorado notablemente, pero sigue dando toda la sensación de que estás viendo hologramas. El efecto es muy bueno en los paisajes, pero terrible en los planos cortos. Como es normal en las películas, cuando están enfocando a un personaje, los que están en otro plano aparecen desenfocados. Pero la diferencia es que con 3-D el efecto se nota mucho más. Y lo que es peor, es que al estar en 3-D, intentas enfocar los objetos que están en otro plano como harías en el mundo real, pero obviamente no puedes, así que la sensación es muy extraña. En definitiva, creo que el 3-D no sólo añade poco a la película, si no que incluso está de más. Salvo que lo mejoren mucho, no voy a pagar 3-4€ más por ver una película en 3-D

Superproducción que narra los hechos sucedidos en el libro del "Exodo", y que cuentan la historia de Moises y del pueblo judío en su huida de la esclavitud en Egipto. No se trata por tanto de una película histórica, si no que narra los sucesos que aparecen el La Biblia. Es de destacar también un marcado objetivo doctrinal, ya que uno de sus principales objetivos es difundir el contenido de la Biblia.

El estilo es el clásico de la superproducciones de aquella época. Aparte del tema religioso en sí, se centra mucho en el antagonismo entre los protagonistas (Moises y el Faraón). La personalidad de los protagonistas es arrolladora, y existe una cierta sobreactuación como si los actores estuviesen en el teatro. Por supuesto, incluye carísimos y espectaculares decorados, así como escenas con multitud de extras. En definitiva, todo un despliegue de medios técnicos.

Quizás, el punto más flojo es el poco realismo de ciertos escenarios (esa especia de mundo perfecto), especialmente cuando se trata de gente humilde. Por ejemplo, sorprende bastante ver el tamaño y el lujo de la tienda del pastor del desierto. En ese aspecto, están mucho mejor hechas películas posteriores como Moses, interpretada por Ben Kingsley No obstante, un gran film si consigues pasar por alto el tufillo proselitista y moralista de la película (Al fin y al cabo es una película sobre la Biblia)

One feature of many modern action films that I dislike a lot, specially in Hollywood films, is that they always put a buffoon (or several) in their films (Fortunately there are films like Syriana or Babel). In "Episode I" it war Jar Jar Binx. In the mummy it was John Hannah (And Brendan Fraser sometimes). I have nothing against a bit of humor, but you should know where and when to make use of that humor unless you want to break the drama and the action atmosphere. Specially when you use childish humor.

I found this film to be a really bad one. Very good special effects, very spectacular, and I have to admit it was entertaining, but I would eliminate some of the characters, like Jonathan Carnahan. Sorry if I think that clowns are better for the circus than for action films.

The only really good thing of the film is Rachel Weisz, which is really impressive (And I am not talking about the acting)

Hay que reconocer que si te apetece relajarte después de un día de trabajo y dejarte el cerebro en casa, la película no esta demasiado mal. Es entretenida, tiene acción, humor, protagonistas guaperas, tensión sexual (aunque sin sexo) y los efectos especiales son espectaculares. Eso sí, que nadie espere de esta película va a sacar algo constructivo. Es pura y simple diversión.

Dicho esto, esta película tiene un defecto que a mí me disgusta especialmente, y que parece haberse puesto de moda en Hollywood. La película está llena de chistes fáciles y humor infantil en mitad de las escenas de acción, lo que rompe bastante la atmósfera de peligro que se debería sentir cuando una momia te está persiguiendo. Incluso hay un personaje bufón, muy al estilo de Jar Jar Binx interpretado por John Hannah. Personaje cuyo objetivo es estar en las situaciones más ridículas y absurdas que quepa imaginar. No tengo nada en contra de meter humor en películas con acción, pero todo en su medida. Los payasos están mejor en el circo.

Rachel Weisz es sin duda lo más destacable de la película, aunque no precisamente por su personaje (Y no es que lo haga mal, es que el personaje no da para más)

Film was made in 1895, and of course special effects were very limited and the trick is very obvious.

Anyway I found something really interesting in this short. The camera focuses on the beheading, and keeps there until the very end. I don't know any other film where that kind of scene is shown in such a crude way. If you see any modern film were someone is beheaded, they always avoid to show a first plane of the critical moment. May be they just put a black screen while you hear the axe chopping, or at most, they blur the image and after a second you may see the head rolling or in a basket but they always avoid to show a first plane of the axe or guillotine in the moment they cut the head.

Lo primero que me gustaría decir, es que quien espere una película de romanos tipo Ben-Hur con mucha acción y primeros planos, es mejor que no vaya a ver Ágora. Se trata de una película histórica (con las licencias típicas de las películas, no se trata de un documental) con un ritmo lento y sin una linea narrativa definida (o por lo menos clara). Tampoco se centra excesivamente en los personajes, y se limita a contar una historia que sucede, llena de historias secundarias, que no siempre están bien entrelazadas con la historia principal, que no es otra que la caída del Imperio Romano, y el inicio de los años oscuros en medio de un ambiente de enfrentamiento y fanatismo religioso. Se la ha criticado mucho precisamente por que las historias secundarias no enlazan bien con la historia principal, por que el personaje de Hypatia no es empático. Eso es cierto, pero es que en la vida real, las cosas no siguen un patrón establecido y perfectamente hilvanado, y muchas veces los personajes importantes no son gente empática, así que yo no lo veo como un defecto, si no todo lo contrario.

Y finalmente decir que no me parece un ataque a la Iglesia Católica. Que pasó lo que se cuenta en la película es innegable. En cuanto los Cristianos se hicieron con el poder, tardaron poco en acabar con el resto de credos, y el obispo de Alejandría, Cirilo, es conocido históricamente por su fanatismo y su sed de poder. Por otro lado, la película se encarga de recordar que durante varios siglos los cristianos fueron perseguidos por el imperio, se les muestra ayudando a los pobres (algo que los paganos no hacen), y se muestra a cristianos más tolerantes como el prefecto de Alejandría o al Obispo de Cirene que intentan parar los pies al fanático Cirilo. Por otro lado, los cristianos provocan a los paganos, pero son los paganos los que inician las matanzas.

Respecto al vestuario diferenciado, hay una explicación bastante simple: El Cristianismo tuvo mucho éxito entre las clases bajas y los esclavos, mientras que los paganos en esa época eran sobre todo gente de cierto nivel social, así que es lógico que los ropajes fuesen diferentes. Fijaros que los cristianos ricos también visten de blanco (excepto Cirilo).

¿Los cristianos matan más que los otros? Cierto, pero eso no lo hace una película desequilibrada. Los cristianos matan más, sencillamente por que son los que acaban ganando.