Change Your Image
magic_eight_ball737
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Zeruda no densetsu: Tiâzu obu za kingudamu (2023)
Very disappointed
This game is like being held back a year in school, and redoing all of the things you learned the first time around with *slightly* improved pencils.
After loving Breath of the Wild, I was really looking forward to what they were going to bring to the table. But *this*? Seriously? After 7 years and at least 5 years of development, *this* is the progress that's made?
It's a shameless Breath of the Wild DLC that masquerades as a sequel because of a "unique" mechanic (popularized by better games more than a decade ago) and a slightly expanded world to explore in the sky.
I was expecting a sequel similar to Majora's Mask, where the same assets are used but the story, the world, most of the characters, many of the enemies, are new. That is not what you'll get with this game. Breath of the Wild was impactful because of the novelty of being the first of its kind in the Zelda franchise - Tears of the Kingdom absolutely lacks this freshness.
Don't bother. Just okay Breath of the Wild again.
Jurassic World (2015)
Jurassic Money-Grab
I'll keep this review short and sweet.
Jurassic World differs from its respective classic in that it aims to offer the audience some (albeit relatively uninspired) visual spectacles whilst delivering a plot that is somewhat reminiscent of the original Jurassic Park film. However, it fails to execute quite a few favourable ideas that, were they tackled by a filmmaker dazzled not by visual effects or money but by story and character, may have proved Oscar-worthy. Should you see this film? I'll list some pros and cons to help further your decision:
Pros: Thrills and excitement typical of the average Hollywood blockbuster. Nostalgia that most Jurassic Park fans might embrace. Satisfactory storyline with satisfactory characters to fulfill it. Visually stunning locations that introduce a sense of wonder
Cons: Repetitive. Recycled characters who experience recycled story lines. Laughable and/or questionable dialogue that might raise some eyebrows. Intellectual threshold exceeds the film's grasp. Some neglect of Chekhov's gun, in which the film introduces many promising variables that in the end prove to have no meaning.
In the end, any film is just a product that some consumers like and some consumers hate. Likewise, the only fair way to critique a film is to see it for yourself.
Interstellar (2014)
'Interstellar' is out of this world.
Christopher Nolan's "Interstellar" is an emotionally satisfactory film that delivers delicately crafted entertainment and well-written plots. The compelling and nostalgic soundtrack, composed by Hans Zimmer, blends beautifully with the imagery seen on screen and parts from Zimmer and Nolan's previous work. Paying homage to one of the most influential science fiction films of all time, "2001: A Space Odyssey", Nolan completely outdoes himself in creating a cinematic experience that viewers will surely remember for the decades to come. It's a complex masterpiece that stands on par with many classic films from the Kubrick era.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
This film is holding no one prisoner
Harry Potter was a fantastic and well thought up series. The first and second films were pretty mature for children's movies, and I still admired their stories. However, I can see why they didn't pay up plot-wise to Prisoner of Azkaban. First things first, I'm a little reluctant about series that are directed by a numerous amount of directors. It gets... messy. However, this one film is the exception. Alfonso knows what he was doing.
1) New variety of camera techniques. Although I didn't like the fade/circle transitions as much, I enjoyed a lot of the hand-held camera work. You don't see it a lot in filmmaking today.
2) The acting. It seems as though Emma Watson has completely changed as an actress in this film and on. Her acting in the first two films are what some would call dim-witted... ironically. The characters are more realistic and actually have feelings.
3) Conflict. Yes, I know there is conflict in every film out there. What most people forget is that most of the conflict needs to be directed towards the main character. Harry almost gets killed by Voldemort in the first film. Harry almost gets eaten by a basilisk in the second film, sure. But it's not enough. Harry falls off his broomstick. He gets yelled at by a teacher who's close to him (which is quite new to the series, frankly). He almost gets his soul sucked out by dementors. A lot of writers are afraid of hurting their main characters.
4) It's emotionally grounded. It's rare to see movies that have this sort of phenomena. Hermione and Hagrid are in love with the hippogrif, despite how harsh of a creature it is. We see Harry's hatred (for the first time) for the person/people who aided in the deaths of his parents. He believes that his own father was the one who drew the dementors away when he almost got his soul sucked out - and it's the first thought he comes across once he awakens from a coma.
5) The motifs. It's also rare to see these in movies, as well! There is the very important and reappearing motif of time in this film, both visually and audibly. There is one entrance to the school that everyone seems to use - and, incidentally, the base of this entrance is a giant clock tower standing like a monolith over a nice atrium. During the entire time travel portion of the film, the faint sound of a stopwatch is heard... for the entire duration from time travel, to climax, to rescuing Sirius.
6) The climax itself. Enough said. After Harry and Hermione have travelled back in time and are awaiting their previous fates to take place, Harry brings up the rescue between him and Sirius to Hermione. She claims that only a real powerful wizard could have conjured it. Harry believes it to be his father - and when it comes time for Harry's 'past self' to be rescued from the dementors, it's Harry who rescues himself. He was the powerful wizard after all.
7) Almost everything had meaning. I'm tired of watching films that include things that don't have much meaning or use to the story. Why did we spend all those minutes watching Harry practice a patronus charm? Because he uses it during the climax to save himself. That's why. Why did we spend all those minutes watching the Hogwarts Express being infiltrated by dementors? Because they play a big role in the story.
I am a strong believer in the difference between good films and enjoyable films. Good films follow the formula, and is static. Enjoyable films rely on opinion and the such. However, it's rare to come across both a good film and an enjoyable film... and I know I had just passed by one.
Holes (2003)
Great movie for kids, decent movie for adults
I loved this movie when I was kid. I read the book religiously (along with the Harry Potter series) and, having not seen the movie for a very long time, I decided to give it a go again. The resulting movie was just... messy. It was still a well done movie (considering it's for kids) but just... messy. A few things bugged me, and I'll explain why:
1) A large ensemble cast. I feel that a cast this large should only be allowed if each character within the ensemble has a particular role. Otherwise, they're shark-bait. Take the film Inception for example: a large ensemble, but each character had a purpose. I don't understand why we are going deep into Sir and Pendanski's stories. I don't understand why we're going deep into all the prisoners stories. The arrival of Twitch's character is just annoying... he doesn't even need to be there.
2) The pacing. You've got a very large story (and timeline, if you will) to shove into one two- hour movie. This is what I mean by the film being "messy". Flashbacks are good. In fact, I enjoy flashbacks - as long as they have a storyline of their own. But each scene is literally two minutes long. There was a part in the movie displaying Kate Barlow's story. It then cuts to a twenty second clip of Hector Zeroni finishing up his hole, and then it cuts back to Kate's story. This ruins the pacing of the film. You can't have one sad scene, then one happy scene, then one sad scene all sandwiched into a sloppy meal. It all has to go by smoothly.
3) Too much soundtrack. This is fine for me if the music is coming from a radio or something, but... there's just too many songs used. This also ruins the pacing of the movie.
4) Too many philosophies. I love the use of philosophies in a film. That is, as long as they're all introduced, expanded, and wrapped up. Fate, love, curse, history, loss, and lust are just a few philosophies crammed into this film. This also messes up the pacing of the film. Sure, if the movie was three hours long, everything could be introduced and wrapped up nicely. For example, let's take Kate Barlow's story into account. We've got the philosophy of love between an African male and a caucasian female happening here. This philosophy was very brief. After Sam (the man Kate falls in love with) gets killed, we're introduced to the philosophy that loss can drive someone insane. Kate succumbed to this philosophy... which is what I like. But they should have had Stanley more beaten up by Zero's loss... have him close to suffering from Kate's fate.
5) This brings us to the conclusion that Stanley's character wasn't beaten up enough. All the conflict was directed towards Hector's character. This bugged me. Yeah, Stanley is sent to juvenile for a crime he didn't commit... and then nothing else happens to him the whole movie. In The Shawshank Redemption, Andy's character is in the same situation. However, his character is worn down to the bones; he gets raped, he's beaten near death, he's sent to the hole for months, he's almost thrown off a roof... I could go on forever. Conflict is what makes a movie good. Holes just... wasn't up to take the challenge.
I'd say that this movie is a classic, but there are some holes that need to be filled: such as when Mr. Sir states that you'd die a slow and painful death if bitten by a yellow-spotted lizard... but Kate dies after being bit from one in literally seconds. This film is a little underrated (I thought it'd be at a 7.3 at least) but a 7/10 will do for the next couple of years.
Smiley (2012)
Smiley had me Smiling
Smiley is a horror film about this unexplained killer that kills people whenever another types in "i did it for the lulz" three times during video chat, whether it be online or local. The thing that's wrong is, the movie had me smiling every bit of the way. Why?
1) The characters weren't really nailed down.... they were sort of all over the place. There were absolutely no character arcs, no character development, zip. Why is Ashley's dad's character even in the plot? We never feel for him, communicate with him... he's an annoyance.
2) The subplots. It seems they were literally created in three minutes. The subplot of the overprotective father, as mentioned before, is just annoying. He should have served in the plot.
3) Don't get me started with the plot. It seems like The Ring... a woman encountering this evil through a computer/television screen and slowly going insane, trying to find out what the evil is. The only difference is, The Ring was a much higher regarded horror film in my sense. Ashley is so emotionally broken, so wouldn't she go insane or into panic attacks the one moment she see's the source of evil?
4) It just ends. Just like that. Unfinished and no loose ends were wrapped up (as if it had any loose ends to be wrapped up). Ashley just falls to her death in slow motion. Then it's the end. The "Smiley's" turn out to be Ashley's friends. Wait, what? Why? They killed her and still bother to stay in the same location for another ten minutes. They don't even check to see if she's okay. Also, if I may add, Ashley shoots Binder in the chest, thinking he's the killer. But then... after Ashley's death... he's alive? Did he know he'd be shot by Ashley? It makes absolutely no sense. Then, to very quickly wrap up the one loose end in the film, Ashley's friend asks, "wait, why did we do this again?". It's as if she knew a Panavision camera was feet from her and she wanted to make sure the audience wasn't confused. Oh, then she gets killed by the real Smiley. WHAAAAA? Yeah. The main "Smiley" types in the "i did it for the lulz" thing three times, which answers her previous question. Then she dies. Then the credits roll. But it doesn't make sense... they typed in "i did it for the lulz" three times with every other "Smiley" in the room in order to prank Ashley, but they didn't get killed. And why did they want to prank Ashley anyways?
I like Shane Dawson (Yaw), but this movie disappointed me. Where's the creativity? The point of a film is to use a visual array of metaphorical and hidden images/sounds that the audience needs to dig out. Movies can't be straightforward. Even Disney movies, intended for children, have plot. Oh, did I forget to mention that audiences like irony?
Twenty minutes of time it took to write this article out. I can swear that Smiley was written in less than that amount of time without any plans. You need to plan in order to make enjoyable films, right? Hopefully, talented people can actually break into the film industry, because all that are being let in so far are men in business suits hungry for profit. Thanks for taking the time to read my opinion on Michael Gallagher's "Smiley".
Cellular (2004)
Is this supposed to be an action I'm watching?
I used to like this film a while ago before I was a teenager. It was exhilarating and fun. But then, after I became a screenwriter, I saw how horribly the script was written. There are plot holes big enough for me to walk through. So, let's list some of the flaws, shall we?
1) The initial incident (the part in a movie where something happens to your character that starts the... well... adventure of the movie) is usually supposed to happen about 20 minutes into the film. As for Cellular, the initial incident starts two minutes in. This barely gives us time to recognize the main characters and it's a big no-no to start all the action right away.
2) Talking about action, there is a WHOLE lot of conflict. Conflict is good in a movie -- in fact, you NEED conflict in a movie. However, each time conflict occurs, you need time for the audience to cool down before presenting them with new conflict. As with Cellular, the writer is shoving conflict down your throat. We know what's going to happen next because it's predictable. It's almost as if the director wrote down a whole bunch of negative things that could happen to a cellphone and then just throw it in the pot.
3) The stairwell scene. This is near the start of the movie (where the initial incident WAS supposed to take place) where Ryan (played by Chris Evans) is trying to get Jessica Martin (played by Kim Basinger) help from a person on the fourth floor of a tower while on the phone. The connection starts breaking loose, and Ryan can't proceed up the stairwell or else he will loose his connection with Jessica. If I were in his situation, I would just put the phone on the ground, run up to the fourth floor, get the helper, then bring him down into the stairwell. Yeah, it's risky, but there's still a chance.
4) The choice of Kim Basinger playing the lead. This woman is a terrible actress. The only thing she's good at is squinting her eyes while making her face turn red. The producers are in the city of Los Angeles! Out of all the women who auditioned, David R. Ellis happened to choose her. I felt that Naomi Watts (who is a great actress) could pull the part off, or maybe even an emerging actress.
5) The girlfriend at the end of the film. At the end of the film, the ex of Ryan somehow gets back together with Ryan, EVEN after, in front of a few bad guys, he said he had no idea who she was. This might have been some subplot that just turned into a dud.
6) The day spa. I have no idea what this has to do with the film. Yeah, it's a subplot, but it doesn't tie together with the main plot.
7) When Ryan asks Jessica if her husband is rich, she replies with "no, he's a realtor". One, Jessica and her family live in a HUGE house with a maid! Plus, realtors, in the city of LA, make tons of money!
8) The costume design. Jessica Martin is supposed to look classy and rich. Instead, the costume designers made her look like a slut: a short, black dress, a fishnet for her legs, I mean COME ON
9) The screenwriter decided to make everything in the film have rules. A school that has strict rules to wear identical clothing and (after the bell rings) to not cut through hallways with children in them. A store (subsequently named Cellular) keeps telling Ryan to "take a number" annoyingly, again, with all the rules. What's with all these rules!? It's a terrible attempt to add conflict to a screenplay.
10) At the beach, when the bad men are looking for Ryan, Jason Statham, via walkie talkie, tells a bad guy (who is looking through a crowd of people) that Ryan is the one guy talking on a cellphone. The bad guy replies with, "they all have cellphones". Then we are presented with a pitiful shot of literally EVERYONE on cellphones. First of all, it would've been better if they found Ryan at this moment. This adds REAL conflict. There is supposed to be conflict thrown at our good guys, not our bad guys!
There are so much more flaws that are presented in this film, but I can't list them all. There are only three scenes in the film that I liked, and all three of them were still pretty bad. Don't see this movie -- it's a waste of time, money, and conflict.
Vanilla Sky (2001)
It makes me wonder....
I don't understand why some people thought this was a bad movie. The acting was great, the soundtrack acceptable, and the editing and camera angles were used magnificently. The only parts I didn't like was when David Aames was talking with McKay.
I liked the ending. The effects were good. Some people are complaining about the ending, saying "It explains nothing!" or, "Oh, is Sofia really Julie?". It's ALL explained in the elevator scene, where they ride up to David's true moment of choice.
The soundtrack was decent. I liked the songs by Sigur Ros on there. They fit the movie well... but some of the songs on their were eccentric and weird. The music in the end scene fit perfectly as David has his final conversation with Sofia before taking a literal leap of faith.
Penelope Cruz, Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz (along with many other cast members) did a fantastic job in this film. Tom portrayed a character who was afraid of heights well, he portrayed a drunk man well... and so on.
Overall, I think Vanilla Sky is a pretty decent movie. Good enough to put under a Christmas tree. I give it an 8/10.
The Island (2005)
You want to go to The Island
When I first saw this movie - I was speechless. The soundtrack was awesome and so were the action scenes. The moral of the story made sense and I wasn't confused at any parts at all.
But the only thing I dislike about this movie is the lack of character development (other than the African guy in the end :) ). Even though they are clones, the writers could have changed a tiny bit of their character in the end.
This movie had a pretty basic ending... it really ended without no explanation. I mean they go on a boat to an Island? It doesn't really make sense but I like it anyways.
I like this movie, and thereby give it an 8/10.