Reviews

It is a correct documentary about the interesting history of Argentine horror cinema. The effort should be applauded; Its execution, however, left holes that are visible to any viewer. At a technical level there are deficiencies in the sound recording of the interviewees and therefore the quality of listening is questionable. The story aims to be complete but dedicates time to the period where horror films were not made to dedicate less time to the period where they were made. And there were missing films that are key and have gained fame from cult films like Sadomaster. The fact that the films of the production company behind Sadomaster have not even been mentioned makes me think that there are personal problems behind the production. The film, despite having an approach that I would have faced otherwise, fulfills its function, sparks controversy and takes a position: you should support a genre that has fans. However, there is an issue of commercial logic: no uninteresting film will be successful and the horror genre is no exception. A lot of crap has been made here and precisely the films that are most remembered are those that are independent and unpretentious. If a documentary were made about Argentine Z cinema it would be much more interesting by far.

Make no mistake. This film is mediocre and its positive contemplation is simply an emotional issue. It starts off in an interesting way supported by the enormous talent of voice actor J. Benjamin and a great martial artist (Yayan Ruhian). The beginning is promising but slowly the story becomes implausible. The addition of that great character given by Sharlto Coplay adds a touch of elegance to a film made unsustainable by a bad cast (Bill Skarsgaard has neither the looks nor the presence of a killing machine). The villains suck as their very structure falters in the face of a single well-motivated man. The best action sequences are compromised by muddled editing, unwelcome directorial virtuosity and all verisimilitude is destroyed so we remain incredulous most of the time. Hardly any character is sympathetic and the few jokes obtained appear practically by accident. It's not a great film and unless you're a fan of pretentious but soulless b-movies this film should be rejected. It's bad.

Sometimes we have the chance to see great cinema; is the moment when we find histories full of love, feelings and emotions. In this case we have a history that could be related with all of us. Is the usual question about what will happen if we choose another direction for our lives? Then this movie present something special, well acted and directed and with moments full of significance. Is a movie for all; everyone can enjoy a movie without distractions and without bizarre situations. Is a great movie, perhaps the best of the past five years and a must see for every person who loves cinema. Enjoy.

The premise is interesting: to show a universe based on the famous pieces to convey a story of kindness, transformation and a little humor. In this story we find Chriss Pratt (who also voiced Mario) playing a character that would be unsustainable in real life; The extremes are permanently present and by not being able to sustain their existential logic it is impossible for us to identify with them. Luckily, comic reliefs like Batman appear, making it easier for us to at least get involved through the jokes provoked by well-known characters. The experience is pleasant but not memorable; that is the drama of the movie then resolved with Batman Lego which is undoubtedly far superior.

This is what I call a classic. It has a multi-talented cast, fantastic songs, a hilarious story and multiple elements that make it not only the greatest midnight movie of all time but a timeless classic. In his most important character, Tim Curry offers us a fantastic neo-villain who not only makes you laugh but also reflects on existential tragedy. In this odyssey, the protagonists find questions about their own history and in the plot evolution we learn to enjoy and enjoy the ups and downs of their decisions. This movie is pure enjoyment; It is a film that should never have been remade but we know that Hollywood is excessively disrespectful when it comes to its classics.

This movie is an abomination, an insult to all of us who grew up watching monster movies. Hollywood took the most archetypal monsters and not only changed their essence; It changed its role, its motivation, its form, its universe. This insult against our history must not go unpunished. First: they turned King Kong (historically a giant gorilla attached to blondes) into a friend of children and defender of humanity. They made with him what Gamera was at the time. Then they took Godzilla: he went from being the king of the monsters to simply becoming King Kong's partner to defeat potential enemies. The insult didn't stop there; They transformed Mothra, an enviable enemy of Godzilla into a key defender of humanity. The aberration was adorned with a choral cast where all races are present, making the experience even more vomitous. The plot is indefensible: nothing has logic, nothing has coherence, the past is not honored (nor Godzilla's music) nor the mystique of the great monsters that marked our lives. Those who made the film should go to jail for this attack. On the positive side is a well-done fight sequence. That adds a point to this humiliating, painful and daringly fatal experience.

This is one of those rare examples where a big-budget film couldn't get sequels. The reason is simple; The protagonist is such a despicable character, so unsympathetic, so unlike someone worthy of imitation that we truly wish for him to be devoured in the most horrifically terrible way. The idea that he gets away with this is atrocious and we see as the film goes by that this will happen and we will not be able to do anything to prevent it. When the hero of the film is despicable and his friends seem subnormal, we wonder what is the reason behind this infamous film; and the reason is that this is a film that conveys the ego of his archetypes and also of his daily actions. It is a film with a target audience and it reaches them perfectly. But by not being able to make a mass audience fall in love with it, it simply remained a first and unnecessary film. Bad.

Greed sometimes makes you make bad decisions; Film production is full of bad options and worse films, demonstrating that the desire for huge profits does not guarantee massive success or public satisfaction. This film is the most radical demonstration of this precept. Those of us who grew up reading comics know that we must honor our characters (gender, race, ability). No one would dream of representing Napoleon as if he were Chinese or Jefferson as if he were Indian; They wouldn't show them as women either.... But with comic book characters the freedom is absolute and then Madame Webb is no longer an old invalid but a young woman with a story as uninteresting as that of my breakfast this morning. What happens next is one nonsense after another; It is a film without redemption, where even the villain competes with Dakota Johnson to see who is more disastrous. It is an incompetent film, without soul, without appeal or talent. Everything that happens is predictable, everything that happens lacks incentive to continue falling in love with this genre (superhero movies) that increasingly looks more exhausted thanks to the lack of ideas and the absolute absence of fidelity to the original material. It sucks, stay away from the film. You will thank me.

The great horror film classics are related to the Catholic Church: The Omen, Rosemary's Baby or The Exorcist. Here we are faced with an unnecessary sequel that, despite being well filmed (my respects to whoever directed it), the story is unsustainable on all sides; the idea of presenting the antichrist as the product of a conspiracy where his unlikely protagonists are as serious as I am as a quantum scientist (I'm not). There is a priest who claims to be excommunicated but always stays in church rooms and who seems to be quite functional for the plot, a group of nuns who would not be allowed in any monastery in the world, a cardinal who does the work of a bishop and It never demonstrates the need for such a high position and a constant use of circumstances that are cliché in every film of the genre. What's more, at one point I laughed after a certain moment that involved an accident that when you see it you will know what I'm talking about. It's a movie with such a bad plot that it does little justice to the first three Omen movies (I won't tell you about the other one because, like this one, it's garbage). Here all the female characters are unpleasant and if it weren't for a bizarre ending where the devil's progeny (incestuous in a way) survive I could assure that it is difficult to overcome this crap. There is an open window to a parallel line when it comes to plot, which tells me that producers should reconsider when approaching the classics. The classics deserve respect and not garbage like this.

This film did not age well; The idea of someone returning from the dead to resolve various circumstances has occurred many times in cinema and depending on the technical aspect we can have something pleasant or pure garbage. In this film we have a hero who is extremely sensitive. He may appeal to our intimate fiber but he doesn't do it well; From the beginning we side with the evil side because if there is something that is not acceptable he is precisely a crying hero. Just as Robocop seeks to save her marriage when she is already in other physical conditions and let's be honest, no woman wants to save a couple if there are deformities or phantasmagoric natural things involved. The conditions for the development of the character make us wait a long time for him to shine and when he does so he lacks the spectacular nature that the character himself invokes. Martin Sheen shines even if your hair is too dyed; John Leguizamo is unpleasant and he is the best thing in the film. The ending is improbable and for that reason what should have been a series of films ended up being a mediocre first film.

It is the first time I have gone to the cinema to see a film from this saga; Previous experience (the other three were not a big deal) told me that I had to have reservations with the final product. I decided to inform myself as little as possible and went with very low expectations. The problem of the film was seen very quickly: it is that animal that gives foxes little honor. The character is unfriendly and his story generates revulsion. Is redemption possible for someone capable of doing what this secondary character did? The film teaches that yes; Our experience indicates not. The general tone of the characters oscillates between naivety and stupidity. Even the villain literally copies the same strategy as the villain from the previous film, demonstrating that creativity is a very rare commodity. I decided to test myself; If I laughed three times the film would fulfill its purpose. And I laughed three times but precisely at the more secondary characters who fortunately were good food relief. The ending offends intelligence with Kung Fu panda getting along more than well with the murderer of his mother. With the plot twist they gave to the film they killed the saga and in the process gave a very minor shine to the funny furious five who barely appear. Medium film, nothing to celebrate.

Comedies are better when they are lighter. This film is free of pretension; He plays with lovable and recognizable characters while putting them in crisis situations in order to derive the joke in the most appropriate way. Fortunately this film is devoid of that recurring need of our current cinema to transcend and make history; He seeks to make people laugh and he succeeds. Without a doubt, it is a film that purist fans of the first film may not like, but on the other hand, for those looking to laugh without the need to think, it is a good option. It is a good film, funny and recommended. Kevin James appears surrounded by good secondary characters and the final result is clearly satisfactory.

Russell Mulcahy is a talented director who brought us good films when cinema still depended more on the pulse of the director and the talent of the actors. It is a nice film, we are presented with a fearsome wild boar that, despite barely appearing on the screen, thanks to the great direction and editing, allows us to have an entertaining and pleasant experience. Mullcahy later offered us the great Highlander with Cristopher Lambert and his not so excellent Highlander 2. Like Spielberg's Jaws, monster movies do not depend so much on the animal but on style; This film showed that Mulcahy's talent was enough to offer great films that for one reason or another did not take place.

There was a time when family films were made in Argentina. That cinema had innocence, likeable characters, careful production, large mobilizations of extras and catchy music since those were times of actors who could sing and dance. Rodolfo Zapata was an Argentine singer who knew how to dance malambo very well (he was Mirtha Legrand's double) and with this particular song he achieved immortality. It is a film that exudes naivety but on the other hand transmits values from a time that will not return but that are especially dear. It is good cinema, the kind that does you good, the kind that makes you smile and gives you joy. Seeing her is really a great pleasure.

Argentine cinema (like Turkish) often makes cheap copies of foreign hits for the show of local stars. This film takes elements from Twins and a few other films to provide us with family entertainment based especially on the charisma of its star Guillermo Francella (today the main Argentine comedian). Appealing to the most frivolous and cheap humor, the film advances in the most improbable way, mixing impossible twins, martial arts, chases and the classic youth and female participation to attract all audiences. It's not really a great film but it strangely fulfills its function of entertaining. It is known that the Argentine palate is very low in terms of quality and this film is an absolute demonstration of this.

I recently saw it on a channel specialized in Argentine cinema (Volver). Filmed on VHS it offers that poor image quality that we miss from our youth. Tristán (already a veteran) offers an unlikely character of an irresistible heartthrob who attracts women far outside the reach of someone like him. The situations point to those who like women who show off their beauty with little clothing. With good-looking actresses like Adriana Salgueiro and Alejandra Pradón, attractiveness for boys is guaranteed, while Tristán, Delfor Medina and Tincho Zabala (Uruguayan) offer the comic side of this extravaganza. The decline of that great actor, Tincho Zabala, who agreed to work in this Z class film is worrying. It is a film for those nostalgic for the beauties of the nineties.

This film appeals to the extreme from the first sequence since crude humor is the facilitator of laughter. Although this does not always work, it must be assumed that we find here some improvements compared to the first film since by having more characters there is a greater opportunity to diversify the extremes and facilitate hilarious moments. There are unpleasant characters, there are nice ones and there are extreme ones. Without detracting from the stars, the one who looks best in the film is Taylor Lautner who offers a fantastic character allowing his idiotic bully to be absolutely great. Of the rest there are good and bad moments. It is a film that is not extraordinary but can be seen more than once.

Sitcom requires a quirky character, a group around him that is eccentric, and a universal motivation that makes people feel sympathy for him. This is what made the American Pie saga successful. The problem arises from the weakness of the main character (Steve Carell's) who borders on idiocy and for that reason it is impossible for him to be likeable. His co-workers are sleazy and no one would want them as friends (much less as employees in an appliance store). Anyway, the character comes and goes in the grotesque quest to lose his virginity while we suffer thanks to him in the film. With few funny elements and a well-done sequence (the one at the end with a dance included paying homage to the rock opera Hair) the film is nothing compared to much better-done comedies. It is almost impossible to see it a second time.

There are comedies that can be seen more than once and the comic effect is maintained by the quality of the script, the attractive characters and careful direction. This film does not have these elements in a large percentage and that is why if you see it for the first time you will laugh but if you see it for the second time things will get difficult. I make this reservation because the Farrelly Brothers have offered better films than this that can be enjoyed repeatedly without fatigue (like There is something about Mary). Here Jim Carrey offers us a character who is an eternal loser (very terrible things happen to him) who has a certain stroke of luck thanks to a mental imbalance. The rest is the search for gags (some successful, others not) and the result oscillates between laughter and stillness. It's not a big deal.

Andrew Davis is a competent director for action and suspense and he demonstrated it especially in the nineties by making excellent vehicles for Steven Segal (his best era) and giving us a film with a frenetic pace full of tension and with an ending that surprises if we take taking into account the series on which it is based. Leaving this aside, it must be noted that a good director, if he relies on a good cast and a story known to everyone (that of the Fugitive), is impossible for him to do anything wrong. In this case it has all the elements to offer entertainment and excitement. It is a film that has class although the weakness is Ford's character who is surprisingly capable of anticipating anything and solving any problem just as Neeson would later do in Taken. The improbability of this drops the film two points; Dr. Kimble is a doctor, not a Green Beret.

A comedy requires two or three good moments to overcome the barrier of mediocrity and this film has them. Unfortunately the story has a certain weakness in its premise and this is the little ability to express humanity that its characters have; Either they are all idiots or they are all despicable. When we cannot get emotionally involved with the story, the viewer necessarily requires something over the top to react and laugh and the hilarity is precisely not sustained in the film, unfortunately for us. Despite this, it is a reasonable option for when there is nothing else to see. Aubrey Plaza was the best of the cast and Levine offered us, along with Anna Kendrick, the weakest characters.

I have followed John Woo's career through the decades and was looking forward to seeing this film. And at its premiere in Buenos Aires, in its first performance, I was one of the lucky ones who saw this work of art. Woo has given us some of the best action films of all time when he worked with his actor fetish, the great Chow Yun Fat. In this case Woo returns to work in the US to deliver a film that is a challenge; Can you tell a story without dialogue? Normally an action story requires defining a situation, drawing the characters, showing their motivations.... But it is a huge challenge to do it simply by relying on acting and music. It is a fantastic film with wonderful moments. It's not Hard Boiled or The Killer; With this I say that you will not find extreme moments but you will find beauty, action and emotion that will penetrate your heart and leave a mark. With the right preparation and attitude, this film is a transformative experience.

The director of this film is one of the few directors competent to make a good action film with a limited budget. The star of the film, Scott Adkins, is surrounded by a very good cast (where the poise of Ray Stevenson stands out) to share the story of a murderer made from below who must face his worst hours in the search for justice for something that the viewer It will be absolutely inconsequential to you. The reason that leads to a trail of blood is insubstantial but everything that is seen is told so well (fine touches of humor, excellent action sequences) that in the end the experience is pleasant. The final duel, because of its unusual nature, is the best part of the film. It is perhaps the best film that Adkins stars in.

Any movie that wants to be memorable must offer a sequence that is splendid and this movie has it. It is about a certain creature related to the indigenous worldview that does its thing to return to our plane and do evil again. So we have a classic line: person with problems, goes to the doctor, no solution is found and spiritual advice is sought. Although there is nothing new in all this, at least we are offered good actors, a convincing story and practical special effects that enhance the aforementioned sequence. It is a film that can be seen without problems and that represents a good example that to intrigue and attract only a good story and decent actors are required.

I have a preference for films with limited budgets that respect the viewer by demonstrating the virtue of their script and give their actors the opportunity to shine. And this movie achieves it. First, the integrity of Nick Fury's character is respected, which is practically identical to the one in the comic; The film's script corresponds to what is expected of the character; The villains are adequate - and the daughter of the Nazi commander especially shines - and the plot advances smoothly and without defrauding the viewer. In these times where the display of special effects makes up for the spiritual lack of movies, this film honors the comics that delighted us in our adolescence.