Reviews

9 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
An audivisual spectacle that delivers the goods
1 June 2019
I'm a big fan of 2014's Godzilla, i liked the slow burning approach and the final act delivered a satisfaying monster battle along with of the best visual effects i've seen in a movie. One of the main criticisms of that movie, was how little of Godzilla we saw and that it focused too much on it's human characters. Five years later, Godzilla II finally hits theaters, does it deliver what the trailers promised?

Godzilla II has to be one of the most epic movies i've seen, and i mean that in a literal sense; massive monsters fighting each other in big, loud and visually impressive battle sequences. The movie has much more action than it's predecesor, but also less character depth and a convoluted plot. The main actors deliver pretty good performances, specially Kyle Chandler and Ken Watanabe, and the latter, who returns from the first movie, has more screen time and much more to do than simply standing around. The "villain", played by Charles Dance is as generic as bad guys get, the actor is great but the character is just meh. The plot is convoluted and almost overstuffed, and there's a little too much exposition, which hurts the movie a little. The first movie focused a little too much on it's characters, but the story was pretty straightforward, it's a movie about giant monsters fighting anyways, there's no need to overcomplicate things.

What does deliver, and it does it absolutely right, it's the monster action. The battles are epic in scale, loud (in a good way) and visually impressive. Those battles are worth the price of admission alone. Imagine the fights of the classic Toho movies, but with state-of-the-art visual effects and earth shattering sound design. It's truly impressive stuff, and if that's what you're looking for, epic summer popcorn entertainment, look no further, King of the Monsters delivers that.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Polar (I) (2019)
3/10
A messy action thriller lacking in thrills and good action
28 January 2019
I didn't know anything about this movie, but Mads Mikkelsen is in it and the sinopsis sounded interesting, so i gave it a shot. So... This is not the worst movie ever made, but it adds absolutely nothing new or exciting to the genre, it's so "meh".

The story is practically non-existent and uninsteresting; Our anti-hero is about to retire. Their contractors want him dead, so they can keep his money. That's it. There's a subplot involving Vanessa Hudgens' character, which goes nowhere. The characters are paper thin, including the protagonist, played by ht under-used Mads Mikkelsen; we know absolutely nothing about him, he has no charisma, no personality, we only know that he is good at killing and that he is some sort of John Wick-like legend. Vanessa Hudgens' performance is good but she is also given very little to work with. Tne rest of the characters are just annoying "whacky" and "crazy" evil villains.

I was hoping for, at least, some good action, but the movie even fails to provide that. We do get a great amount of graphic violence and a couple of okay-ish action scenes, but i just could not care any less about what happenned to our protagonist. To that, add an overlong running time and tonal inconsistencies.

Not the worst movie ever, maybe not even the worst of this year, but there's very little here for you to see.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Predator (2018)
3/10
Shocking
24 September 2018
Warning: Spoilers
The trailer for this movie were pretty terrible and Shane Black, for me, it's a hit or miss. I didn't want to hate this movie, but i went to watch it with no expectations. All of the terrible suff that i thought might happen in this movie, happened, but i was shocked at how terrible this was.

The story was pretty thin and as it goes on it gets dumber and dumber, and i'm no exaggerating. Apparently, there's a predator that, for no reason, wants to help human race by providing us with technology capable of easily killing predators. Again, why? Then, there's this kid, who suffers from autism, that understands the predator's technology just because he was messing with some device in his basement, and the goverment or whatever actually makes the kid decipher the code to get inside a predator ship. The kid ends up having his own desk working for them... I could go on all day, and as i said, it just get dumber and dumber; domesticated predator hounds, predators that want to have autism (i'm not joking), etc.

The group of outcasts that is supposed to be likable end up being very obnoxious and dislikable, the lead actor had no charisma and Olivia Munn's character was ridiculous and also unlikable. Their dialogue (and the script in general) feels like it was written by a bunch of 16 year olds. There was opportunities here to make the characters relatable and give their deaths some emotional weight, but all of that is wasted in exchange for immature sexual jokes and a bunch of f words. Also, the action sequences were choppily edited and were to shacky. And the cgi was pretty terrible.

I know this review it's been extremely negative, but it's like if they were asking for this, or they were doing all of this just to see what they could get away with, but seriously this was just ridiculous. This should be the final nail in the coffin for the franchise. I'm shocked at how awful this was, it was like a parody of the franchise, i didn't expect this.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Nun (2018)
3/10
Worst entry in the series by far
10 September 2018
The Nun, the most recent entry in The Conjuring universe is bad, terrible i'll dare to say. I always go to the movies with an open mind, i mean, i never go in expecting to love or hate a movie. But honestly, after the dissapointing Annabelle Creation, my expectations were kinda low.

On the good side, the movie's setting is pretty great, but sadly they didn't take advantage of the site. They decided instead to fill the movie with "shocking images" and lots of very cheap and forgettable scares. Also, showing the nun standing like a dummy in a dark hallway it's just not scary by itself. It gets old fast.

Demián Bichir and the lovely Taissa Farmiga are very well in their roles, but sadly their performances can't save a lazy, predictable and suspense-free script. And by the end the movie gets completely ridiculous; demons and possesed nuns getting blown up with a shotgun and everything. And there's also some bizarre and cringy humor in some scenes that feels completely out of place.

At the beggining of the movie they state that "the following events took place in 1952". Really? Am I supposed to believe this happened? I mean, come on, i i know they will always take liberties with stories "based on true events", but this is just ridiculous.

I will rate this even lower than the first Annabelle, which was pretty bad. It's a waste of time and money.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ana y Bruno (2017)
7/10
Charming and original but with some inconsistencies
3 September 2018
Ana y Bruno tells the story of little Ana, who is trying to save her mother from a mental hospital before it's too late. The premise is quite simple but there's more to the story and it has some darker elements which i found unexpected. What the story lacked, was more background to the main characters, so we can connect better with them and the story. This and some plot holes and conveniences were the weakest parts of the movie for me.

This film took around 10 years to finish, is the animation up there with some of today's movies? In few words, (sadly) no. But that does not mean it's bad. The characters are well designed and their movements are very fluid. But the animation can be quite inconsistent, because in some parts it does looks very pretty and in others is lacking in detail.

It's not like the movie feels rushed (i mean, come on, it took over a decade to make), but it feels like the didn't know how to end this story, which is a shame because i think the story is quite original, at least for me. It reminds me of older Tim Burton movies.

It's definitely worth checking out.
18 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Generic horror thriller
30 August 2018
There is not much to say about this film. A sequel to a 10 year old movie that was just ok; same story, different style. The acting was solid and the film looks pretty, but aside from that, it brings nothing new or interesting to the table.

Also, the "80's vibe" feels completely out of place and adds absolutely nothing to the story or the atmosphere. And the movie just doesn't get that exciting util the last 20 minutes, and the build-up is very by the numbers.

Other than you being a hardcore horror fan, there's no reason to watch this movie.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
What?
13 June 2018
This has got to be one of the laziest horror movies i've seen recently. I tried watching it with an open mind, i've heard how bad it supposedly was, but i was willing to give it a chance. Five minutes into the movie i was very confused; it looks like a parody, the concept is very silly but they took it way too seriously and it was poorly, poorly executed.

I think the story made no sense whatsoever, they set up this urban legened-type character, but they gave him no backstory and no real purpose. You say his name, he comes for you, but he doesn't kill you, he just... makes you see things? And you kill yourself? And what's with the coins and the train? And the awful CGI dog? I believe the filmakers wanted to start this urban legend where people would spread their theories around the internet and such, but they fail to make it interesting or scary enough.

Also the acting is embarrasing, the editing is amateurish and the directing feels rushed and sloppy, like the director wanted to make this as quickly as possible and the editor tried to make a coherent product but he also failed.

But i would be lying if say i didn't have a good time, it's an interesting experience, it's kinda amusing to watch and be constantly asking yourself if they were serious about the decisions the makers of the movie made. I guess it's one of those " see it to believe it" kind of movies.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Average horror flick
21 August 2017
Annabelle: Creation, is the latest film from The Conjuring franchise. It tells the story behind the creepy doll from previous movies.

The movie, in my opinion, is not as good as people and critics are saying, but not as bad as the first Annabelle movie. On the positive side, we have good acting. The lead girl, who played Janice, was excellent. The cinematography added to the creepy atmosphere, and there's at least a couple of very well done creepy scenes.

On the negative aspects, well, the movie does nothing different to stand above it's predecessors; i knew when a jump scare was coming, every single one of them is predictable. The story is very simple and the execution was, well, not bad, but it made the movie feel very familiar. And i think the movie is just a little overlong, the final sequences really broke the eerie atmosphere it set in it's first act.

It's not terrible, and it can be a fun time at the movies but, the movie is just so average that i don't know if it's really worth it. Well at least for horror fans, since much better horror movies have came out this decade.
30 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A decent, but rather disappointing ending.
18 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I have not read the book, but i still feel this story could have been told in one film. I kinda liked the first movie, i thought it was OK, and i liked Desolation of Smaug, which was an improvement. But those movies, as entertaining as they are, are still too long and have unnecessary filler. So now there's BOTFA, which is the shortest (at 144 mins.), but that doesn't mean it's better.

The movie starts immediately where the last one ended: Smaug escapes from the mountain and it's heading to the village to destroy it. The opening sequence it's both good and underwhelming. I expected a more exciting battle against Smaug, but he was quickly defeated. Disappointing, after the cliffhanger of the last movie.

But then there's the main battle, the battle of five armies as the title suggests. And that's my issue with the movie, that this battle it's all it has to offer, and it's not even a that great battle.

The battle takes almost the entirety of the movie, and it just keeps going. Even with all that spectacle on screen, it's never too exciting. And the excessive use of CGI doesn't help, it's looks cartoony at times.

But there's also good stuff. The performances are great, Martin Freeman is great as Bilbo, and Ricahrd Armitage kills it as Thorin. Great acting overall. Also, the quieter moments were more entertaining: the scenes with Bilbo and Thorin, Bard trying to keep the villagers calm and the final moments after the battle.

Overall, a decent conclusion. The movie does have its moments, in spite of being bloated.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed