Reviews

Paraplegic Marine Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is sent on a mission to the moon of Pandora to infiltrate and spy on the native tribe, but ends up becoming fond of them.

Besides the beautiful graphics that director James Cameron presents us with, the story is already very repeated and, in this case, poorly delivered. At the end there is a deus ex machina moment in which the "little animals of the forest" come to the aid of the good ones. A film with some moral messages addressing themes such as predatory capitalism and ecology, it is a bit long (2h:30m, or 3 hours in the extended version), the dialogues could be better and so could the story. It deserves to be seen once, if only for the way it looks. Winner of 3 Oscars including, of course, Best Visual Effects.

First feature film written and directed by Peter Stebbings.

Arthur Poppington (Woody Harrelson) is a man notoriously with a small mental deficit, but otherwise completely autonomous. Tired of the evil and crime prevailing in his city, he adopts a persona, the night watchman Defendor, who tirelessly searches for his dark and elusive rival, Captain Industry.

Although Arthur has a slight mental retardation, the script, in an attempt to put some comedy into the film, makes him more retarded than one would expect. He uses video cassettes and a VCR on his back for recordings, when in 2009 there are cell phones and other much more versatile spy equipment. If he was able to obtain a heavy vehicle driving license and having a fertile imagination to come up with innovative yet ridiculous gadgets, he also has the ability to know how to use a smartphone. His friend Kat (Kat Dennings) doesn't seem very bright either, as there is a scene where she provides him with cassettes instead of a modern cell phone or small camera. Arthur was also very lucky in his various encounters with the villains throughout the film, who only kill him at the end.

This unlikely superhero theme is even portrayed in a serious tone in this film, without much comedy. A dark satire perhaps, but not comedy. With good performances and an exciting soundtrack, it's a good debut for screenwriter and director Peter Stebbings, and I'm curious about his next works. May this be the first of many good ones.

Directed by Narciso Ibáñez Serrador, this Spanish film begins with an almost 10-minute documentary-news sequence about the horrors that children suffer during wars. An introduction that serves to sensitize the viewer and make the film that begins afterword more effective, but I honestly think that this was completely unnecessary.

We are then introduced to English tourist couple Tom (Lewis Fiander) and his pregnant wife Evelyn (Prunella Ransome), who are strolling through a picturesque Spanish coastal town on a festive day. Tom is determined to rent a boat and sail to a small island off the coast he visited some twelve years ago. When they get there, they see some children but no sign of adults in sight. The island appears practically deserted.

Now I know this film is old and low-budget, but at the time it was already possible to use techniques to disguise certain details, for example so as not to notice that supposedly dead people were clearly breathing! I also wonder why the children don't attack at first sight, but understandably this is all just a game for them.

When Tom realizes that something wrong and evil is happening to the children, instead of taking his wife and leaving, he decides to make the stupidest decision possible: lie to her and waste more time so the children can organize a coordinated attack, blocking what appears to be the only access point to the port. The couple then manages to escape in a jeep to the farthest side of the island, where the pediatric infection seems not to have reached yet, but it is short-lived, and here we learn that the infection spreads either by telepathy or by proximity. Once again on the run, they barricade themselves in a room where a horrifying scene takes place (which I applaud for its boldness) and then Evelyn is killed by her own fetus (and from here on out, with this stupid scene, all the little credibility that the movie had left went down the drain). Then finally Tom, making yet another stupid decision, drops and leaves behind (intentionally!) a machine gun, one of the few weapons available as an effective means against crowds, and manages to get to his boat with the children already on top of him, being then shot down by the coast guard when it was CLEAR AS DAY that he was the one being attacked.

The film's disturbing theme and sinister atmosphere are very positive notes, as are the performances that manage to convey some appropriate tension, so it's just a shame that the script doesn't help much. A film that isn't bad at all, but isn't quite good either.

As with the vast majority of sequels, this one is in no way at the level of the first film in the franchise. It has more story and less action. In a way, this film has two plots. The first involves the villains from the previous film, who have no objective other than JUST to provoke Ka Kui and his girlfriend May, only to be abandoned halfway through and focus on the second plot, the story that makes the film, with the bombers and the ransom demand, keeping May hostage and guaranteeing that Ka Kui will comply with their demands.

The return of the villains from the previous film therefore makes no sense: What is the purpose of Chu Tau and his lawyer John Ko antagonizing Ka Kui just 'because'? Isn't Chu a businessman? As he himself revealed on his deathbed, why would he invest funds and men unnecessarily if he spent it all on treatments for his terminal illness? One could even argue that it was John Ko's idea, but after Ka Kui's visit to Chu, he also never appears again - but I admit that he was a good antagonist until then. It gives the impression that these parts were only inserted into the story just to serve nostalgia, fill time and include fight scenes that could very well be present in some way in the main plot of the bombers. If the story were more cohesive, the film would perhaps be a little shorter and benefit from that.

The comedic parts remain at a good level, especially May's furious outburst with Ka Kui at the police station, minus the fart jokes which are not funny at all and I always found them to be very low level. Although the action is still present in this film, it is somewhat scattered over almost two hours and is not as much nor so exciting as one would expect, but the final confrontation in the pyrotechnic factory pits Ka Kui against a deaf-mute opponent who is on his level, culminating in a huge explosion complete with fireworks :)

Ka Kui (Jackie Chan) is a police officer in Hong Kong, extremely dedicated to his work and incorruptible. During an operation that almost went wrong, he practically single-handedly nullifies the villains. He is then tasked with protecting the main witness, Selina Fong (Brigitte Lin), which doesn't sit well with May (Maggie Cheung), his jealous girlfriend, nor Chu Tao (Yuen Chor), the leader of the evil gang, who after being cleared of all charges, manages to frame Ka Kui for the murder of another police officer. He now has to prove his innocence.

The story is simple but effective with the incriminating twist halfway through in the style of a good thriller, but let's be realistic and honest here: no one is going to see a Jackie Chan movie for the story. The story (good or bad - and in this case it's even good) is only there to serve as a link between the various scenes of spectacular action and fights that are very well done, choreographed, filmed and edited. In this aspect, Asian films have always been miles ahead of Hollywood.

The only flaw I have to point out in the plot is towards the end when all parties converge at the shopping center: How did Ka Kui know where to find Chu Tao? Was it Lee Snake Eyes who informed him after being taken by surprise? The film doesn't show it but it's most likely. And what was Ka Kui's plan to arrest Chu Tao based on what evidence? Has Snake Eyes agreed to testify? The film doesn't show it either but it's also the most likely thing to infer. It was then a great luck and coincidence for Ka Kui that Selina was in the same place at the same time with the incriminating evidence, as they didn't plan that outcome. He even asks her "Why didn't you go to the police?". If it weren't for this tiny detail, the movie would be perfect. But I'm willing to let that slide and give it full marks since everything else is phenomenal.

I think all the actors did very well, because although much of the middle part of the film is more comedy than action, you can see that they still give themselves to their role, never losing the notion that they are there to entertain the audience. In addition to being an artist in acrobatics and martial arts, Jackie Chan is also an excellent comedian and the character he plays is very funny. His interpretation is also excellent, demonstrating character progression, because when he realizes that he can go to prison for a crime he didn't commit, forget the nonsense: he just wants justice to be done, and it can even be seen in his facial expression that from then on out he concentrates all his focus and fury on hunting down and arresting those responsible, which leads to a frantic and unforgettable final confrontation, worthy of the best action scenes of all time. And the end, for me, is perfect, with his colleagues holding him back and containing his righteous anger, without any more unnecessary melodramatic fillers.

Action with comedy is not my favorite genre, but this film entertained me the entire time and is a visual spectacle full of soul. And isn't that what we want from cinema? I was very surprised and pleased. Jackie Chan is legendary! This movie is legendary!

Classified as horror but I don't know where or why.

Another horrible adaptation of a Lovecraft story.

Wilbur Whateley (Dean Stockwell), always so calm that he looks more like a drone, captivates librarian Nancy Wagner (Sandra Dee) to obtain the cursed book Necronomicon and use it to perform a sexual ritual on her to bring "the old ones" back to the world... He achieves this in the middle of the film and the other half is him singing incantations from the book while she moans enchantedly on top of an altar with the book between her legs... In the end he is defeated in such an absurd way I don't even know if the screenwriters themselves have an explanation for this. It is then revealed by Dr. Henry Armitage (Ed Begley) that it's all over now because the last of the Whateleys is dead. So what about Wilbur's twin creature that escaped the house and still wanders around? Doesn't it count? From what is seen, it did not die. So it's far from over.

Positive note: it is a colorful film and the animated intro credits is way better than the rest of the movie.

Sequel to the "Shinning" that would have been much better without the references to the original movie.

Danny, now an adult, crosses paths with Abra, a girl with immense "shine", and a group of "vampires" who feed on shine chase Abra, and Danny does what he can to protect her.

This premise in itself is quite interesting, which is why the flashbacks and the last part of the film revisiting the hotel are totally unnecessary and only serve to impress those fans who are so impressionable that anything impresses them - a trick widely used nowadays in cinema: nostalgia, as if the filmmakers knew they couldn't do better and to make it look good they use this technique of mental and emotional manipulation, revisiting "common places" from previous films. Let me warn you: it doesn't work. I also don't understand why Danny had to die at the end when he had all the conditions to live and a few minor holes in the plot detract a bit my enjoyment of the movie. Still watchable, though.

By itself I'm willing to give this movie a 7/10, but as a sequel it's only a 5/10, so the average is 6/10.

Drama from India directed by Aamir Khan who also plays the role of an arts teacher who discovers that the main actor, a boy with learning difficulties, has dyslexia.

Very emotional movie, very manipulative in that aspect, with long sequences and some unnecessary, but Bollywood films have a tendency to be excessively long (this one lasts 2h45m). Analyzing the story, one realizes that it is unrealistic: only at the age of 9 does a miracle worker saint (not even the parents) discover the kid's error? A good family movie. It is a heartwarming and 'feel-good' movie with a very positive message, showing how things should be in education, unlike the 'robotized' for the masses educational system implemented around the world.

A man travels to Italy with his family to live in the castle they recently inherited. But he soon begins to suspect that they are not the only occupants.

Directed by Stuart Gordon, the movie already shows its age in certain aspects, mainly in the sound effects. Regarding sound, how many screams occur in that castle without anyone hearing anything? The monster's practical effects are very well done, a very ugly creature indeed. A film without much of a story but certainly visually grotesque. I can't say that I recommend this film, except to fans of horror films and Stuart Gordon in particular.

Although the title alludes to the group of anti-heroines, the main protagonist of this film is Harley Queen (Margot Robbie), who after the end of her relationship with Joker, is left without his protection and now has to struggle alone against every other evildoer who are after her for revenge. Her salvation is to team up with kingpin Roman "Black Mask" Sionis (Ewan McGregor) and capture the pickpocket girl Cassandra Cain (Ella Jay Basco) who stole the very valuable Bertinelli diamond from Sionis's right-hand man Victor Zsasz (Chris Messina).

In between we have a lot of very poorly done action sequences that are nothing more than circus acrobatics where the villains do nothing but wait to be beaten, and very poorly filmed from angles where it is obvious that the blows don't land. The exposés throughout the film retreating to report things that the narrator Harley forgot to inform the viewer becomes tiring. All the characters are horrible and unpleasant in a very bad and irritating film. In the end, after overthrowing the patriarchy, they recover the diamond and the codes it contains from the bank accounts (how?) of the late Bertinelli family, money that Helena Bertinelli, The Huntress (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), uses to finance the Birds of Prey. So, if the diamond belongs to The Huntress by right of inheritance, why was it Harley that took it and pawned it? 2 stars for the hyena Bruce and the Beaver doll, and that's enough.

Work of fiction in documentary style.

In an abandoned house, police investigators discover hundreds of video cassettes full of content from the depravities of a serial killer.

He could be the perfect murderer if it weren't for the creative exaggeration on the part of the screenwriters to make him manage to incriminate another who coincidentally was present in ALL the areas where the victims disappeared or died, even going to the ridiculous point of obtaining semen samples from the innocent accused through a sperm bank. What? Did the researchers forget to ask for withdrawal records from the bank? Can any citizen do this without having to give reasons? This logical fallacy ruins a cinematic narrative that had been very interesting until then.