Change Your Image
SidewinderSMR
Reviews
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)
For those who watched the previous Swedish films (but not read the books)
For those who watched the previous Swedish films (but not read the books), this movie is pretty good. In fact, it honestly felt like I was just re-watching the film again for the second time -- there were few differences between the two of them.
Overall, I felt that the Swedish version had a little more weight to it, but if you have a serious aversion to foreign-language films, this movie does a good job of making you feel like you didn't miss anything as far as a 'remake' is concerned.
On the other hand, if you can watch the Swedish versions, I'd recommend them either instead, or watching them sometime -- either before watching the English versions, or later.
It's hard for me to get into why I felt the Swedish version was better without revealing spoilers, but suffice to say that this version isn't bad either. I gave the Swedish version a 9/10, and I'm giving this an 8/10.
Hope this helps.
Tron: Legacy (2010)
An audio-visual experience
Tron: Legacy should be seen (and heard!) as an audio-visual experience, rather than a movie with a compelling plot or deep story. The plot certainly moves, and the back story seems to conform to the original movie -- but for those of us living in the modern era, the 80s tron premise is too far fetched (or even outright silly) to be accepted today.
Obviously, if you're a fan of the original, you'll probably disagree here -- but then again, you'll probably find the movie conforming to your expectations to begin with. This review is for those of us who aren't! That said, the movie has excellent visuals (we saw it in IMAX 3D) and an excellent audio score by Daft Punk. If you are a fan of their previous film, Interstella 5555, you might find Tron: Legacy a film similar in some ways: the audio experience plays a big role, and the plot and premise of the film play lesser roles.
In conclusion: Go see this film, but don't expect to be blown away by some amazing story -- instead, go there with the intention of enjoying the ride and letting the musicians and artists take you to their virtual world.
Cargo (2009)
Good start, but not quite there.
Rented this from blockbuster and just saw it. The movie has a good premise, and even some original ideas; I certainly had guesses as to where the plot was going, but I was pleasantly surprised up till near the end -- the director/writer didn't take the easy way and do something similar to Sunshine, for example.
The visuals are good to great, especially considering the low budget for the movie. The acting, in my opinion, was quite fine and even pretty good -- though characters started getting less believable near the end, as did the premise.
Hopefully the director/writer will continue to do more science fiction flicks and improve on his technique!
Dou foh sin (2007)
Good action, but the plot and depth are lacking.
Unlike Sha Po Lang (SPL / "Kill Zone"), Flashpoint lacks the character depth and memorability of its predecessor. The action scenes in Flashpoint are good -- sometimes great -- and something you would expect from the actor and director from SPL. However, there is a lack of the emotional intensity of the previous film.
As the characters are never really developed very much, nor are the relationships between them very well explored -- its hard to feel the emotional build up to the finale.
In short: a fun film with some good fighting scenes, but a largely forgettable and somewhat implausible plot. If you haven't already, go see Sha Po Lang / SPL / Kill Zone instead.
Clash of the Titans (2010)
Erh, fun... but only a passing relationship with Greek mythology.
It's a fun movie, but the er, accuracy of the Greek mythology in the movie is pretty ... well bad. Or 'creatively interpreted'. Basically, if it weren't for the characters and the 'ride', the movie would make Troy look like amazing in comparison.
Not only does it reinterpret important details, it mixes the mythology with -other- (non-greek) mythology. Which, admittedly was 'neat', but completely unnecessary and in the end, somewhat distracting given all the previous changes.
Anyways, bottom line: It's fun, but don't even think about using this as a reference for Greek Mythology at all!
Salt (2010)
Nice action scenes, but the plot is cringeworthy: the cold war is over and dead.
While the film had great action scenes, and an interesting premise (Angelina Jolie as badass CIA agent) -- the problem is that the entire plot and story was written for a John McCain and Sarah Palin America, one where the continued escalation of tension between the US and Russia takes place.
But since the NATO missile shield project has been scaled back, and since Obama and Medvedev & Putin have warmed up, and since the realization that the US and Russia are fighting on two fronts of the same war..... and oh yeah, the US and Russia just nonchalantly exchanged 12 Russian sleeper spies for a few US spies.... the entire premise of the movie's antagonists makes no sense.
Unfortunately, the Cold War is over. And very dead.
In other words, the plot premise is cringeworthy. The action scenes are pretty much the only redeeming factor, but it's still pretty hard to ignore the fact that all the bad guys are comical in either motivation or execution.
Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death (2002)
Misleading; presents some facts while omitting others.
My original review of the film painted it as an innocent, but well-meaning documentary that intended to shed light on misdeeds committed on our side of the war. However, in light of more detailed reading, thought, and conversation, I have revised my review.
It's hard to feel bad about anyone killing the Taliban. In fact, it took considerable effort to motivate myself into watching the film to begin with. Given the Taliban's own infamous track record for human rights violations, it seems almost fitting that they would receive a taste of their own medicine.
At first glance (or 'first viewing') the documentary may seem to shed some light on some of the aspects of the multifaceted conflict in Afghanistan. While the documentary may provide further indications as to why the Taliban today resist surrender and negotiation, perhaps more fiercely than before, ones time is probably better served by reading a more honest (or more complete) book instead.
The documentary claims that there is sufficient evidence of a massacre of Taliban POWs by Northern Alliance troops, and that the victims were buried in the desert of Dashte Leili. However, in 1998, the Taliban embarked on a vicious campaign against the Northern Alliance and ethnic minorities -- in particular, the Hazara. There are plenty of detailed accounts as to the particular atrocities that they committed, but the short story is that they massacred both resistance fighters as well as unarmed men, women, and children -- many of whom were dumped in Dashte Leili.
Not once was this fact ever raised. Not once was this even mentioned. In fact, on a certain level, it seems absurd that one would dump the bodies of those who killed family and friends in the same area that your family and friends were left to die in. Nevertheless, this is merely speculation at this point as this was never covered in the documentary and seemingly never mentioned in the same context as this incident.
In essence, the conditions and intentionally orchestrated or unintentionally permitted murder of Taliban POWs can never compare to the atrocities that the Taliban had committed to innocents for the many years that they were in power and continue to fight for power. It is this omission of Taliban atrocities that the documentary is guilty of, especially when it is directly tied to the events that the documentary attempts to suggest occurred.
Similar, yet different to the massacre that may have occurred to the Taliban, the documentary either omits this information by accident of ignorance, or by ulterior and dishonest intent. I cannot with a clear conscience give this movie a favorable rating for this.
Afghanistan has problems -- lots of them -- and its warlords are certainly one part of that problem. However, a dishonest or misinformed documentary is not helping.
Bijitâ Q (2001)
Kuso.
It's a damn pity you can't give movies negative scores, because that's exactly what this movie deserved.
Involuntarily forced to watch the film, I was first faced with the question "When does it start?" followed immediately by "When does it end?". The plot is nonexistent, and the movie is simply a copy-pasting of violent and disturbing scenes together. It might be fun to watch as a comedy while hopped up on something, but other than that, you'd have more fun and gain more from slitting your wrists and soaking yourself in a hot-tub for the hour plus that the film takes to complete.
Kuso. Or crap, in Japanese.
Dancer in the Dark (2000)
Good, till half-way through.
I'm not going to complain about the filming technique, or even the fact that the movie bursts into odd musicals every so often -- that's the film style and I'll accept it.
... my complaint is that about halfway through, the antagonist -- whom we are lead to believe is a manipulative SOB, commits suicide while framing the protagonist.
... whom then beats him to death after having shot him.
So, right about here, you lose any connection to the characters or any support for them. Either the main character is a nice, albeit whimsical lady, or she's a psycho as well.
Up till this point, the movie could have gotten a 7/10 depending on where the story went. Now a 5/10 is about as generous as I'm willing to go.
Appaloosa (2008)
Good for the first 10 to 30 minutes....
Good for the first 10 to 30 minutes.... then the "female love interest" comes in and ruins the whole film with unrealistic relationships between characters.
The two main characters are hardened gunmen AND lawmen -- yet can be so completely swayed by one unattractive slut (literally) that they disregard their duty, lives, and intellect.
The problem with the story was that the lead woman in the movie was supposed to be stellar enough in looks and charming enough to get the two lawmen to crush on her. Unfortunately, almost every other woman looked better than her and seemed more charming. And didn't put out with everyone.
The best scene was in the beginning when a gunfight ensued.
Could've been a lot better.
Sunshine (2007)
Great start -- but the film gets drunk midway, and wakes up forgetting what it was
Great start -- but the film gets drunk midway, and wakes up forgetting what it was. I can't say more without revealing plot information, but basically that's the problem with the film. If only they had stuck to the original formula!
Some of the technology and ideas in the movie remind you that it could almost be as innovative as 2001, but the rest of the movie falls flat on its face. Additionally, unlike 2001, there are numerous technology bits that simply make no sense -- or are better left unexplained. Otherwise, the film had a very interesting premise, and was very much a psychological thriller for the majority of the film.
300 (2006)
Pretty pictures, action is okay, but pure propaganda.
Note: If you enjoyed Sin City, then this comment isn't for you -- its for people who don't read Frank Miller.
Who knew that the often overreacting Iranians were actually right for once? After all, they threw a tantrum over Alexander portraying the defeat of the Persians "too easily". (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6446183.stm for their fit) Since Iran's reputation is pretty much nil, and the trailer was nicely done, and I was invited to go there with some beautiful women -- I figured, "Hey, what the hell. It can't be that bad, and who knows, it looks like a completely different style from Sin City!" To sum up the movie: 1) Tons of gore != good action -- it's independent. Just watch a few good Hong Kong films to see what I'm talking about. In fact, you might even go so far as to say that if gore isn't overused in a film, it has a more powerful effect when it IS used.
2) Pretty imagery != good movie -- it's just icing in the cake.
3) The whole movie was a pure propaganda piece. Even the Republicans agree (Possible spoilers at link: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/186928.php) and that says something. Basically, all the dialog could be ripped from a government press release or Fox news, where words like 'Persia' get replaced by a word from the set {Afganistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Iran, Iran, Iran, Iran, North Korea, Iran} -- and it's pretty lame.
4) While it has a few cool scenes (e.g. where someone stabs the someone else at an appropriate time, or the introduction of the Japanese Ninja Warriors) -- that only accounts for a few minutes out of 117 minutes of footage.
5) Action is okay -- not spectacular. This would be fine if it wasn't a pure action movie, and spent time developing the plot, the historical background, and so on --- but the movie is just action. Thus we have a problem. Overuse of slow-motion and flying limbs and flying blood. If that gets you hot, more power to you. It doesn't do anything for me.
6) No historical basis at all. Except that there were 300 Spartans out of a force of ~7,000 Greeks that held Thermopylae. The swords are not Spartan Xiphos, the Spartans had dual-kingship and were a dictatorship, and you could go on and on. The worst part was simply that the Persians looked like a bunch of S&M freaks out of Sin City and some goth flicks.
I won't address the fact that the movie is really for people who like seeing near naked men and a few hard nipples of attractive women. (But mostly near naked men, all the time.) That's for you and Freud to think over.
And if you disagree with any of the conclusions of those points, that's fine -- this is just a warning to those who would draw similar conclusions.