Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews5
DaRitz's rating
The film "Antarctica," which I viewed today in IMAX format, is a documentary about the continent of the same name. The movie opens with an excellent shot of an icebreaker plowing through sea-ice like a hot knife through butter. Then a narrator starts talking, which kills the mood. This pretty much sums up the entire movie: great cinematography, mediocre to poor narration.
As other reviewers have pointed out, the writers seemed to try to cram as many subjects as they could into the 40-minute running time. This had the result of being the viewer being yanked away from a topic just as she was getting interested in it, such as during the visually spectacular underwater caverns sequence. Many of the subjects were just plain dull, such as the semi-obligatory pronouncements about the harm humans are doing to the earth and its climate. While most likely true, this is always a downer when viewed in a documentary one paid $9.50 to see.
In addition, the film had several factual errors, not the least of which was saying the Scott Expedition met its tragic end "eleven miles from safety." In fact, they were eleven miles from an unmanned depot, hardly safety. Also, as any serious student of Antarctica knows, the ceremonial "barber pole" at Amundsen-Scott Station is NOT the true South Pole, as was strongly implied in the movie.
In conclusion, I can recommend this for Antarctica buffs only, and even for them only with the above caveats.
As other reviewers have pointed out, the writers seemed to try to cram as many subjects as they could into the 40-minute running time. This had the result of being the viewer being yanked away from a topic just as she was getting interested in it, such as during the visually spectacular underwater caverns sequence. Many of the subjects were just plain dull, such as the semi-obligatory pronouncements about the harm humans are doing to the earth and its climate. While most likely true, this is always a downer when viewed in a documentary one paid $9.50 to see.
In addition, the film had several factual errors, not the least of which was saying the Scott Expedition met its tragic end "eleven miles from safety." In fact, they were eleven miles from an unmanned depot, hardly safety. Also, as any serious student of Antarctica knows, the ceremonial "barber pole" at Amundsen-Scott Station is NOT the true South Pole, as was strongly implied in the movie.
In conclusion, I can recommend this for Antarctica buffs only, and even for them only with the above caveats.
Since this short film is heavy on plot twists, it's almost impossible to give a synopsis without spoilers. I'll say it's an excellent commentary on the modern throwaway nature of romantic relationships, with a bit of a sci-fi angle. Although the basic elements of the plot have been done before, the direction it took was pleasantly unexpected.
The acting, writing, directing, and set layout were all superb, and I hope the cast and crew will continue to work together. The pacing and timing of this film were of critical importance, and were handled perfectly, with not a single wasted second. Hilarious ending, too, at least if you're a guy.
The acting, writing, directing, and set layout were all superb, and I hope the cast and crew will continue to work together. The pacing and timing of this film were of critical importance, and were handled perfectly, with not a single wasted second. Hilarious ending, too, at least if you're a guy.
Stan Aubray (Willem Dafoe) is an NYPD detective who likes to collect Renaissance-era chairs and has a mild case of both OCD and alcoholism. Five years ago, he was the lead investigator in the "Uncle Eddie" serial killings, in which victims were posed in settings, as if to create a work of art. Stan is still haunted by the last killing, which he feels he should have prevented. However, Stan eventually solved the murders. Or did he?
Now, there are new serial killings that are similar, yet different. The artsy posing is there, but is much more gruesome and elaborate, involving Renaissance techniques such as camera obscura and anamorphosis. Many in the police and press are calling these new killings "copycats." Stan isn't so sure.
While watching the plot develop, one inevitably makes comparisons with the Hannibal Lecter movies. While this film aspires to that level, it falls short, mainly because although the basic premise is not without interest, the writing fails to deliver on the promise. Stan's character is unfortunately made a lone wolf, with minimal dialog and interaction with other characters, even keeping his partner in the dark. Willem Dafoe, he of the high forehead, hollow cheeks, and strong chin, does a great job with what he's given, but can't quite carry this film on his own. The supporting cast was, somewhat understandably, very uninterested in their roles, with the exception of Peter Stormare as the character of the low-level art dealer. Finally, the lighting effects of the flashback scenes and final scene can only be described as bizarre, and not in a good way.
The writers made the mistake of trying to make up for the film's deficiencies by upping the gore scale, and in doing so, probably cut the film's box-office receipts considerably. Parents: the film's R rating is *very* well-deserved. Even adults should ask themselves if they're strong of stomach before going to see this movie.
In conclusion, I would recommend this film only if you're a big fan of Willem Dafoe and/or this genre.
Now, there are new serial killings that are similar, yet different. The artsy posing is there, but is much more gruesome and elaborate, involving Renaissance techniques such as camera obscura and anamorphosis. Many in the police and press are calling these new killings "copycats." Stan isn't so sure.
While watching the plot develop, one inevitably makes comparisons with the Hannibal Lecter movies. While this film aspires to that level, it falls short, mainly because although the basic premise is not without interest, the writing fails to deliver on the promise. Stan's character is unfortunately made a lone wolf, with minimal dialog and interaction with other characters, even keeping his partner in the dark. Willem Dafoe, he of the high forehead, hollow cheeks, and strong chin, does a great job with what he's given, but can't quite carry this film on his own. The supporting cast was, somewhat understandably, very uninterested in their roles, with the exception of Peter Stormare as the character of the low-level art dealer. Finally, the lighting effects of the flashback scenes and final scene can only be described as bizarre, and not in a good way.
The writers made the mistake of trying to make up for the film's deficiencies by upping the gore scale, and in doing so, probably cut the film's box-office receipts considerably. Parents: the film's R rating is *very* well-deserved. Even adults should ask themselves if they're strong of stomach before going to see this movie.
In conclusion, I would recommend this film only if you're a big fan of Willem Dafoe and/or this genre.