Reviews
Monsters (2010)
Overrated
The movie shows a complete ignorance of Mexican Geography, 200 kilometers from the border, the main characters'guides mention Tepoztlan as being close. Tepoztlan is about 15 kilometers from Cuernavaca, Morelos, much closer to the capital than to the border. Later, the main characters find a pr-Colombian pyramid less than 20 kilometers from the border. There are no ruins of that type that close to the border, the architecture looked more like something Mayan, or Itza, whose settlements never went northwards of Chiapas, Oaxaca, and the Yucatan peninsula. Also, there is only one passenger train operational in Mexico. It goes from Chihuahua to Los Mochis/Sinaloa. That line does not correspond to the main characters' itinerary. I also think that Mexico was portrayed as a truly 3rd world country. I don't deny that some places like that exist in Mexico, but this is not what Mexico looks like.
Maleficent (2014)
Where has the story gone?
I saw the trailer, expecting this to be an extraordinary movie. Angelina Jolie's looks is perfect for the part. The effects promised to be nothing short of awesome and the glimpse at the dragon woke up delightful memories of fear from the day I saw the original cartoon movie with my mom a long time ago. I bought the tickets to see it in 3D with my daughters and I could anticipate the atmosphere of malevolence from the dark Maleficent. Then it all changed. In the name of "doing something different" and to "surprise the audience", the screenplay writers threw a wonderfully balanced story out the window, and decided to make a nonsensical parody instead. Who do they think they are? to second guess writers that have thrilled whole generations of people and produce this garbage in the name of the box office? Not only did they alter the essence of the story, but they made a total confusion out of the message of good versus evil. -"what?"... "bad is good and good is bad?"... "or is it good sometimes and bad in others?"... What will the kids think? Do the screenplay writers really expect that the kids will readily understand how despair and betrayal can turn someone into a vengeful person? Does it even have a place in this story? Of course not! Kids may need to be taught reality in real life, but when they are told a story taking place in an imaginary world, they expect something straightforward so that a message stands clearly out. The only good thing that can come out of this is that someone, somewhere, makes a remix of this movie the way it should be done, filling the blanks with the original cartoon masterpiece. Shame on you Disney studios. Watch "Snow White and the hunter", and learn how a classic story should be told... and especially: how far it can be altered without losing its essence.
Red Sky (2014)
A good movie if you're 12 years old
I watched this movie, not expecting much of it. Some pains were taken to develop it into a wide scope of countries and equipment. The Red sky anthem sound quite good and one manages to get hooked more or less at the beginning. As the story unfolds however, the suspension of disbelief becomes strained as the dialogues sometimes get childish and the acting gets unconvincing. For example: the traitor gets way too easily convinced to abandon the dark side, as if his original criminal money motives were not the values that he lived by. CGI gets sometimes too 90 's (meaning lacking depth, detail and adequate lighting) and worst of the worst in actual filming, the Sukhoi planes really look their age and a lack of adequate maintenance. They are in terrible shape and it shows. During a strafing pass of the aggressor, you can actually see that some cockpits were replaced by a plastic sheet. You can also see that the upholstery of the seats and the state of the instruments are pitifully worn out. The paint on the planes show fissures that extend into the superstructures, tires were flat... These poor planes haven't been airworthy for a long, long time. I don't mean that good planes must be destroyed for the sake of a movie, but some paint and a few spare parts could have helped. Otherwise, there is always CGI (good CGI). As a conclusion, I would say that it's a B/C movie, showing good effort and mediocre realization. Watch it if you have nothing else to do and forget it.
Gravity (2013)
Typical meaningless Hollywood
Warning! This movie is bad, really bad. Don't waste your money on it. It is typical nowadays for Hollywood to spend millions in CGI, costumes and enhanced detail only to blow it with the story. Well in this case the story is almost nonexistent, the characters are so shallow that they seem to be made of cardboard, even with some pitiful attempts to let some personal character background to seep onto the screen.
Consider the effort invested into showing realistic Soyuz, Shenzou and ISS backgrounds, only to see them destroyed not once, not twice, but three times from under -so to speak in space- the main character... always seconds after arrival and most of it during spacewalk. Consider braking in space with a fire extinguisher to meet with an orbit decaying space-station. Worth mentioning is that the astronaut using the fire extinguisher to brake had been propelled on trajectory by Soyuz landing retrorockets (the energy gradient comparison is outrageous). Consider another astronaut sacrificing himself, releasing a tether AFTER having stopped his fall.... and more.
What's wrong with not destroying things in a movie for a change? Mission to Mars? Destruction of the ship. Red planet? Destruction of the habitat and serious damage to the ship. Now Gravity? Savage destruction of two main habitats and a space shuttle. Is this what cinema is about nowadays? Destroy the marvels to make it interesting? As if ONE space shuttle destroyed was not emergency enough, and the survival of a reduced crew wasn't enough of an odyssey? No, better an orgy of destruction and the total failure to reach suspension of disbelief. This is a movie for physics challenged teenagers, not for sensible adults. Thank you again Hollywood for such a disaster.
I'm giving it a three only for the quality of the backgrounds. Everything else is pure manure.
Titan A.E. (2000)
Very, very good
I never saw Titan AE in a theater but I remember discovering the DVD, half- hidden between "B" or "C" movies whose titles I didn't notice. But I noticed Titan AE because I'm a SF fan. So I bought the DVD and lo! What a catch! I wondered why this movie never caught the attention of the public, then I saw what the critics said of it and I realized once again what damage can ignorant people with connections can do to a product.
Since then I've watched it several times alone or with my kids and I warmly recommend it to you today.
The spaceship "Walkyrie" is one of the sexiest I've ever seen and looks like it's built for speed -it is- and the scene of planet creation is literally out of this world. Characters are well built and the dialogs are sometimes surprisingly profound.
You'll enjoy this one I promise. It is one of those forgotten gems that'll make you feel like you've just found something not everybody knows about.
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
Nowhere near Lord of the Rings quality
I just finished to watch the movie Hobbit2: The desolation of Smaug and it was a huge disappointment. After having kept LOTR as my all-time favorite movie for 10 years, I was absolutely certain that Peter Jackson could walk on water. I went to watch the Hobbit1 blindly thinking at the marvels I was about to fill my eyes with, and felt awkward at my dissatisfaction when the movie ended. I thought: "maybe I don't relate as well as I thought to dwarfs being the stars of the movie". But I didn't fault Peter Jackson because I was sure that it had to do with me, not with his talent.
Then came the desolation of Smaug.
I never could get into the movie, relate to any character or follow the unfolding of the story with anything but befuddlement. The parts are unhinged and don't link well together. Even Gandalf, Gandalf! was wooden and remote. And I must say that I consider Sir Ian McKellen as a top- notch actor.
Other problems lie with the total lack of respect for the original story, the lack of coherence between diverse aspects of the plot and the lack of character depth.
This is something that you can expect from a B movie, but not from the man that managed to put the Lord of the Rings on the screen successfully.
What happened with the attention to detail and the love and dedication to Tolkien's legacy? I don't know.
I'll just pretend that the movie "the Hobbit" has never existed to avoid sullying my attachment to the Lord of the rings which is still my all-time favorite movie.
PS (I don't know why the IMDb auto-corrector keeps spelling wrongly the plural of "dwarf" but I wish to apologize for the spelling mistake, I just can't edit it)
District 9 (2009)
SF worth of the name
This movie is simply extraordinary. I just finished watching it again after a few years and it has lost nothing of its genius. I would give it a 12 if I could. When you realize that it was produced with $30m (a tenth of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End which was an insult to cinematography), you're just left with a sense of wonder for the immense talent displayed over every single facet of this very intelligent movie.
I also just saw Elysium, and I can only applaud for the strong desire for dignity, empathy and justice that percolates from Mr Blomkamp's work. This is a director to respect and follow, someone of Ridley Scott's caliber, but with a large human heart and a strong idea of what civilization should be.
All hail Neill Blomkamp!
After Earth (2013)
An insult to Science Fiction.
This film is so riddled with incoherence that it completely kills the suspension of disbelief. Animals can breathe the air but humans can't. The planet freezes (why?) each night but the greenery is immune to subzero temperatures. The Ursa, we learn, is on a vendetta with the boy when it could get the father easily. There are bodies hanging from trees on a quarantined planet. Where do they come from? Architecture and spacecraft interiors are pathetic, like a comeback to bad decor for SF from the sixties. And finally: Jaden's acting is so bad it sucks. If you really must see this movie you are now warned: C movie with a budget and no scientific consultant.
The Colony (2013)
No story, plus no background, plus stereotypes, equals boring
I chose to watch this movie first because of Fishburne and Paxton, then because of the slightly average ratings on IMDb. Well it's not worth it. This is a movie that pretends to be a B and falls into F or G. There is close to no background for the Ice age, no in depth character building (even Fishburne and Paxton can't compensate for the pathetic script). The screenplay was made by stealing a bit from other better movies, repackage it out of context and without the human drama. Nothing is even remotely believable. A definite bottom of the barrel for these otherwise excellent actors. Stay away from it unless you really, really, really have nothing else to do.
Stoker (2013)
Boring
I agree with cinecritic2517. I watched the movie yesterday and never managed to get to the end. I fell asleep before that and I refuse to waste more time finishing it. I'm normally not especially impatient and I like a good suspense movie, but to quote cinecritic2517: "It is obvious from the get-go that the girl and her uncle are psychos, so why limp around aimlessly for two hours getting a point across that couldn't have been made more clear already 10 minutes into the film?" I appreciated a few interesting shots, the photographer seems to know his business, but for the most part, this is a film where you keep waiting for something transcendent to happen and it takes way too long to happen. Some scenes are a complete waste of film. If you're a hypnotized drooler in front of a screen, you might want to watch this one. If you like intelligent plots, stay away.
SAGA - Curse of the Shadow (2013)
I wish I could give it a good rating. I really do.
I know. I should be tolerant: This is a low budget movie. The photography is quite good, and the attention to detail in makeup, props and clothing is actually better than I expected. But I resisted only an hour before I turned it off. I never could believe and transport into the story. The elf girl snarls all the time and all of them act as if all their stereotype words had a profound meaning. The music is Wagnerian even when actors climb a little hill or pass the salt. The screenplay just hops along as a succession of badly sewed scenes. I think there is potential. I really do. But the whole crew and cast need honest feedback to be able to correct their shortcomings. They should be encouraged, but they're far from being there yet.
The Odd Life of Timothy Green (2012)
Do not believe the positive ratings of this movie!!!
Do not believe the positive ratings of this movie!!!
Don't waste your time or money on it. It is beyond bad, it is an insult to intelligence.
The screenplay is so naive (typical wishful thinking... literally) it's painful to watch. Even someone equipped with a bottom IQ can predict what will happen at any time and the characters are so clichés that it made my eyes roll in disgust. It also goes right into the same category as Benjamin Button, banging head first into the wall of unacceptable temporary suspension of disbelief. One can never get into the story because the particulars that one has to take for granted are not only delusional (which just might be accepted with some airtight explanation, fantastic or not), but also summarily and very naively dealt with. I also wish to point out that nowhere on the planet would you be authorized to obtain a child in adoption with the kind of story given to the government agency in the movie. Stay away from this one. It's sheer lunacy... not for intelligent people.
Barry Lyndon (1975)
Long winded
I never had the opportunity to watch this movie when it came out in the theaters. I was about 13 at the time and it didn't really appealed to an adolescent. Now, in 2012, I felt it was a must-see classic, so I rented it. It still feels like a big budget production and the attention to detail is really good. Now it might be felt as unfair to qualify this movie as long winded from a 2012 perspective. But to me, Kubrik always seems long winded in all his movies. I'd rather watch a Ridley Scott movie anytime.
Yet this is not to say that Barry Lyndon is a bad movie, it's not. But I know I will never watch it again.
It's depressing and leaves you with a feeling of "What's the point?" Does it portray typical human tragedy and greed? yes. Does it portray the pointless urge for ambition, even if one cannot bring it beyond death? Yes.
But is there real need for a movie like that? I don't really know. I don't understand the passion that drove Kubrik to produce it, because the story leaves me cold. There's no hope in it.
Conclusion: Good movie? no. Bad movie? no. A landmark? Probably a must because it's a Kubrik.
Iron Sky (2012)
What a beautifully cynical view of international politics!
I must admit that I was not interested in the least of watching this movie. What? Nazis from the moon? You guys really must have smoked something highly illegal!
But some of the critics were encouraging so I said to myself: what the hell! I'll just check it out.
Well, aside from a few ludicrous aspects, I found myself thoroughly enjoying this movie. The graphics are first rate and the details are well thought out. You get some selective obedience to the laws of physics, meaning that they are applied or not applied at the convenience of the director. But what is really enjoyable, aside from the toying with the (sometimes hilarious) possibilities of middle of the 20th century German science, is the really cynical light in which corrupted world (especially US) politics is portrayed. This is what we really think deep down of the people that govern us... and it is really refreshing. The storyline is quick and sometimes outrageous, but it holds well with the pace of the movie.
I highly recommend this movie. You just have to accept some suspension of disbelief for an hour an a half.
To (2009)
As good as bad
To is a typical example of Japanese storytelling. The graphics are very good although some getting used to is necessary to accept tech realism blended together with manga characters. But the overall effect is really worth checking out. On the other hand, the emphasis is on space romanticism more than any attempt at in depth-characterization (characters are actually very shallow). But To's main sin is that it shows utter ignorance of biological science, military and political protocols, strategy and tactics. Things fall into place predictably, naively and way too conveniently to fit the screenplay. This demonstrates once again that complex SF contexts DEMAND expert consultancy and topic research. It's not enough today to just design sexy tech lines for starships and personal armor. You need to also make them evolve in a coherent an intelligent continuum. For that, there is nothing like getting input from knowledgeable people. Today, this is so easy to do that the sin of not doing it is almost self-destructing. I don't want to minimize To's intent at storytelling. We need this kind of efforts, but we also need to mature the perspective and background. We need to produce what Hal Clement's meant when he mentioned an invisible book that comes with every good story. The one that gathers all the research and understanding of a particular topic. Only then will the romance of space exploration meet hardcore science halfway. Only then may we actually get there instead of just dreaming about it.
Firefly (2002)
Go Firefly, go!
I'll probably be repeating a lot of reviews of this show. It's clear that I wasn't going to read all 567 of them myself to check them out. And it's even probable that no one would read this one either. Yet I think that the more people give an opinion about this, the more obvious will it be that Firefly was a show that should have stayed.
At a time when most screenplays lack intelligence, Firefly marked a difference. There may be a lot of reality errors in the show, but those pale compared to the sheer atmosphere generated by characters who use and apply moral judgment to their own lives even they know it's going to cost them. They rise against paradigms and stay true to themselves. That's what was not only entertaining but also wise and honest.
I used to think that Fox made a huge mistake by thrashing them. But it's become clear that they did it on purpose because it went straight against their own policies. Pulling the show off the air shows corporate true colors: dishonesty and pure audience fleecing greed.
I wish that Firefly manages to become independent and launch a sequel. Their are enough fans out there to indicate that it's possible. It's become an icon after all.
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)
The absolute worst movie of all time
I've seen bad movies and I have left the theater before they ended. But this is the only movie that I have managed to watch a whole ten minutes before having to fight an urge to vomit and then leave the premises. No production should be granted such a ridiculously huge budget on such a loony script. Those who wrote this must have been so high on toxic substances that I seriously doubt that they managed to survive the experience.
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN PIRATE KINGS AND THERE NEVER WILL BE. I loved the first episode of the "Pirates". It was well thought out, well played and well directed. Then the slightly fantastic twist provided by the curse was blown out of any sensible proportions with absurd resurrections, absurd submarine sail ships, absurd barnacle and octopus-clad wet-hell convicts, absurd rebounds with the characters (Now the girl is a big shot pirate too). And the story goes to unravel until there is no sense left. It looks like a virtual adventure gone seriously wrong, but badly written. You could enjoy reading something like "Otherland" by Tad Williams, where a bunch of gamers get trapped into a virtual universe. You could understand that much of the unreal stuff is rooted in the mind of those who build their pocket universes, but there is no jump of faith that'll make me accept the turn of events shown in the Pirates' saga. With the budget given to this insult to the movie industry, literally dozens of stories available on the shelves of the book shops could have been brought to the screen. It's just bad, bad, bad screenplay made swallow-able by famous actors and computer graphics. I absolutely hated it and will only give one star to it because there is no option for zero in the voting drop down menu.
Priest (2011)
Born again Mad Max battles the dark side of the Force at OK Corral and repels an invasion.
Not very original but surprisingly entertaining. It's like those vegetable soups made with whatever is available in the fridge. The taste may not surprise anybody but they'll all eat it anyway with gusto. Some scenes are blatant stereotypes extracted from other movies, and some personae's appearances are obviously plagiarized, the first one coming to mind being "Blondie" the gunslinger played by Clint Eastwood in the trilogy that made him famous. And another hints at Neo, the chosen one from Matrix played by Keanu Reeves. Add to it a zest of conspiracy, a pinch of out-of-time and out-of-Historical context, and also a slice of mysterious church precepts that are never fully explained. Then you'll get an idea of what Priest is about. Don't try to understand it, just go and watch it.
Space Battleship Yamato (2010)
Fun and creative, good CGI. Recommended to SF fans.
There may be spoilers in the following review, although no part of the story is mentioned at any time. There's a lot to like about Space Battleship Yamato. The concept flies light years ahead of Hollywood's sclerotic and rewarmed releases. When you see that Japan's film makers dare to go beyond crowd-pleaser productions, you have to rejoice and recognize that all is not lost for science fiction. The budget is obviously smaller than an average US movie, but most CG space actions are nevertheless very good (Not comparing to spectacular productions like Avatar, of course). And the battleship itself is an icon that's worthy of placing as a wallpaper on your laptop. Its space version is beautifully anachronistic, mixing high-tech capabilities with mechanical WWII menacing lines. As in all Japanese movies, I wish there was more of an international mix in terms of actors, as well as seeing the participation of more nations for the storyline (this shows a serious lack of global aperture from the authors. As a matter of fact, no other nation or population is ever mentioned during the movie) and the acting is, in many cases way overdone. The story is a little naive and can get a little long winded, especially at the end. The last point I'd like to address is about discipline on a battleship. It's clear that the authors have no idea of proper military behavior, how to man stations, how to pass information up and down the chain of command or acknowledging orders. So my advice would be for a next release to look for consultants in as many aspects of the movie as possible. Many spectators want now more realistic themes, solid background, technological realism, and good special effects on top of good acting. These points are the reasons why I gave it a 6 out of 10. If these last issues had been met, I'd have given it a 9 without a doubt. Now if you're ready to forgive them, you'll have a lot of fun. TM
The Book of Eli (2010)
Another "Faith" related movie |:(
I usually pay for any movie that includes such figures as Gary Oldman and Denzel Washington. This time, though, I was hugely disappointed, the plot was not worth a dime. Under the pretense of a situation similar to that of "The Postman" (brilliantly written by David Brin years ago and impersonated by Kevin Costner in the movie of the same name), the story here collapses into a "Quest for the Grail" kind for a bible book, mixed with the crowd-pleaser type of gunslinger scenes in which a hero never dies even when the odds are thirty to one and he's got only one bullet left. My eyes rolled upwards in a "Oh Puhleeeeeeze! Not again!". And I had to forcefully hold myself down into my seat until the end. As a matter of fact, I wanted to see the end so I could write this without error.
That such a notion as "Salvation" and "The word of god" could be used to uplift the survivors of a holocaust is beyond me. It's a "back to square one" kind of behavior that shouldn't be promoted under any circumstances.
I may be overreacting but: What? You want to do it all over again? Repeat all the mistakes made in history under the auspices of religion or for a "greater cause"? This movie may seem to be made to produce veneration, reverence, epiphany. But the context of destruction in which it is presented contrasts so starkly with the hero's aim and values that whomever can use his/her brain can see where these good intentions will lead after a single generation: fanaticism, inquisition and autocracy are already lurking behind the corner to redress such a desperate situation.
It's time people get better plots to go with fantastic special effects. The eye candy is not enough anymore. Please wake up, Hollywood, and educate the crowds with something from which god is absent.