Change Your Image
Chronus
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)
A JJ Abrams product: a solid buiding, empty inside
JJ Abrams "rebooted" Star Trek (he admitted to knowing ALMOST nothing about the Trek universe). Fanfare, box office hit. And he and his script writers almost destroyed what Roddenberry, Braga and others did through the years.
Now he was given Star Wars. Of which he said he was a fan. Doubtful, as he final result is filled with 21st Century Hollywood clichés (ridiculous one-line jokes which destroy suspension of disbelief; Beverly Hills style of TV characters and their pathetic body language; louder-and-bigger perspective, reminiscent of Dean Devlin's philosophy)...and is utterly, sadly predictable.
****Slight hints of SPOILERS ahead****
Why would George Lucas (already super-rich and super-powerful) relinquish his rights on Star Wars and deliver them to Disney/Abrams...is beyond me. He must have known that the end result would be a pastiche of different action movies/series, unimaginative, incoherent, though massive doses of popcorn consumption level of box office success.
George Lucas is to blame. JJ Abrams is not talented enough for the job, but that is the way he works, the way he is. By letting go of his "child", Lucas left it for the sharks to feed off of it (though I doubt this "episode" will reach anywhere near Cameron's Avatar box office heights).
What's left to say? Daisy Ridley, powerful actress and physically perfect for the job. She alone can hold the franchise above water.
Han Solo. Harrison Ford is...Harrison Ford, and his character is a good one for the ages.
BB8, C3P0, R2D2 - The good old droids are back, and are joined by a lovable little droid.
Chewbacca - fun and lovable as always.
Poe Dameron and General Hux - good characters, good acting behind them (Domhnall Gleeson has a classic hateful Empire demeanour).
Most important of all, with "episode" VII there comes a promise of potentially good Star Wars universe movies to follow (Rogue One and VIII and IX).
We shall see...as long as JJ Abrams and his clones keep their hands off of it.
The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006)
Interesting, highly stylized movie
I first watched this movie while waiting for a problem with an old car I had to be fixed in a big auto-repair shop. They had this client area with a flat screen where Tokyo Drift was rolling.
I am not a "fast and furious" fan. Definitely. But...
But the way this movie was shot, the camera angles and movements, the music, the scenes, the Asian actors performance - all this compelled me to watch a movie in an auto-repair shop (a first, indeed), and on top of that, a movie which had started 15 minutes earlier or so.
Of course, by the time the problem with the car was fixed, I took off - I didn't get to watch it to the end.
I purchased a DVD copy of Tokyo Drift some 11 months later.
This is not a John Woo-imitator movie - you know, these John Woo wannabes that think buckets of blood, gun shots and lightning-fast punches and kicks is all there is to it.
No, actually, for the most part this movie is...calm. Philosophical. A brief take-a-look-and-see into the Japanese drift phenomenon, with its glitter, powerful engine sounds, stylish clothing, and a almost-gaijin kind of attitude of Japanese youth.
The plot is simple, with a few clichés thrown in, the kind of plot that makes one wonder why do they spend millions of dollars on a movie "powered" by it. BUT...
BUT plot is, surprisingly, only a small element, something that brings together the characters and makes up the scenes where they breath and live.
The acting is good, the soundtrack is very appropriate if not excellent.
The directing is FIRST RATE. It brings all the elements together. Calmly, elegantly, honestly, and in such a way as to actually lend credibility to the characters actions and fates.
The slow movements are reminiscent of the Best Anime tradition, and the dialogs (though simple), together with the soundtrack and camera angles/position, calmly rocky you into thinking about what it would be like to simply enjoy driving, drifting, through the night, alone or with someone by your side.
I enjoyed it. What else can one ask of a movie?
Tornado Warning (2002)
Unbelievably underrated
I read one comment about this movie and...
The poster is right about ONE thing. Joan van Ark act is excessive, thus not believable enough.
But if you know America - and I mean REALLY KNOW - then you must have come across town mayors that really behave quite similarly to what she portrays. If you know America, you know that in some towns/areas/professions one is not allowed free speech, and people like van Ark's character really use their powers to silence people or news.
Special effects wise, this movie is quite good, though it is obvious that its budget was very small. Tornadoes are shown with solid, firm, believable special effects.
The characters are solid (exception made of van Ark's and perhaps of the Storm Chasers leader) and are engaged in real world problems.
Plot is, perhaps, the main problem. It's as if this movie was made by a group of scientists or storm chasers who vowed to put on screen their troubles related to: - chasing and predicting tornadoes - and, probably, the funds for their activities.
It is a VERY SIMPLE plot.
And because of this, it is predictable AND believable at the same time. Some people watched this as if they were watching a Discovery Channel's Storm Chasers big episode with a more intimate, behind-the-camera closer look at the main players.
Acting is...a mix.
Gerald McRaney is OK, quite solid in his portrayal of a discredited scientist.
Steve Braun is a good surprise. A timid, sensitive and wise young scientist/student. Good acting.
Thea Gil swings back and forth between convincing and non-committed acting. Good actors are known to be convincing throughout the repertoire or their characters - and that's what separates them from the average actors/actresses.
David Millbern's act was not convincing, hesitant, foolish at times. I have seen better from him, I'm sure.
The rest of the cast is good enough, though Joan van Ark's actions seem exaggerated and unbelievable.
In terms of the science behind it, this movie is one of the few that portrays the "attack" of tornadoes as they really are - short, loud and violent. The physical content (cloud formation, wind speeds, debris hurling, sky colors, pressure gradients, etc) is pretty much spot on.
Is there something that differentiates this movie from others of similar vein? Yes. Simple, dry and direct plot and the crude atmosphere of small towns and tornado attacks.
It could have been better, sure. But the striking thing is, it could have been MUCH, MUCH WORSE.
Batman & Robin (1997)
FatMan and Producers
However I look at this movie, I cannot find anything positive about it. Clooney as Batman? So many have said it, and here it goes again: how worst a choice could they have made?
Schwarzenneger and Uma Thurman carried the movie in their shoulders, and even they could do nothing to prevent the complete sinking of a movie belonging to a series that owed much to fans, those faithful ones that want to see anything related to the Bat.
Clooney, O'Donnel, Silverstone...What a nightmare of choices!
The story is ridiculous, the directing is laughable... We are used to it: these producers THINK they have a formula for success and they suck-it-to-the-bone (no pun intended). The thing is, if you don't have a story for a movie, why make it? Even ID4, Armageddon, Starship Troopers had some sort of a story behind them, but this...this...trash is so horribly weak on plot (assuming we can say that THERE IS A story!) that...why bother say more?
Well, just this: mr. Schumacher did a few movies that were fine pieces of entertainment, works such as A Time to Kill, The Client, Batman Forever, and the good Flatliners. Why, oh why, I ask, did he get himself involved with the trash and the can that someone decided to call Batman and Robin? This movie completely obliterates the elements that Tim Burton and Michael Keaton decided to bring on to the Batman movie series. There is no mistery, no secrecy, no realistic heroism, no action a la Comic book, no story, no consistency, no pace, no care for the characters (ever seen anything as shallow as these characters??)...The producers surely make a few considerations regarding the IQ level of todays movie audiences and they thought they could get away with clichés and bad taste...Er...hummm, well, is this their fault or ours?
We may think like this: would mr. Keaton, miss Basinger, mr. Val Kilmer and Jack Nicholson ever agree on giving their faces for this movie? Why did Schwarzennegger and Thurman put their signature on the contracts for this movie? Well, there are movies and dollars...Who cares, as long as these ($$$) keep on coming? Better this trash than making comercials for soaps and drinks...
Well. Not well, real bad, a bad nightmare, a ridiculous usage for special effects and big bucks.
Don't see it. It won't even entertain you. If and when this thing re-runs on TV (if you haven't seen it yet), turn the TV off and smile to your kids: better to talk than watch garbage.
Romeo Must Die (2000)
Fighting Shakespeare?
Well, this is for sure: the similarities are hard to see, but they are there, this being a somewhat funny/action version of Shakespeare's great tale.
I liked this movie.It has spirit, it has its moments of well captured-on-camera emotions, it has its beauty beyond the kung fu scenes. Jet Li is a nice guy, a good actor by the way, and the rest of the cast does not shine us much, naturally, but overall, I think everybody can watch this one with a smile in the face, not a grimace, thinking "Damn, I might as well burn the money I gave for this sh..."
But Romeo Must Die has its flaws, and they are immense, and inevitable.
Hip hop music all the time!! Tiring, tiring...at least, revolving the story around chinese and black people's rivalry, why not a mix of two types of music instead of just one?
You know, some people say "the heck with realism, this is cinema", but I, for one, think that Cinema should imitate real life at least in some details, for its stories to have credibility. If someone from you family dies, you will not go out on a disco and dance sensually with a stranger, forgetting all at once (without the use of drugs, wow!) all the pain that death should bring onto people.
Where were the Police? The Law?
SPOILERS, ATTENTION, ATTENTION, SPOILERS ARE COMING!!!!
This story almost reads like:"family A kills someone from family B, family B gets revenge", no one knows or seems to notice the obvious (and the director does not make it relevant enough, instead playing with the viewers lack of attention to detail), that there are traitors, and so on...
The finalle is, at least, surprising, although coherent and predictable in a way. It's a sad finalle, which gives some credit to the story.
The best thing in this movie, of course, is the fighting. Its speed tops by many notches that of The Matrix's fight scenes; the technics employed by Jet Li and other actors are almost perfect, due to the fact that they really are martial artists. But in The Matrix, the strings pulling Keanu around are less obvious than in Romeo MD - this meaning that some scenes are almost ridiculous to watch.
It's a light entertainment movie. Some good acting - and a fine surprise, named Jet Li.
Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)
Star surprise
Let me say this: I loved this movie. I'm not one of those unconditional trekkies, but I liked this movie a lot.
And this one, by actor/director Jonathan Frakes, is a good piece of entertainment. It's intelligent, sometimes surprising, has good action (albeit the tactics and manoeuvres of Star Trek ships are quite ridiculous - whatever the movie) and the actors chosen for this one are good performers.
The Star Trek Universe is complex, rich, but not my favourite. There seem to be holes in its consistency - technology seems to be less advanced in fields where it should have been far ahead, politics seems too much like politics on any country on Earth, and society a replica of USA's, Europe's or Japan's society, military tactics seem no different of manouvering battleships like Submarines, Frigates, Air Carriers, etc. At least, there is some effort to put some science into Star Trek - even if we do not know what metaphase is or why the explosion of metronium gas is so destructive in space.
The script is too simple, I grant that. But the way Insurrection was shot, the special moments achieved, a couple of twists in the plot, a reasonable dose of uncertainty and humour, leads me to say we are in the presence of a Star Trek masterpiece.
It's a pity that the main motor of events isn't some larger than life quest or fight (or is it?). Those of us who grew up familiar with the grand scale of events of the Star Wars saga, the details and realism of Blade Runner and Twelve Monkeys, the ingenuity of Batman, Dark City, The Matrix, expect of movies like Insurrection something that tops or equals these other masterpieces, and when that doesn't happen, something seems to fail.
But Insurrection ends up being a good work by someone that had only directed some episodes of Star Trek - The next Generation.
Well, the special effects are good, the acting is good (Patrick Stewart, Donna Murphy, Zerbe, Murray Abraham, Frakes, Levar Burton, Brent Spinner - they know exactly what to do and give this movie the extra-consistency), the soundtrack is ok.
If mr. Jonathan Frakes read this, I would advise him to continue his good work but to seek more complex and elaborated scripts for Star Trek. If he chooses to direct other types of movies, he does have the talent.
I hope you all enjoy this.
The Insider (1999)
Inside a true story
WHAT CAN WE SAY ABOUT A MOVIE BASED ON A TRUE STORY?
Well, if the movie is any good, even if loosely based on that true story, not much can we say. Michael Mann has done a fantastic work. He throws the viewer into a voyage filled with constant tension, the hallmark of every good thriller. Ok, being based on a true story makes somewhat easier the job of the director - we can easily identify with the characters, because (that´s my case) we imagine ourselves in their shoes and think, "Wow, what would I do if I were him/her?"
The plot, full of twists, is frighteningly familiar to all of us with some sense of reality. That´s the real world, folks. Powerful men and institutions don´t give a dime about any of us, simple mortals. We are merely the tools they use to get richer and more powerful and that´s it.
Once in a decade or so, and out of millions, comes someone who goes about his/her business with a tremendous sense of justice and righteousness. The Insider is about two of such persons, two men - whether or not the real story is exactly like that, it does not matter. But I have a feeling that whatever happenned in real life may very well be close to this movie.
Al Pacino, as usual (I have no words to characterize his acting - superb, out of this world, to be remembered, the master of masters, someone who breathes acting like others breathe air), fantastic. He is older, one can see that, he looks a little bit tired, but what a tremendous performance this man has achieved.
Mr. Russel Crowe...his performance is worth a nomination for an oscar. He is strong, fragile, cold, emotionally unstable, a loving father, a knight who fights for justice, knowledgeable, a good friend...what a character, and what a performance. He is the main emotional engine of this movie, and has made it big. He is a nominee for this year´s oscar, together with one of the greatest actors alive - Denzel Washington. He has a definite chance of winning this one, but it will be tough.
The rest of the cast...Plummer, the great actor, is his usual self-centered man who goes nuts when someone "screws" with him...pardon my english.
Good soundtrack, also.
I thank Michael Mann, the actors and the studio behind them, for bringing us (the public) their vision of the events surrounding the discovery that tobacco companies are playing with every smoker´s life...and everyone´s life, by the way. I haven´t yet seen the other movies nominated for Best Motion Picture Award, but The Insider seems like a good choice.
Good movie. Good directing. Go see it.
Starship Troopers (1997)
Starship dummies
I read Robert Anson Heilein´s novel, and though not a great novel, its story is intelligent and realistic - a la Heinlein.
It´s terrifying to see its adaptation to the big screen - a.k.a. Starship Troopers The Movie. Experiencing this movie is not far from experiencing first hand a horror situation.
This movie is one of the most ridiculous pieces of...junk ever made in Hollywood. Special effects apart, this is one example more of the Verhoeven type movie.
This dutch director, apart from the cold and realistic Robocop and the infamous movie starring Sharon Stone and M.Douglas, has no big credits on his behalf. His stories are weak, silly, the way he tries to portray the future is pure trash, a bad satire, a bad joke. This man has no grasp for science-fiction, no grasp for social tendencies and scientific rules.
Ok, the aracnides are fantastic, the special effects are great, but what about the story? What about characters and character? Is this dutch director expecting us to believe a story where its characters, after knowing they have just lost their families, smile when they know they are to be reinstated in the Army? Or smile when they are promoted, right after seeing so many of their colleagues die horribly? Or are we to expect and believe that our society has the tendency to decay so much as to watch an execution, LIVE, in a holoscreen?
And the worst is that Heinlein´s novel is entirely different from this trash. The social criticism and speculation imbedded in it were simply laid to waste. Who does mr. Verhoeven think he is when he (or his screenwriter) distort a novel and a story by an all-time master of science-fiction? I mean, why was there a need to distort the real Starship Troopers? Do they think they can outbest a master and a genius like Heinlein?
The actors chosen for this movie suffered a great setback in their careers - at least the young ones. Michael Ironside is the best thing in the entire movie - well, he and the Aracnides. The other actors' acting range from ridiculous to simply silly. They just played the way they told - or knew, I suppose.
If I knew beforehand, I would have avoided this movie like the plague. It´s awful, a true nightmare. AVOID IT IN VIDEO, AVOID IT THE WAY YOU CAN. AND HOPE THAT THIS DIRECTOR NEVER DIRECTS AGAIN OR CHANGES THE WAY HE DOES IT.
End of Days (1999)
The end of expectations
End of Days
This is one of those movies that could have been one of the best pictures of this decade, but is instead a disappointment. And a big one. Arnold Schwarzenegger chose another fine script, and his acting, together with Tunney´s, is what keeps this picture from falling completely into the abyss. The Austrian Oak is now becoming a very good actor, at last. He has been improving enormously since he shot Eraser. He´s now showing other facial capabilities and does not rely so heavily on his physique anymore. As for the movie and its story... We´ve seen similar stories before, and some of those stories (particularly one with Demi Moore and Jurgen Prochnow, The SEventh Seal(??)) are very good, very effective.
This one mixes two genres: the religious mistery and the action thriller. Some may think these genres do not mix, but I think they can mesh perfectly if the director pays attention to details. That´s the problem with End of Days. A matter of details.
ATTENTION: THE FOLLOWING MAY CONSTITUTE SPOILERS...
A matter of details. Yes. We can never believe this story is about the devil (who takes on a human body and has super-powers (absorbing bullets, going through seas of flames unarmed, surviving falls from 20 stories buildings) if the devil, and its human form, with its super-powers, cannot survive a train crash, or cannot avoid a fall from am high window...Sometimes he is superpowered, at other times he is not. It´s ilogic, and removes all credibility from the story.
The director (Peter Hyams) chose a path dictated perhaps by merchandising or today´s trends: bang-bang, noise-noise, non-stop physical action. He chose to shock viewers, to awe them, instead of making them think and climb to their seats in fear. The Devil pisses oil or gasoline, wow, he smashes heads with a single strike...he knows everybody´s thoughts but cannot foresee or know the location of the girl - he has to beat Arnold´s character up or has to lure him into a sentimental trap in order to get that information.
Maybe it´s just me, but someone in Hollywood thinks we (the viewers) are not up to the task of understanding complex ideas in a movie, so that very powerful someone shoots us with shallow scripts and movies.
The motiv of this picture is great, the beggining is also great...but all these things become of little importance when all the shooting begins and the Devil´s followers turn into an enormous mob out of the blue.
Robin Tunney is very good in her part; Gabriel Byrne is an average devil (compare his intensity with Pacino´s in The Devil´s Advocate) - he is an outstanding actor - and the rest of the cast performs well.
Special effects - solid, but normal.
The soundtrack is very good and adds interest to the movie.
The one thing that redeems the movie is the last scene: Jericho fighting the devil the only way he can...The ending is superb, unlike the happy ending so common in Arnold´s movies.
I rate it a 6 out 10.
The Game (1997)
A challenging game played with our expectations
There is not much to be said about this strange and exciting picture. Although not a very original picture, the acting, together with good characterization and directing, makes The Game one of the most exciting moments in Cinema these days. Good plot, good twists and turns, a false finale, followed by sweet finale. Douglas is great (his usual self), Unger is average, Sean Penn is good, and the rest of the cast helps the story move along. It´s a form of thriller that touches the fringes of fantastic tales (such as the ones by Stephen King and Dean Koontz). A good movie, full of surprises, you get hooked to the characters and wait impatiently for the finale.
Eraser (1996)
Erasing bad moments in action movies
When you think of Eraser, True Lies, Aliens II, you are considering solid movies, ones that have a reasonable story (no matter how far fetched the story may be), that show good handling on the part of the director and good performances by the actors.
Yes, Aliens II is by far the best among the titles I cited, but they all have a similar structure and mentality.
Eraser features two of the best known actors in Hollywood. Schwarzenneger, the most famous personality (and always improving character), against the talented, varied, fantastic actor that goes by the name of James Caan. The big man has yet a long way to go in order to achieve a flawless or impressive (such as when he shot Conan the Barbarian) performance, and James Caan is like Pacino and De Niro - absolutely great. He really can be a nasty, mean person - even if other characters are meaner (the under-secretary, for instance...).
These two actors could have distorted the whole picture, pulling it apart in the directions they wanted but they didn´t. They are part of it, although their characters command actions and other characters. Arnold is always a true professional, specially by the side of an enfant terrible like Caan.
Eraser features a princess like lady by the name of Vanessa Williams. Good looks, good presence, and very fine acting. I'm amazed at the fact that this lady has not yet achieved full stardom, one that could be compared with Zeta Jones and Sharon Stone. But this is Tinsel Town... The other actors act and react accordingly, giving credibility to the story. Special effects? Efficient and simple. Soundtrack - sometimes beautiful.
The story is pure action, has some very good scenes and shows delightful comedy moments. Of course, the Witness Protection Program doesn´t function the way it´s portrayed in this picture, but its goals are the same - and they really go to great lenght to protect and hide those who are under their guard. The politics in this movie is realistic enough - we all know, irrespective of our countries, that some major and dark deals are going on within our governments and when some secrets are discovered, it´s only the small players who get squashed...
The plot could be more complex, but has twists and turns enough to keep it going.
The idea behind the mini-rail gun is not explored, nor should it have been. The gun simply exists - although its danger is overblown.
The main interest (in my opinion) of this movie lies in watching James Caan, Vanessa Williams, Pastorelli and some comedy and action scenes. All in all, good entertainment.
The Devil's Advocate (1997)
Devil has many faces - the terrifying Pacino is one of them
Well. Strange movie. It starts lightly, almost giving the impression that the director new nothing of the real life in a courthouse; it gets better by showing some friction between mother and daughter-in-law...and then it portrays the strange ways of celebrating victory of a couple. Then comes the devily proposal... Now he movie gets frightning, although in some shallow way.
But, as it turns out, after having seen it, when you look at it from a wide angle, this movie becomes quite ordinary. The plot does not surprise you, the intended surprises seemed the work of an amateur writer, who thinks the best shocks come from those things that are supposed to surprise you (wow, the man is his father, wow, that´s his sister, wow, his wife did that, and he did that...). It happens that, nowadays, movie fans do see a lot of movies, from many years, from many directors, and it takes a good plot and good directing to really surprise them.
I foresaw some events quite a few minutes before I was shown them. Possibilly, lots of people saw it that way too. But anyway, this is a good thing to watch.
The acting... Well, Keanu Reeves is good, Charlize Theron is excellent - quite a revelation she is. But the real bomb, the true interest of this movie lies with Al Pacino. This actor is a phenomenon. He can be a gangster, a blind man... and the devil. He is an astonishing actor, one that will endure forever in our memory - like Spencer Tracy, Bogart, Cagney, John Wayne, Douglas, Connery, De Niro, Morgan Freeman, O´Toole. If I was given a choice between having a video-library of these actors and all the special effects and great soundtracks in the world...I would choose the stories personified by these actor´s characters.
Al Pacino alone holds this movie above the average - and they didn´t even give him a great part. Between Pacino´s acting, Reeves´ performance and the revelation named Charlize Theron - and if you choose to consider a grade C+ plot...well, you get a good enough movie.
Too bad it ends in such a poor way - as if someone (the director, the cast, the producer, some big boss in the studio) were trying to rush it to the finishing.
Dante's Peak (1997)
Dante´s vision of calamity falling upon us should resemble this...
There´s an analogy, told by Brosnan´s character, that defines this great movie. If you drop a frog in scalding water, he´ll try to jump, to get away from it. But when you boil the water, slowly, with the frog already in it, the frog will dye, and that´s how the story, this story, goes.
Wonderful movie. Fine suspense, good plot (although not astonishingly original), good and well developed characters, good acting and believable special effects. And a fine soundtrack.
Pierce Brosnan is the man of the moment, no doubt about it. He is, by far, one of the best irish actors to appear on celluloid...and no one has yet seen his true potential. And this man knows his choices - he has the eye for detecting good scripts and good movies - from The Lawnmower Man, to Thomas Crown Affair.
Dante´s Peak is a movie about family. It portrays a small town where almost everybody would like to live in - cozy, small, nice, friendly. The delivering of a prize to the mayor of this town is a proof of that.
But before settling the viewer´s attention on Dante´s Peak, the director tells us what happenned to Brosnan's companion when a volcano somewhere in Colombia (?!) erupted. This introduces to the real undertone of the movie - it´s a tragic story, deep down.
Brosnan´s character (a vulcanologist - no kin to mr. Spock, he points out) warns the inhabitants of this town that something may be brewing beneath the earth. As usual, people do not believe him, as happens with every man or woman who tries to reveal new things or break news. This sets the tone for the rest of the movie...until, at last, something tragic happens. The director showed a firm hand while shooting this story. It´s clear that he showed us and told us things exactly the way he wanted them to be showed or told. Ok, there is no surprise (at least not a big surprise) in the outcome of the story but there´s no need for it. The sheer intensity of the events, the realism - all this is enough to grip the viewer from beginning to end. The menace to everyday normal life is tremendous, and
families must act accordingly or perish. The town perishes, some lives are lost - all due to lack of care and planning. So Dante´s Peak becomes, like Deep Impact, a warning. Pierce Brosnan is great, Linda Hamilton is good enough, and the kids, the grandmother and the colleagues of Brosnan´s character are excellent.
The science behind the movie´s plot is accurate enough "a la Hollywood", naturally.
When I saw this movie, I felt I was in front of a fine work. Money spent on this movie is well spent, as it teaches us many lessons - besides being a pure piece of entertainment.
I recommend it, I loved it. I wish there more movies like this one and Deep Impact - very well crafted catastrophe movies, not to everyone´s liking, but good examples of how sucessfull a story like this can be when is well told.
Lost in Space (1998)
Waisted money, in every direction
Awful. Terrible. Trash. How can Hollywood produce these things?
Who gives producers and directors the money?
The movie promissed something, in the beginning, but one knew, after only 10 minutes, that it would turn out to be of the most idiotic things produced by Hollywood.
I made the mistake of buying the video, after all, I had not seen the movie. Big mistake. Every once in a while I make one... It´s a shame to see William Hurt and Gary Oldman in such a terrible thing. If doubts existed about the competence (or lack of it) of Hopkins (the director), they were all cleared. The man shouldn´t direct a comercial, let alone a movie...
The special effects seemed more appropriate for a cartoon than for a movie...
The plot is a joke. The characters seemed to have been designed by a madman...
Please, if you haven´t yet seen this movie, don´t. It´s...it´s...
You´ll get sick if you see it.
12 Monkeys (1995)
Twelve Million Reasons to believe science-fiction may be back
Terry Gilliam. Time Bandits, Monty Phiton, Life of Brian
Different film-making, almost revolutionary. With Twelve Monkeys he achieves three fantastic things: a) a great movie; b) a great science-fiction movie and, c) he extracted from Bruce Willis a very good performance, his best to date.
Alternate realities and time-travel have always been the focus of written science-fiction since Jules Verne and H. G. Welles. Many authors have produced stories that leave a long lasting impression on the minds of those who read them. So, every time someone dares to make a movie using the element of time-travel (or alternate realities), he/she runs the risk of being anything but original. But Terry Gilliam picked a story from a French director, used it, transformed it to his liking and
voilá, Twelve Monleys.
The acting is good, whether you´re looking at Willis, or Pitt and Madeleine Stowe. The plot is excellent, although nothing tremendously original.
WARNING: SOME OF THE NEXT WORDS MAY CONSTITUTE SPOILERS. WARNING: SOME OF THE NEXT WORDS MAY CONSTITUTE SPOILERS.
Gillian created a post-apocalypse world that is horrible to contemplate, but very possible to come true. Making his character go back to the past, not knowing where he is going to end up, what society he will be put against, going through the trial and error task of getting to the exact point in time where the character should be in order to stop the ultimate cataclism, Gillian shows us the terrifying `reality' behind time travel, the risks involved in it, the possibility of a traveler going mad over it.
You feel sorry for Bruce´s character, you go side by side with him in his struggle to leave the lunatics hospital and finally his struggle to stop the menace.
There is mystery, strange discoveries, the skepticism of Stowe´s character, the dizziness in Willis´character´s struggles, a larger than life issue at stake (the salvation of mankind and the future), sacrifices
and as usual, the irritating paradox of why would anyone try to remake the past (for whatever reason) when he/she would cease to exist as the person who fears and suffers and wants to change something
This movie does make one think about life, sacrifices, today´s madness, altruism
It´s dark, it does not offer hope, only despair and sadness, and brings many questions to life. It´s frightening, mad, and holds your attention from the beginning. But you do have to have an open mind and hope for the worst (in the story). Great movie. Very much anti-Hollywood, a Gillian´s usual.
Blade Runner (1982)
Do today´s directors dream of making a masterpiece like this?
Yes, they do. A science-fiction writer-critic once complained that Blade Runner is one of the most over-rated movies, arguing that it quite doesn´t live up to the book written by Philip K. Dick. Well, yes, it´s not as complex as the book itself, but I beg to differ. Blade Runner is one of the most UNDER-RATED movies ever. Only science-fiction fans talk about it, thus the movie is looked upon with arrogance by other genre´s fans and critics.
Blade Runner tries, -and accomplishes it-, to be sober, realistic and ironic. Mixing action with calm, steady exposition, it brings the viewer the full view of a post-apocalyptic society, ranging from the high classes to the street level lives of some characters.
You get slowly into the movie, experiencing a strange and cold environment, full of hightech gadgets (TV scanners, Videophones, hover-cars, androids, artificial animals, lie-emotion detectors, etc), and watch a detective-mistery-action-love story develop under a very firm and knowledgeable hand (Ridley Scott´s). The mistery and menace portraid by the androids (one of the focus of the film) remains throughout, gripping the viewer until the very end.
The characters are well developed, the plot is complex and has interesting twists. Sometimes you want the detective to finish his job in a determined way, eliminating the cold threats he has in front; at other times, you can´t help but feel strangely sad as the detective becomes the predator against the threat (namely, against the first android woman, as she runs for her life).
The action may be a little slow, but one knows that when something out of the ordinary flow of events happens, then the screen becomes the place for something thrilling. Whatever happens, Blade Runner never gets too violent; it portrays a possible reality. Having many layers of plot and great depth only emphasizes the greatness of this movie, rendering it realistic, dense and thought-provoking. Emphasis is given to the universal quest of finding out who we are, and when does reality, -life-, terminate.
The acting is very good, from a "I´m forced to do this" attitude by Harrison Ford, to the ultra-sophistication of Sean Young. Rugter Hauer has one of his best performances ever, in this movie.
The visual effects are good, even by today´s standards, making certain that the movie stays within "realism" boundaries.
It´s an intriguing, hypnotic movie. It does not offend the book, albeit being different from it. It´s worth seeing again and again, and, if you think of all the sequels happening with some movies (not referring to Star Wars, of course), well worth some kind of continuation (meaning, of course, sequel...). But I doubt this will ever happen. Maybe it´s best this way, who knows? Anyway, this movie is part of my big and wonderful movies constelation: Star Wars, Alien, Dark City, The Matrix. And for me, that´s all, folks!
The X Files (1993)
One of the purest diamonds TV has to offer
X-files... This name alone has made it to History...at least TV History. Good episodes, good acting, good plotting...
Most of the episodes, since 1993, have been first rate. Chris Carter is a smart guy, he knows very well his business. Even the movie was pretty good.
Scully is a very good character, and Gillian Anderson breathes life into it in such a way that you´d swear Scully exists and maybe mrs. Anderson is just like that. Sometimes it ´s just too annoying to watch her character be so skeptical, but the fact is that in real life I´ve met people that think and act that way, no matter the evidences against their rationale. She is a good actress and I personally hope to see her in other works, maybe a movie which can project her persona into the mainstream kingdom.
Fox Mulder...determined, focused, open minded, dedicated. This guy is what most of us (with a functioning brain and a grain of sensitivity) are or want to be, and he has the chance to seek the truth out there. Mr. Duchovny is a terrific actor. Besides the X-files, one should see the other works he has to offer us. Good work. In this series, he is just fabulous. His acting ranges from dramatic, professionally cold, to paranoid and outright funny.
It´s been a pleasure to walk side by side with these characters all these years. If we lived in Wonderland, I would just hope that we continued to see more of this series for the upcoming years, but...
This series is thought provoking, sometimes original, imaginative, thrilling, has very fine actors supporting it, from Steven Williams to Mitch Pillegi and Nicholas Lea, the writers who make the scripts really make an effort to be varied. When I watch it, I know I´m in for a treat, most of the times. Like Babylon 5, The Pretender and The Practice, X-files is part of the golden shows that run nowadays on TV.
Titanic (1997)
The deep waters of Memory will never sink the fascination for Titanic
Many critics (like the one in NBC, who got to the point of showing a cartoon with a ship sinking into the waters of failure), seemed certain that we would watch a new Titanic tragedy: overbudgeted, late release, etc... James Cameron never seemed to be one those men who dream of doing something no one dares doing and keep that dream alive...He never looked to be a dreamer. That´s the problem with most people, and directors and writers, nowadays. But...wow, was I wrong. He had a dream, he awaited the opportunity...and he did it.
This Titanic movie has a greek tragedy dimension to it and also an epic proportion that most Titanic TV movies and Hollywood movies do not.
You can´t help but feel very close to the characters, irrespective of their being historical or fictional. The soundtrack and the acting achieve something that, together with camera positioning and ship and costumes details, has put behind every documentary and film ever done on great disasters in History. Maybe someday, someone will try something similar with Pompei, or the Zeppelin...I doubt it.
The storyline is too simple, but mr. Cameron had his hands on too much material (the abyss between upper classes and lower classes, the characters' final struggle, the replic of Titanic, the tragedy itself) to pay more attention to the plot. So, it´s predictable. So what?
Unless you´re dead or you belong to a particular kind of person that considers feelings and the sense of loss something unimportant and unworthy of movie camera´s focus , you can´t help but go along with the character´s plight and fears... With good acting, good special effects, marvellous soundtrack, historical details...how can´t I put myself in the position of those 1600 people or so who lost their lives? Going through the movie, reaching the finale, I began thinking "What if it was me, in Jack´s place, or the captain´s place, or the men and women below decks, or the men in the machine rooms?"
The final scene of Titanic is a deserved and beautiful homage paid to those who survived those who die. It´s poetic and sweet, and somehow puts the souls of those who saw the movie at peace with History. Sometimes, Nature, the Cosmos, God, puts us to the test, and one of those tests took place in 1912. Beautiful and moving motion picture. Maybe it deserved another posture from Cameron at the Oscar Ceremony. Maybe Di Caprio deserved to be nominated... Great Titanic.
Dark City (1998)
One of the darkest stories ever told on movies
Well, dark may be, but not violent. This is one of the strangest tales I´ve ever seen produced by the movie industry. It´s not of those flashy works that Hollywood seems so proud to give birth to again and again. It´s complex enough and has an atmosphere very similar to that which we find in Hitchcock´s films and Blade Runner.
And once again, like in The Matrix, things are not what they appear to be. Kind of resembles the work produced by master science-fiction writer Philip K. Dick. In Dark City, you just wait, follow the hero, collect the information (well given) and mistrust what your eyes and conscious thoughts tell you.
Dark City was not a huge success, but that, ironically, constitutes proof that it is a strange but good movie. Nowadays, most people, irrespective of their location in the world (USA, Europe, Asia), seem to be more at ease when they go to the cinema to see something like ID4 or Armaggedon than when they face a treasure like Dark City, Blade Runner or The Matrix. They complain (even critics) that these movies are too complicated or too subtle to be seen and understood in mere two hours. Talk about dramatic drops in IQ ratings...
The special effects of Dark City are good enough and give credibility to the story. The plot could be more complex (as happens with The Matrix), but Hollywood standards demand that you, as director, should not make people think too much while watching the movie...or else...spectators will shy away from the movie.
The acting is good. Rufus Sewell is good, Kiefer S. is even better, and mr. Hurt portrays an inspector with a rather grey life in a low profile personal performance. The strange "Men in Black Overcoats" are really disgusting and scary to look at.
The finale should have been more...bigger-than-life, one of those events that make you think about it long after you see it.
I bought the video and watch it with delight, although I didn´t go to the cinema 4 times to see it, as happened with The Matrix and Blade Runner.
All in all, a good movie, different, where the director had the guts to tell a story at a pace and in a way that most movies released nowadays will not show.
Babylon 5 (1993)
The name of the place: science-fiction imagination paradise
Space: 1999; Star Trek; Battlestar Galactica; Buck Rogers in the 25th century; Star Trek: the new generation, Deep Space Nine; Space: above and beyond; Dark skies... Granted, TV and the Movie Industry never have achieved the degree of depth and logic that one finds in science-fiction books, but I think we, the fans and also the authors, are entitled to expect a higher quality to these shows than we actually end up getting.
TV producers do not normally understand a letter of science, and most directors don´t, either. The result is that we see terrorist atacks on science, great special effects but emptied of any real meaning in real science. And if you add that to the fact that most of these TV guys don´t have a clue about character, action, psychology, plot...
That´s where Babylon 5 differs from the...swamp. Usually, B5 features good science concepts. Mr. Straczinsky (pardon me any mispelling) knows his job and has set the standard for a good science based TV series. But even better is the Plot and convolutions in the story that one finds in B5. The story builds up calmly, like a good lecture by a good professor in a University. The producer, the screenwriter, the director, calmly expect that their series will find intelligent viewers, knowing that most of them will be hooked to the story and the characters.
The acting is good, the episodes are varied, the suspense is high.
B5 set very high standards in TV special effects, with its computer generated scenarios and action.
It´s series like this (and most episodes of The X Files) that make me proud of Science-Fiction and Fantasy on TV and Cinema.
It´s a pity that critics and big budget companies do not reward the authors with unquestionable support, something that would produce Gandhi, Schindler´s List like dimension in TV science-fiction. It just makes me sick to know that some people have the power and money and luck to produce weak works such as ID4 and Armaggedon.
It´s a pity that in my country, the TVs do not buy B5 episodes without interruptions. At least, we have X-Files and The Pretender...
The Matrix (1999)
Like Alice, if you follow the white rabbit you´ll end up in...The Matrix.
Science-fiction is an art form, whether you write it or make a movie based on it. 2001, 2010, Star Wars, Blade Runner, Alien, Dark City: all these are examples of the finest art in the movie industry. Now I add to this small list The Matrix.
The Matrix´s Plot is complex and equally simple. It envolves you right from the beginning. You (the viewer), get hints in a sparingly way, just as in the best Octavia Butler´s sci-fi novels. The exposition, both visual and verbal, is stunningly well done. It shines as a rare case of equilibrium between the need to inform and the need to capture the spectator´s attention.
Now, all this should be enough to make it a good movie. But there is more: the fighting scenes, the special effects, the sound effects, the soundtrack...and the acting. The Brothers got it right, whatever the angle from which you look at the movie. It´s non-stop action together with a intelligent storyline.
The fighting scenes were beautifully choreographed, and the camera´s movement and positioning, following hints from japanese anime, is vivid and dramatic. For instance, helped by the camera and special effects wizards, Carrie Ann´s movements were simply fantastic, all the more if you consider the fact that she was once a model. Technological wizardry and personal physical accomplishment well merged.
You will see some magnificent visual effects, but the sound effects surely top those by more than a notch or two. The Brothers could have followed a Devlin-Emmerich (ID4) type of philosophy - bigger, louder, etc -, but they refrained from that...well, there´s only one scene where they wrecked the balance sound-action-music ... I´ll leave it to you to discover what scene I´m referring to.
The soundtrack is almost hypnotic, it helps the plot along, it kind of makes the characters move forward, builds their emotions...and also ours. Some movies alienate the viewer with some too agressive music and instrumentation, but The Matrix´s soundtrack is perfect, made to-the-point.
Keanu Reeves and the rest of the cast...well, two words for them all: great acting. There is not a single moment in the whole movie where you think to yourself: "0h, weak, fragile acting as usual..." Everybody, from mr. Reeves to Ray Anthony Parker, knows their place and what they are supposed to do exactly to the millimeter. They convince us that they(the characters) are real.
If you think of Blade Runner´s action and environment, or Dark City´s storyline and atmosphere, you think of dense and coherent facts, not flashy or shocking to the point of nausea (like ID4 or Aliens IV), but solid and attention graber...that´s the case with The Matrix. While scary, The Matrix´s universe is an epic and brave one.
The Matrix: intelligent, thought-provoking, exciting, vivid, innovative and dramatic film-making. You´ll love it. I did.