What an embarrassing nonsense this movie is! The story is not worth being told and has more logical holes than the universe has black holes! And how shameless Stanley Kubrick is TRIED to be copied in many scenes may make Kubrick rotate in his grave! Kubrick did everything without CGI, but CGI does not make a good movie, and this movie doesn't even have good CGI! Nearly 3 hours of my lifetime wasted, and no chance to get them back (thank you Prof. Einstein!), that goes for the lost money as well. It's really better to take a walk in the park, get some fresh air and save your Dollars (or give them to a homeless person), that's the best one can do with this movie!
Reviews
4 Reviews
Melancholia
(2011)
Just Puzzled (and bored and thus angry)
4 May 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Yes, also this review may contain spoilers. I have not much to add to those who wrote that it may be best to watch the first 5 minutes of the film, then go for a dinner or doing the dishes or mowing the lawn, come back after 2 hours to watch the last 30 seconds and you will not have missed anything.
Except some exceptionally bad acting (who said Kirsten Dunst will get an Oscar nomination for what is called "acting" in this movie?). And of course the unavoidable hand-camera. Another one of LvT's pieces of art: let a cameraman who heavily suffers from Parkinson Disease make a movie, add some very bad lighting technicians and yipeee... we have a new style of film-making, we call it the "Dogma"-style and declare everything that is done this way a "work of art". Period. Like it or leave it... I prefer to leave it.
And I did not even mention the script which is as bad as the whole movie (coming as no surprise, as the author is the same).
My best guess (and excuse for LvT) is that he was watching too much "2001 - A Space Odyssey" and wanted to make an evenly mysterious work of art. In being mysterious he may have succeeded, but the result is not a work of art. It's the product of a man who apparently doesn't come to grips with his life and the world he lives in, so that in the end the only question that remains is: What does the man want to tell us???
I really tried to approach this film open minded, but Mr. Trier has just wasted 2 hours of my life.
Except some exceptionally bad acting (who said Kirsten Dunst will get an Oscar nomination for what is called "acting" in this movie?). And of course the unavoidable hand-camera. Another one of LvT's pieces of art: let a cameraman who heavily suffers from Parkinson Disease make a movie, add some very bad lighting technicians and yipeee... we have a new style of film-making, we call it the "Dogma"-style and declare everything that is done this way a "work of art". Period. Like it or leave it... I prefer to leave it.
And I did not even mention the script which is as bad as the whole movie (coming as no surprise, as the author is the same).
My best guess (and excuse for LvT) is that he was watching too much "2001 - A Space Odyssey" and wanted to make an evenly mysterious work of art. In being mysterious he may have succeeded, but the result is not a work of art. It's the product of a man who apparently doesn't come to grips with his life and the world he lives in, so that in the end the only question that remains is: What does the man want to tell us???
I really tried to approach this film open minded, but Mr. Trier has just wasted 2 hours of my life.
The Da Vinci Code
(2006)
Was it a Mistake to Read the Book First???
12 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I have read the book 3 times, and I found it so great that after having read it the first time, I immediately started over to read it again. Having read the book 3 times, I know about most of the (sometimes) intentional faults and mistakes the book contains (just one of them being that the number of glass-parts in the Louvre-pyramid is not 666, some people say it is 637 instead which I doubt as well, because 637 is not dividable by 4 without a rest (as is the case with 666).
But knowing all the faults and flaws of the book, it is still a masterpiece in what it intended to be, a nailbiter as a thriller, conspiracy theory, fictional and mystic, a good base for discussions as many things COULD be as the book describes them, even though some are most unlikely while others are not.
However, I was eager to see the film even though I feared possible disappointment. And how disappointed I was (and still am). Tom Hanks is a total miscast and acts throughout the whole film as if he hadn't to do ANYTHING with the stat or the plot, he just acts as if he wouldn't belong there. Audrey Tautou is no better. No question she is a beautiful girl with beautiful eyes, but that's not enough for the role of Sophie Neveu. Sophie is a clever young woman driving the story forward actively in the book, not so in the film. She too seems to belong somewhere else, to another story, but not to this film.
I wonder if all this comes from bad and poor directing alone, since Sir Ian is doing a great job as Sir Leigh Teabing as does Paul Bettany as Silas. But that's all. Even Jean Reno as Bezu Fache is performing at his worst, I have to say, even though I normally like Jean Reno a lot, but not in this film.
It can only be bad directing (and a bad script most likely too) that has turned this great and thrilling book into a less than mediocre and disappointing movie. Films rarely are as good as their books, but did it have to be THAT bad?
Not to talk about the disappointment that stems from the script: even though this is a 2:47 hours film, they have really made it to have some important things missing, like e.g. that in the book there are 2 crypts (a smaller one in the big one), the code for the bigger one being "sofia" and when they open the first cryptex in the book, you believe that finally ... "ahhhh, at last they have unveiled the secret, they finally made it", just to find out that nothing was won with this victory, since just another cryptex comes to light and suspension continues. Not so in the film. And this is not the only thing left out, not the only aberration from the book. Even though the have 2:47 hours time to deal with all that, Ron Howard and a miscast of crew have made a total disappointment of what could have been a great movie otherwise.
However, for all those who have not read the book yet, it could be worthwhile to watch the movie, so they can be pleasantly surprised later on when the read the book later. Was it my mistake to chose the other order?
One good thing at least is, that when you buy the Limited Edition of the DVD, you get a really nicely done copy of a real cryptex in the box (even though the price is horrifying).
For the general public my recommendation is: read the book, read it twice or as often as you like, but leave out the movie. Better you make your own movie in your own mind, it will most likely be much better than the film by Ron Howard.
Sad, very sad and a great disappointment!
But knowing all the faults and flaws of the book, it is still a masterpiece in what it intended to be, a nailbiter as a thriller, conspiracy theory, fictional and mystic, a good base for discussions as many things COULD be as the book describes them, even though some are most unlikely while others are not.
However, I was eager to see the film even though I feared possible disappointment. And how disappointed I was (and still am). Tom Hanks is a total miscast and acts throughout the whole film as if he hadn't to do ANYTHING with the stat or the plot, he just acts as if he wouldn't belong there. Audrey Tautou is no better. No question she is a beautiful girl with beautiful eyes, but that's not enough for the role of Sophie Neveu. Sophie is a clever young woman driving the story forward actively in the book, not so in the film. She too seems to belong somewhere else, to another story, but not to this film.
I wonder if all this comes from bad and poor directing alone, since Sir Ian is doing a great job as Sir Leigh Teabing as does Paul Bettany as Silas. But that's all. Even Jean Reno as Bezu Fache is performing at his worst, I have to say, even though I normally like Jean Reno a lot, but not in this film.
It can only be bad directing (and a bad script most likely too) that has turned this great and thrilling book into a less than mediocre and disappointing movie. Films rarely are as good as their books, but did it have to be THAT bad?
Not to talk about the disappointment that stems from the script: even though this is a 2:47 hours film, they have really made it to have some important things missing, like e.g. that in the book there are 2 crypts (a smaller one in the big one), the code for the bigger one being "sofia" and when they open the first cryptex in the book, you believe that finally ... "ahhhh, at last they have unveiled the secret, they finally made it", just to find out that nothing was won with this victory, since just another cryptex comes to light and suspension continues. Not so in the film. And this is not the only thing left out, not the only aberration from the book. Even though the have 2:47 hours time to deal with all that, Ron Howard and a miscast of crew have made a total disappointment of what could have been a great movie otherwise.
However, for all those who have not read the book yet, it could be worthwhile to watch the movie, so they can be pleasantly surprised later on when the read the book later. Was it my mistake to chose the other order?
One good thing at least is, that when you buy the Limited Edition of the DVD, you get a really nicely done copy of a real cryptex in the box (even though the price is horrifying).
For the general public my recommendation is: read the book, read it twice or as often as you like, but leave out the movie. Better you make your own movie in your own mind, it will most likely be much better than the film by Ron Howard.
Sad, very sad and a great disappointment!
The Big One
(1997)
Not ONLY a time capsule
16 July 2004
As one user before said, he feels the film to be more of a time capsule today, since the impacts and importance of downsizing has been overwritten by other issues like terrorism, homeland security, 9/11 etc.
Well, I live in Europe and I can just say that here in Europe the film just comes out on DVD (I saw it only yesterday, July 15th, 2004 on TV) at the right time for Europe (if not a little too late). Economical matters are getting worse here in Europe day by day, and the patterns CEO's use to make their companies "profitable" (which should just always correctly read: "MORE profitable) are just the same as CEO's use in the USA. In fact, the only idea that comes to their minds is: downsizing, laying off people and transferring labour into countries with extremely cheap labour-cost. That's all.
Surprisingly there is just very little resistance to these tendencies, even though Europe is (in most countries) far better organised as far as Labour Unions are concerned. People are told by politicians that reforms are necessary, and people just sit back and accept it and continue to suffer.
In this context, "The Big One" by Michael Moore just comes at the right time here in Europe, even though I think that not many of the concerned people will actually see it.
But it's worth watching it, even though sometimes I questioned myself how I could laugh over such sad facts. But this is the virtue of Michael Moore and this film: it doen't leave you desperate, it gives you a laugh at the time and maybe, if we're all lucky, it will lead to a better organisation of the people concerned and to more resistance against the 1 percent of the rich keeping the rest in poverty.
Well, I live in Europe and I can just say that here in Europe the film just comes out on DVD (I saw it only yesterday, July 15th, 2004 on TV) at the right time for Europe (if not a little too late). Economical matters are getting worse here in Europe day by day, and the patterns CEO's use to make their companies "profitable" (which should just always correctly read: "MORE profitable) are just the same as CEO's use in the USA. In fact, the only idea that comes to their minds is: downsizing, laying off people and transferring labour into countries with extremely cheap labour-cost. That's all.
Surprisingly there is just very little resistance to these tendencies, even though Europe is (in most countries) far better organised as far as Labour Unions are concerned. People are told by politicians that reforms are necessary, and people just sit back and accept it and continue to suffer.
In this context, "The Big One" by Michael Moore just comes at the right time here in Europe, even though I think that not many of the concerned people will actually see it.
But it's worth watching it, even though sometimes I questioned myself how I could laugh over such sad facts. But this is the virtue of Michael Moore and this film: it doen't leave you desperate, it gives you a laugh at the time and maybe, if we're all lucky, it will lead to a better organisation of the people concerned and to more resistance against the 1 percent of the rich keeping the rest in poverty.
Tell Your Friends