Soysoy Reviews

Man of Steel (2013)

Fast cinema (as in fast-food)

[4/10 · 31 October 2013]

Thick, superficial, formulaic, overdone, overblown, artificial, overkill, loud, noisy, frantic mess with enough CGI action to give you an indigestion.

What's the difference with, say, Transformers? No idea.

Seems like Sucker Punch, which showed actual insight, had an inquisitive camera, involving character interaction, and even intelligent subtext (!), was a parenthesis in Snyder's career. Back to the "300" formula, perfect for the masses who see movies as posters in motion with heaps of noise, a sloppily written screenplay and a thousand times rehashed oh-so-dramatic music.

Recommended: if you like(d) "Transformers" and you have too much time on your hands.

Not recommended: if you like genuine cinema or consider that life's too short to get involved in senseless activities.

Fright Night (2011)

Dull, uninspired, bland movie with some redeeming touches

[4/10 · 2 August 2012]

Writing / Dialogues: 5

Difficult to imagine what the actual screenplay was like, since obviously so many bad decisions have been made while shooting and later in the editing room, that what's left of it is a mess, which only resembles storytelling.

Character study: 3

Not even worth commenting. Surprisingly, some actors were able to somewhat lift what they've been given to work with, which probably explains why this movie hasn't been a total bore to some people.

Acting: 6

See comments just above.

Direction: 4

Totally lacks imagination and vision. Relational and geographical interactions between characters are contrived at best, the blockings and angle are at the cheap TV-series level, the eye of the camera never engages. For Pete's sake, we are in a fantasy movie, and 15 minutes into it, we haven't had a single subjective shot? No tension has been built from the camera work? What the..? For the rare image here and there that could stick in your mind, the credits probably go to the cinematographer, not the director.

Visual style / art direction: 3

This movie has no visual style. It looks dull. The places, the props, the people, they all look dull, washed-out and uninteresting. Yawn.

Cinematography: 6

Competent, sometimes vaguely interesting (dusk scenes). Never more than that.

Editing: 3

Yawn. Never succeeds in achieving something even remotely interesting. It's barely competent. The editing decisions look like they could have been made by a computer, or a fresh businessman with an editing handbook.

Overall: 4

Unless you're in for Colin Farell's sex appeal, or your expectations are low, you're in for a big disappointment and a yawn fest.

Not worth your time unless you're seriously bored, and/or you have really nothing else to do.

The Dark Knight (2008)

My, oh my...

[4/10 · 23 March 2009]

This is starting to be downright ludicrous. Another naked king makes it to the top of the charts, helped by massive publicity.

This is just another generic action blockbuster, based on tired clichés. It's not different from, say, those old Schwartzenegger movies: it's just updated for current trends and mass appeal: more effects, more speed, more violence, more noise, more music, just more of everything (except the intelligent stuff of course).

The whole thing takes itself so seriously, and even pretends to bring some, er.. philosophical insight (sic) to the mix. Yeah, right. You end with a product that is not only mediocre, but aggressively and arrogantly so at that!

Yes, Ledger's acting is a treat. And there's even a ~30 sec. good scene halfway through the movie. Er... That's about it.

"Overrated'" doesn't even start describing the irrational hype around this formulaic and forgettable action flick for teenagers.

Stardust (2007)

Another proof that mediocrity rules for good

[4/10 · 26 April 2008]

Yes, this movie's success is all about today's cinema mediocrity and how people were conditioned to not only accept it, but actually welcome it, and even celebrate it. The new kitsch reigns. Halleluja, the cynical executives got what they wanted, they can dumb their stuff down as much as they like, and still make millions out of it. Just follow the recipe and you're good, whatever the awkwardness, the lousiness of the product. So why even bother to make things right, like in "Azkaban", "Legend", "Dark Crystal", "Babe", or even "Nanny McPhee", when stuff like "Stardust" or the "Chronicles of Narnja" are perceived as great magical movies?

I have totally lost faith in people's ability to resist the cultural brainwashing leading to embrace such appalling, spurious, pinchbeck, mundane movie-making, with so much incoherence and lack of vision that it's painful.

No magic here. Just the usual pretty postcards, with lots of baubles and knick-knack, and a pot-pourri story with all of the usual clichés. And don't start me about the direction and staging. For kids that's about OK (though I'd rather have mine thrive on more meaty stuff like "Legend"), but adults actually liking this? OMG.

The Simpsons Movie (2007)

Eww...

[4/10 · 25 February 2008]

Been lazy, this movie doesn't deserve my precious time, so the comments here are courtesy of member *movieman kev* who seems to share my opinion.

"Matt Groening and company are unmitigated geniuses I tell you. If their plan all along was to make the regular Simpsons TV show and make it progressively more and more awful, such as the case of the series for the last 7 years, and get it to the point of sub-par barely watchable shell of the glory that it once was.

And if they did all that JUST to come out with this movie that while never NEVER reaching the classic status of Simpsons yesteryear, yet still much better then the series proper is only to have it viewed as some kind of Oscar-worthy film.

Well all I can say is very well played indeed sirs. For those of us that remember how good the series truly was, this bit of fluff involving Homer dooming the the town of Springfield due to his shenanigans, this film was not really made for us and will feel rather repetitive (IE: Homer and Marge fighting AGAIN, Lisa finding a crush AGAIN, even a few jokes are repeated from the series) but rather the newer fans who started watching it at the start of this millennium (yes i know, I shudder at that thought as well).

The fact that this film is currently in the top 100 when it has no business in even IMDb's top 250 is both sad and supremely mind-boggling.

But again if one is fed a steady diet of feces and then given a moldy stale pork rind, it'd likely taste like top cuisine."

The Departed (2006)

Welcome to the dust-in-eyes show, leave subtlety at the door please...

[6/10 · 7 June 2007]

How original.. cops and mob, tough/loud men, some pseudo-philosophic lines, fights, guns, family affairs, Hollywood stars, loud music, frantic editing, ... sounds familiar? Well, no wonder, it definitely is.

Yaaaawwwwwn. Been there, seen that. Scorcese used the overall formula with great artistic success in "Goodfellas". That was something. What we have here feel like leftovers. Crumbs.

This kind of stuff like smells of dust, like old furniture... it relies entirely on formulas and conventions. No invention, no risk taking, 100% formulaic story, storytelling and movie-making.

Granted, it's less boring than Luca's wishy-washy Starwars costly sleeping pills, but frankly, achieving this is not difficult, is it? *LOL* If that's all Scorcese is able to give us nowadays, the only thing more depressing than that is the wide applause it receives.

Pretty Persuasion (2005)

"Heavenly creatures" meets "To die for" meets "American beauty", with a nice Wes Anderson touch on top...

[9/10 · 6 June 2007]

Woaw, this is the most intelligent, thoughtful, genuinely artistic and fully achieved movie I've seen in a long time.

It tells a lot about how people "get" movies that much lesser achievements in similar discursive film-making, like "American beauty", get wide recognition though genuine articles like "Pretty persuasion" seem to meet much hostility.

My main thanks go to Wes Anderson, whose fresh, clever and stylish rehash of European style by the likes of Jeunet or Jodorowsky, seems to have opened new doors in modern cinema, as I've recently recognized this major influence he's had on new directors (like Marcos Siega here) in another recent movie, "A Home at the End of the World". This one was also very good, but relied more on conventions at the story level.

Here the screenplay is clever, clever work, both at the narrative and meta-narrative levels, which asks all the right questions (which is probably why it seems to upset people - who wants to be asked pertinent questions nowadays?), and uses a terrific, very mature cinematic vocabulary, which any genuine Cinema lover will recognize as such. Come on guys, if you can't see that this is GREAT cinema, you've missed the train entirely.

**SPOILERS AHEAD** In case you didn't think this is intelligent work at the moral/social level... ask yourself: what could have prevented Randa's suicide? Think of all the missed opportunities, miscommunication, from her parents, the other girls, the teacher's attitude... think about the motivations.. ever asked yourself the same questions about the crime in "Heavenly creatures"? If not, well... do!

Thanks to the crew for such a carefully crafted piece of work, and the moral integrity.

The Page Turner (2006)

Sloppy and rather incompetent

[3/10 · 16 March 2007]

*Contains a minor spoiler*

Well, another writer who thinks he's got what it takes to direct. Seems to be a common plague in France.

While the core idea of this movie is enthralling, and had enormous potential, the screenplay, direction and editing are extremely poor and the end result feels amateurist at best (my god, these closing doors shots! Was the editor sick?) With such a core idea, there were several great approaches: make it snappy and make a short out of it, make it heavily poetic and use the power of music... the approach here is make it as dull as possible, give bad indications to the actors, turn it into a mundane vengeance thriller with some lesbianism for good measure, and inflict some sloppy musical post-sync on top. Hey, guys, if you choose to enter the musicians world, better work harder to respect it and its power. Maybe you should have let Clotilde supervise these parts in post-prod.

My three points are for the core story and Clotilde Mollet's heartwarming performance. Don't even get me started on Catherine Frot.

To people who think this movie is great, go and see "The Piano" or "Le Maître de musique". Now you're talking.

Monster House (2006)

Not convinced

[5/10 · 1 March 2007]

THE GOOD

The cinematics (camera movements and virtual lenses), which are almost better than Pixar's, the virtual lightning (marvelous). Great cinematic experience.

The ending song, "Halloween". Stunning to hear how this 30 years old song by Siouxsie and the Banshees still sounds fresh and edgy in 2007. What a great band, ahead of its time.

THE BAD

Shallow and formulaic character development, hollow one-dimensional characters, lack of face expression (they relied too much on the actors).

Also looks kinda outdated. When you have such a "realistic" CGI environment for the characters to live in, having static hair and soft movements for human characters is a major letdown, it doesn't fit in.

Extremely poor screenplay and lazy storytelling, mainly the flashback part about the circus woman, which could have been a terrific and very moving sub-story, but is sadly just sloppily executed.

Unfunny gags. Far too clean. Lacks grit. Lacks spirit, lacks real juice. Questionable editing decisions.

Overall, pretty tame, and slightly boring compared to the "big" projects in modern animation (Over the Hedge, Madagascar, Nemo...), with the exception of the cinematics, which are among the very best I've seen.

Hero (2002)

Most beautiful martial arts kitsch opera to date

[7/10 · 28 January 2007]

Without the breathtaking visuals of the lake scenes, that are truly visionary, and a couple of outstanding pieces in terms of color in movement (but I've seen better from Yimou, in "Raise the red lanterns"), this movie would just be another of these Chinese kitsch martial arts operas. Posters in motion. Clean, dis-incarnated, pretty, empty, forgettable.

The History/Magick story is mundane and relies on tired clichés that even the cheapest Asian TV series treat with more wit, but it's not the point anyway. In such a movie, the story is a mere pretext, a distant annotation to please the masses, for the director to have his real fun in creating a dary audiovisual vocabulary that at the same time enthralls and annoys.

The problems is that most of the "beauty" pictured is, actually, mere aesthetic bombast, this being underlined by countless pretentious slow-motion shots, the melodramatic score, and by the very unnatural looking wirework, with movements that look utterly phony. At least most of it.

But there's a payoff. It's not long, but it turns the whole movie into a rewarding experience.

When the film reached what I guess was Yimou's original vision, the lake scenes, my jaw dropped. This is terrific stuff, really admirable. The level of abstraction of the movement, and the celebration of the beauty and power of nature, in these scenes, are astounding. The characters are extensions of their environment, so are their spirits and their blades. For a short time, we viewers experience pure grace, genuine transcendence.

Too bad that the rest of the movie is mostly an empty hull.

I still prefer Hsia Nu (Touch of Zen) by a fair margin. It reaches the same heights without resorting to kitsch and trendy clip-like tricks.

The Woods (2006)

Forgettable (sadly)

[5/10 · 31 December 2006]

"Heavenly creatures" meet "Evil Dead" meet "The Craft".

Could have been great, with all the funny/creepy characters, the overall weird tone, the "balancing the stones" idea etc... actually the first ten minutes gave me the impression I would simply love it.

Sadly, from an intriguing, exciting and quirky beginning, the movie slowly degenerates into a mundane, clichéd horror/witchcraft movie, with the usual background mush of creepy sounds and voices already heard a thousand times, to make clear that "this is a horror movie with a mood"... and walks towards a messy and confusing climax were all the plot elements are forced to come together in a very formulaic and contrived fashion. A this point, the movie feels exactly like a TV production and all the work is ruined.

Cinematography and acting were interesting, as were the scenes at the hospital. I loved the opening credits, which show some great editing.

With more of "Heavenly creatures" (heavily focusing on the characters and imagination) and less of "The Craft", this could have been a nice achievement in psychological horror. Sadly, as it is, it's just another formulaic horror movie with some (but not enough) quirk.

A Bittersweet Life (2005)

I'm disappointed.

[6/10 · 31 December 2006]

Ji-woon Kim's previous movie, "Janghwa, Hongryeon", was packed with creativity, poetry and psychological thrills. It looked like the work of a raising major talent with an independent and creative mind. An Asian Cronenberg.

Here, it looks and feels exactly like Ji-woon Kim decided to build upon the huge success of his fellow Korean filmmaker Chan-wook Park with "Old Boy". He took the formulaic "mob, love, suffering, revenge and ultra-violence" route, and borrowed countless elements from Park's "Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance", "Old boy" and "Sympathy for lady vengeance". The end product, while very glossy and rather flawless, feels quite derivative and tired in its themes and developments.

I'm very disappointed. We don't need TWO Korean filmmakers doing exactly the same movies, even less so since Chan-wook park has already made three movies back-to-back with more or less the same template.

It's a very entertaining movie if you're into this kind of stuff, and the direction and cinematography are splendid. If you loved it (which I can certainly understand), see Park's movies that I mention above, you won't regret it. :-) Personally I was hoping that Kim would take a more creative, independent route, with something less exploitative. I'm frustrated.

Shooting Dogs (2005)

For once, I wish they had put some more emphasis on the drama..

[7/10 · 30 December 2006]

Excellent points, dignity written all over it, competent screenplay, great acting direction, OK mise-en-scène, but strangely distant and uninvolved (certainly not on purpose).

I guess they wanted to avoid cheap drama (manipulative music, cheap tears etc..), and I'm all for it, but sadly the result is just what the female reporter sharply underlined: all we see is dead Africans, not the awful tragedy of people suffering beyond all reason.

We see only two actual killings, both are seen from a distance, the rest are just dead bodies like the ones we see on the news.

I would have preferred to see a movie showing the actual nightmare that is a genocide, by focusing on the suffering, rather than on the ethical questionings of a handful of western, white people, and the heroism of a priest. Still sounds kinda patronizing.

Nevertheless, this movie avoids the hype trap of the neo-dogma / reality TV style adopted by mpost recent movies with a 'message', and that's really a good thing. All in all, even though it could have been great and fails, it was aiming high and did reach some important ethical goals.

Make your own opinion.

Intermission (2003)

Zoom, shake, un-zoom, shake, zoom, cut

[3/10 · 20 December 2006]

Pretty much all there is to it. Frantic fashion-victim film-making using all the once-trendy clichés of MTV-like commercials. Come on guys, who will ever give a damn about these so-called "movies" in ten years. They will just feel terribly outdated and shallow.

As I've already stated in my comments about similar movies, I so don't care of the story, actors, plot, social comments, or subtext when all I see and hear feels exactly like a commercial. It's just a painful experience, I feel terribly angry at having to watch at such stuff again and again. Luckily, this time it was at home so I could have some breaks.

When is this senseless "falsely amateurish" way of filming fashion going to stop? It's just an annoyance, really.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

Sleeping pill

[5/10 · 24 November 2006]

There are two great lines in this movie:

1. "This is how liberty dies - under thunderous applause" (they were clever enough to put it in the trailer, thus luring me into thinking this movie had some sort of substance).

2. "Only a Sith deals in absolutes". I have to admit this is a very educative line in a mainstream movie. (funnily... many IMDb voters should think about it while giving "10" to anything they like and "1" to anything they hate.. *LOL*)

The rest... great sleeping pill unless your life revolves mainly around video games and geek culture, or unless you're an SFX addict. Never seen actors used so much like mere props, except maybe in Rohmer's cinema. As for Anakin's motivations to suddenly turn to the dark side after realizing he's been doing something (very) wrong, sure beats me. Wasn't the lure supposed to be Padme's life? How comes he will blindly follow the (upcoming) emperor after Padme's death? Please don't ask.

If you like real cinema, you can skip this just like the two former episodes. Even as entertainment, it's surprisingly weak (unless, as mentioned above, you.... etc...)

Santa Sangre (1989)

Full of small flaws, but still great weird flick for quirkiness lovers

[9/10 · 24 November 2006]

This is not a movie for all audiences, needless to say. One has to have a hunch towards quirky, strange, weird movies to enjoy the ride. I do... ;-) Many such movies are confusing or far too "arty". Not the case here. Yes you have a bunch of weird characters and situations, a twisted and quite insane plot, but the story unfolds very smoothly and the grotesque elements actually help the narrative.

There are many small flaws, a signature of directors who have a vision but are self-taught and don't make many movies, but they are easily forgiven considering the commitment and risk-taking at play here.

Visually, it's really visionary. Jodorowsky is a great directing talent that sadly couldn't evolve into a mature director due to the lack of interest from the industry.

You could love "Santa Sangre" if you're fond of some of the following movies: "Naked lunch", "Erendira", "Delicatessen", "Freaks", "Tideland", "Psycho" (the latter being much more 'mainstream' but yet...).

Probably Jodorowsky's best effort. Stay away if you're offended by weirdness and extreme quirk.

X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)

210'000'000 dollars and they stick to the 100mn format? What a waste!

[6/10 · 23 November 2006]

In a way it was a pleasant surprise as I was honestly expecting far worse than this. The movie is somewhat coherent and the direction is competent (the biggest surprise). Even Berry seems to act this time... she must have been taking lessons. *LOL*

OK there are many Hollywood clichés (the graveyard scene being the worst) but what do you expect from a blockbuster? Thrills. And thrills are present in fair amounts. Rather enjoyable if you're not expecting some life-altering experience. I particularly liked the "Magneto vs Trucks" sequence, and the bridge re-location is funny.

Now what have they done with it. It's obvious that many scenes were left out, or shortened beyond all reason. For some reason the producers decided to stick with the 100mn format and when you've spent such an insane budget, I think it's kinda dumb. Even more so since there are so many new characters, and they insisted in fitting in some sub-plots that are extremely under-developed (Angel, Rogue/Iceman relationship, Mystique's transformation..), better have left it out entirely if you ask me, or give us a full 120/130 minutes movie with a better development of these elements.

Also just like in "Revenge of the Sith", we have a key character "turning to the dark side" for no believable reasons. Phoenix is supposed to be "all joy and rage", yes we get it that she's dangerous and all-powerful, but it's never clear why she quietly follows - and OBEYS - Magneto! What are her motivations to follow Magneto's agenda instead of having her own? Sounds rather contrived.

Besides, has anyone noticed that funnily, the Phoenix presented is not the one in the comics (a star-eater endangering the whole solar system, or even the universe) but is more or less exactly "bad" Willow from Buffy the Vampire slayer, season 6, including the eyes color shifts, the veins on the face and the "love as taming" ending device? *LOL*

There is some good material in here, too bad they messed with it. It's just a walk through more or less good scenes, not a movie with a flow. At least, it doesn't look like a video-clip like most action movies recently. Maybe they're holding an extended version for cynical commercial reasons...

Goodfellas (1990)

Dull mob opera at the root, but rich subtext and a directing tour-de-force

[8/10 · 19 November 2006]

This is one of the most impressive movies I've seen at the film-making level. I'm extremely interested in the way directors build films as audiovisual evocative worlds with specific rules, more than I am in the actual stories told, so of course I enjoyed this immensely.

I can see the influence this film had on many directors, sadly the style elements that were borrowed from it (mainly the editing/score style) have been very badly executed most of the time. Strangely, I think that only french directors Gaspard Noé (in "Carne" and "Seul contre tous") and Jean-Pierre Jeunet (in "Delicatessen" and "Amélie") could pull off effective cinematic works with these editing/score structures. Since then, in mainstream cinema, these elements have mostly degenerated in a derivative mannerism without any power. Sad.

Yeah, I definitely enjoyed the ride, and took good note of many fantastic cinematic devices, some great subtext (food as philosophy, almost as a character)... but still I have complaints.

The first one is De Niro. Sorry but when I see him here, I still see an actor, not a character. I can take this when the movie takes a strong self-referential stance, deliberately using actors as actors, like in "Jackie Brown" or "Brazil" where De Niro fits perfectly. But here it doesn't work for me, I found it distracting ("hey, look, it's De Niro!").

The second one is the root substance. These mob operas generally are entertaining, but have a very shallow philosophy, follow very strict narrative conventions and don't have much to offer as culture. I even find them rather questionable as role models for adolescents.

So what we have here is brilliant thanks to the director, and the director only. Even at the acting level: yes they're good, but their acting alone wouldn't have such power showed if Scorcese had not used them as a Chess Master, moving pieces on the board.

Shallow substance, but very intelligent movie-making with power, wit and imagination. Enthralling. So much so that it's only when the movie is over that one (possibly) realizes that something is missing. A tour-de-force.

The Constant Gardener (2005)

What is a movie?

[5/10 · 17 November 2006]

Someday soon, in theaters, you won't notice anymore when the advertising clips switch to the main movie. The ads style is simply taking over and the worse part is that nobody seems to care. Well, I do. Maybe because I don't go to the movies to be told stories (a good book will be perfect for the purpose) but because I want to enter cinematic worlds with some kind of vision. Any coherent vision will do, from totally commercial ones (Pirates of the Carribeans) to wildly quirky/independent ones (Eraserhead) and in-betweens (Brazil, Children of men, Pulp Fiction..) as long as there is a world, a space for me to enter.

No vision here. Only formulas. I couldn't care less of the story (interesting), substance (debatable) or acting (Weisz is really amazing here, folded/nested acting on par with Streep or Winslet!) of this kind of films, as long as what's in my face is this annoying neo-dogma, MTV-clip-like film-making.

Instead of energy, we have a frenetic chaos (I admit it could work with some stories/topics but definitely not with this one). Instead of style, we have countless color/lens/stock shifts, countless amateurish-like close-ups (and yes, I know it's on purpose) and Parkinson-like hand-held cameras "à la Von Triers", (but why on earth was the steadycam developed in the first place? Am I the only one to get headaches from non-stop shaky cams?). Result: everything in the film-making distracts me from the movie itself. [*Very minor spoiler warning*] Oh and I remember this: when we follow Tessa in Africa, we are shown glimpses of some very intriguing African stage play, nice cinematic thing... then suddenly formulaic "african" music pops up in the score (so they think we don't know we're in Africa?) and we fall from genuine to artificial in a second.

And the critics encourage this messy, fashion-victim way of making films. Appalling.

Children of Men (2006)

« 2027, an earthly odyssey » or the long-waited return of realism and true craftsmanship in mainstream cinema

[10/10 · 10 November 2006]

Visionary, honest and intelligent director at work. Celebrate.

This is the most meticulous cinematic work I've seen since Polanski's « The Pianist ». In terms of production complexity, richness and attention to detail, it's up there with « 2001 » (hence the title of this review). Everything, down to the smallest details, has benefited from an incredible commitment to sheer excellency, in-your-face realism, and at no point during the movie has my attention been drawn away by some awkward compromise that are so abundant in mainstream movies (with the exception of some dialog lines that seemed out of place, but they were scarce and were not that annoying).

At the purely cinematic level (dynamic staging + sets + placement of the eye + camera-work + lightning + colour + editing + effects integration), this is something that probably even De Palma couldn't have pulled off. The fluidity is so perfect and all the elements come together so seamlessly that this movie feels like first-class classical music. Actually it's technically so brilliant that it will be very difficult to outperform in the years to come. Yes, it's that good. Viewers who couldn't notice this extraordinary achievement in cinema while claiming they understand cinema, seriously need some education in what the medium really is, or should stop on the spot pretending they know what they're talking about.

Among the 933 movies that I've seen up to this day, I dare say that "Children of men" is the greatest cinematic achievement in the mainstream movie system, with the exception, maybe, of "2001" and "The Abyss". It's not an "aesthetically", "artistic" cinematic work though, it's very far from Kar Wai Wong, Greenaway, Zang Yimou, Jeunet's "Amélie" or Cuaron's own "A little princess". It's downright realistic, in a way no movie of a similar scope has ever been. It's not art-house, yet it should please even the most picky art-house lovers out there, from the mind-blowing film-making craftsmanship.

This stunning cinematic realism is strongly enhanced by several very long (up to 8 minutes!) real-time / single shot very, very complex action sequences, that are extremely powerful and must have been so tricky to pull off that the simple fact to imagine how they did pull it off gives me headaches. Even the overture sequence in "Snake Eyes" pales in comparison (which is a lot to say). In a modern movie world where almost everything we see is made from bits and pieces of heterogeneous scenes loosely glued together by frantic editing, this shines bright and puts to shame a couple of popular directors working with insanely high budgets with an increasingly complacent attitude (you know who I'm thinking of).

I would have very much liked to comment on the substance of the movie (which is almost as excellent as the execution) both at the story and subtext level, but found it impossible to do so without giving away too much plot elements. So I'll just say that if you've been enthralled by the meta-stories from some of these: "Le Procès", "1984", "Brazil", "The Pianist", "Blade Runner", "Hair", "Requiem for a Dream", "A Clockwork Orange", "The Devils", "Minority report", "V for Vendetta", "Merci la vie", "Full metal Jacket", "Andrey Rublyov", "Al-Massir", you'll find in "Children of men" a lot to feed your thoughts and… long talks with your friends.

And even if you dismiss all of the subtext, it's still one hell of a ride at the basic entertainment level. Enjoy!

Hostel (2005)

Exploitative, artless and offensive piece of trash

[3/10 · 6 November 2006]

All is in the title. This movie is utterly despicable.

Dozens of B horror movies are infinitely better than this heavily advertised sophomoric work, that is as imaginative and tasty as a cheap hamburger. And morally offensive at that, from it's idiotic and male-chauvinism views on sex, women and teenage culture. Not counting its disgusting anti-European agenda. Heewww, heeww, quite smelly.

Even the violence itself is colorless, formulaic and derivative. Is it on purpose? If so, I couldn't find any reason other than exploitative ones.

Want shocks? Here are some "shock" movies with at least some intelligence or artistic values:

"Last house on the left" - "Braindead" (unrated version) - "Irréversible" - "Seul contre tous" - "Deliverance" - "Videodrome" - "Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma" - "Pulp fiction"...

Naked Lunch (1991)

"Its a Kafka high.."

[9/10 · 6 November 2006]

and a hell of a trip! Cronenberg mixed elements from the "Naked lunch" novel with elements from Burrough's life and some of Burrough's other novels (obviously "the Exterminator"), to pull off this brilliantly hallucinogenic, unsettling and extremely funny piece of film.

For people who like strange, haunting, unsettling, larger-than-life movies with an edge ("Brazil", "Delicatessen", "Erendira", "Satyricon", "Eraserhead", "The Devils", "Santa Sangre", and of course Cronenberg's "Existenz"...) - count me in -, this is a real treat.

Perhaps David's most beautiful cinematic achievement to date (these color schemes are mesmerizing!), Naked Lunch has a great sense of humor that won't be perceived as such by many movie-goers, just like with most other Cronenberg movies, that are mistakenly taken as dead serious works.

Giant bugs with talking anuses, centipedes and cockroaches, typewriters as characters, nested/folded hallucinations... a hell of a trip, and I enjoy every single second of it.

"A literary high", "a Kafka high"... a Cronenberg high. One of my favorite movies ever. Highly recommended unless you live in a artistically sanitized world - you'd only be disgusted and confused. Oh and beware, keep the kids away, this is strictly adult stuff.

The Godfather Part II (1974)

I feel totally disconnected...

[5/10 · 2 November 2006]

So this is something that ranks as #2 on IMDb... this time I think I have to face the fact that I'm totally disconnected from the vast majority of movie addicts. So take this review with a grain of salt: I'm an outsider, definitely.

I kinda liked the first Godfather, while not considering it as great cinema I found it engaging, well put together, with strong moments, all in all a good movie. Not so here. To me this was excruciatingly boring.

I actually liked the overture scenes very much. Then we leave Italy for the USA, and after 40 minutes I was still waiting for something to vaguely interest me. These endless contrived stories about the Italian Mafia (mob) have become such a cliché in movies that it's impossible for me to attend all this convoluted, ultra-codified stuff without getting successively amused, then annoyed, then plain bored. So when the cinematic and staging aspects are great, like in SCARFACE or ONCE UPON A TIME IN America, I just take that stuff for what it is, a genre film bound by rules, and enjoy it from the great acting, direction and purely cinematic elements (in De Palma's case -Scarface- the fabulous camera eye, in Leone's case -Once upon a time- the mindblowing psychological staging and the terrific cinematography).

Here the staging is mostly sloppy, long parts of the movie feels like it's been produced too fast, with poor cinematography and loose acting, some others are just as good as in the first movie but they're too scarce.

Pretty average, exploitative, complacent stuff for me. Sorry, I've seen so many movies that I need much more than that to be impressed. As far as classics goes, I'd rather watch "12 angry men" or "Le Procès" for the 30rd time than another of these cliché-ridden mob movies.

Baraka (1992)

Food for the right part of the brain

[10/10 · 25 October 2006]

This is "Koyaanisqatsi " done right for the sensitive type.

Is it a film? I don't know. So if it's a good film, I don't know either.

This magnificent work, however, touched me more than any other movie I ever saw (and I've seen A LOT http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=757316). Must be because I just love to have the right part of my brain (the non-verbal, non-linear one) titillated, like in "Eraserhead", "2001", or long sequences without dialog in De Palma movies. And just like in "2001", when eschatologic implications are present, I'm all eyes and ears. I was with "Koyaanisqatsi" too, but for several reasons I didn't enjoy it much.

The first time I saw Baraka, when I got out the theater, I simply couldn't speak for half an hour, finding myself in the total incapacity of building sentences. The left part of my brain was kinda shut down. Great trip! *LOL*

There should be a special reward for the people who made this piece of Art, that is so timeless that it will certainly live longer than most filmed productions. Glorious 70mm cinematography with unique, breathtaking, unforgettable images.

Baraka is to be attended in premium conditions: no noise, no children running around the room, good 16/9 TV set, no hurry, no non-stop-talking "friend", good loudspeakers... it's quite worth the effort.

Koyaanisqatsi (1982)

Interesting and courageous, but kinda irritating and immature, audiovisual essay

[7/10 · 25 October 2006]

Sadly for Koyaanaqatsi, I saw "Baraka", another Ron Fricke's audiovisual metaphorical essay, before this one.

While I found Baraka so brilliant and fascinating that it instantly went up to the top 10 of my favorite movies list, I didn't care that much for Koyaanasqatsi.

It's still a very interesting essay, and has the great merit to be the first cinematic attempt (that I know of) to "talk" without words *at all*(there are a bunch of movies out there that do this, actually, but only in some scenes - like in "the Red shoes" or "2001")... but Koyaanaqatsi can't compete with Fricke's latest work, Baraka, that is not only much better conceived and directed, but has a much more adequate musical score. Sorry guys, but this Philip Glass score is, to my ears, simply very poor, almost sloppy. And it never goes along with the visual narrative, it just plays like if it had nothing to do with the images shown, which I found very annoying. I think the guy had it 100% right in "Candyman", though. Not so here.

Koyaanaqatsi is indeed a very interesting experience, and has of course gorgeous cinematography and stunning images (and an incredible name that I have to copy'n paste, LOL), but if you want the "real stuff", go for Fricke's more mature and deeply moving masterpiece, "Baraka".