I watched, amazed, as the colorful images of New York sprinted across the screen, in what felt like a film that could have been shot in 35mm (I imagine it probably was, too). The editing was superb, the sound was harsh and loud, and the putting together of the many loose improvised moments into one logical stream of suggestions and topics was uncanny. I was a student of the academy, and am still a full time musician (or try to be), so I knew it was going to be great, but nothing could have prepared me for how good it was. Though I have an affiliation with the project, I say unequivocally that I really enjoyed this film for how good it was. It's probably one of the most well put together documentaries I've ever seen... Don't hesitate to watch, you will finish holding your breath and feeling really good and creative. Especially if you love music and even more so if you make it yourself. I came home to write a piece of music after watching it.
Reviews
6 Reviews
True Detective
(2014– )
Gripping, Gritty, Gnarley, Brilliant
16 January 2014
Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. This is one of the finest debuts after the end of the behemoth that was Breaking Bad. It is, however, darker, sinister and more tense than BB's first season, boasting the same level of uncanny actor performance... Mcconaughey's character is a multi layered, conflict ridden pessimistic, walking black whole with a uniform and a brilliant mind, Harrelson plays the family man cop with a bigger heart and a down to earth perspective - the clashes of both ways of life are amazing and when both actors discuss deep topics, each with his own take on life, it's as good as anything they've ever played. The story is shocking and still simple so far (only first episode has aired at the time of this review) which it makes up for in the awesomeness of the pagan thematic, it leaves plenty of hints and cliff hangers at the end of the first episode so there may still be very interesting twists to it. Directing is exemplar in shots, pace, dialogue and I even enjoy the color balance. Editing is phenomenal too. Very highly recommended!
This season's end is the biggest mockery anyone has ever made of my time
23 September 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I'm sorry, I'm not one to review movies or series online, I usually keep my opinions to myself.
But I must ask - even if just aloud - what the hell where these people thinking, wrapping this up like this? Could there be a more void, predictable, pointless, tacky way of ending this series?
I will have to put up a topic that will address the endless amount of absurdities this episode - and in fact this whole series - had to it (appart from the terrible, utterly terrible dialogs and the nonsense ridden narrative plot that ends in ambiguity leaving a bitter, acrid taste of a huge letdown)... it's like the cast and writers where forced to make one last season.
I was hooked on Dexter from the first season onward, it's almost unbelievable how long ago that was! It was my first real TV experience, my first love for a series, my first addiction to a show that wasn't Seinfeld. It was better than Lost at the time - for me, it was the best of the best, the tensest of the tense, the most edgy writing... and it ends like the worlds saddest thing...
And it now ends, and I feel I've been swindled, tricked into it. A sort of frustration I can only pair up to what it would be like if your parents say they'll give you an Xbox for Xmas, but when you get there you open the present and realize you're only getting a pair of socks. Like a cold, relieving hand job a nurse gives to an old paralyzed patient as palliative care.
It was TV's lowest point for me so far. I was really hoping for something better and I could imagine 50 alternative endings that would involve magic stuff like dragons and goblins, and still make it stick better than what I just saw.
I'm sorry guys... but it feels like you chickened out. This killer deserved better.
PS. Some specific thoughts I just have to share will follow... *spoiler*
"why the hell will he want to commit suicide if his sister's last dying wishes where for him to BE HAPPY??"
"why would they show him working a lumberyard???? WHY?????? Why not at a pharmacy or at a chemical plant, a microscope factory, a slaughterhouse... or something that would be a little more credible... Why is he crying like a little girl after walking out on his family??? WHY??? what sense is there in that? no longer a killer and no longer with Harrison?? what? how??"
So much more could follow... but it'd be a waste of time. I'm sorry. I'm truly sad.
But I must ask - even if just aloud - what the hell where these people thinking, wrapping this up like this? Could there be a more void, predictable, pointless, tacky way of ending this series?
I will have to put up a topic that will address the endless amount of absurdities this episode - and in fact this whole series - had to it (appart from the terrible, utterly terrible dialogs and the nonsense ridden narrative plot that ends in ambiguity leaving a bitter, acrid taste of a huge letdown)... it's like the cast and writers where forced to make one last season.
I was hooked on Dexter from the first season onward, it's almost unbelievable how long ago that was! It was my first real TV experience, my first love for a series, my first addiction to a show that wasn't Seinfeld. It was better than Lost at the time - for me, it was the best of the best, the tensest of the tense, the most edgy writing... and it ends like the worlds saddest thing...
And it now ends, and I feel I've been swindled, tricked into it. A sort of frustration I can only pair up to what it would be like if your parents say they'll give you an Xbox for Xmas, but when you get there you open the present and realize you're only getting a pair of socks. Like a cold, relieving hand job a nurse gives to an old paralyzed patient as palliative care.
It was TV's lowest point for me so far. I was really hoping for something better and I could imagine 50 alternative endings that would involve magic stuff like dragons and goblins, and still make it stick better than what I just saw.
I'm sorry guys... but it feels like you chickened out. This killer deserved better.
PS. Some specific thoughts I just have to share will follow... *spoiler*
"why the hell will he want to commit suicide if his sister's last dying wishes where for him to BE HAPPY??"
"why would they show him working a lumberyard???? WHY?????? Why not at a pharmacy or at a chemical plant, a microscope factory, a slaughterhouse... or something that would be a little more credible... Why is he crying like a little girl after walking out on his family??? WHY??? what sense is there in that? no longer a killer and no longer with Harrison?? what? how??"
So much more could follow... but it'd be a waste of time. I'm sorry. I'm truly sad.
Give 'em Hell Malone
(2009)
In absolute truth...
29 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I first caught sight of this movie through a small article on a flick site. The theme interested me, and Ving on the cast made me rent it.
James is not the best actor in the world, surely not as bad as his older lookalike, Lambert, but it's not fair to say he's not right for the part. I thought he was the only guy acting like the movie needed him to. I felt a lot of genre satire, and his apparent over-the-topping was precisely what I thought made Malone a pleasant character. Don't forget he did the amazing Stander in 2003, and worked great with Deborah Unger (now, she's something else...). Although he also did the pitiful Punisher.
As for Elsa... what a disappointment! Her Spanish- Italian accent makes the character sound like an amateur Pakistani singer trying to qualify for American Idol. Stupid accent, absurd acting... but a fine looking woman nonetheless. But in reality, the biggest casting mistake was here... a more skilled actress, or at least, one who had a proper believable accent perhaps. (I doubt an emigrant could be so eloquent and yet have such a weird accent, so that made her totally over the top).
Then, the "villain", Whitmore... never saw that actor before - that might not be a bad thing, though. But it was, he never felt dense, intense, or cruel... it's like he sounds like a detached and unrelated personage, someone who does not fit the movie. His output is the most evidently out of sync and the weakest of all, but I don't think this was a casting mistake - it's just bad writing and bad directing.
Then there's so many holes in the writing... when Matchstick holds the kerosene against Evelyn and stupid Malone doesn't shoot his ass. What could he do? Wet her full of kerosene?
I thought there was more attention given to the dialogs of Malone and Evelyn, and the speeches of Matchstick, that with any other character's discourse. Of course, Matchstick is annoying after 2 minutes into the film... his over-predictable and over-stereotyped infancy stories, his over-obsessed body language (the site does no allow me to use the proper scientific word for spacial body management) and his stubborn persistence throughout all the film kill the few moments of glory that Hutchison can provide for his faulty character.
Finally, the real great character... Frankie The Crooner, played by the hilarious French Stewart. I hadn't seen Stewart since his 3rd rock from the sun days. In this movie I got to hear him swear and play a pimp crooner wannabee. Loved his look, feel, output, delivery, all perfect. Too bad he's not cast more often.
Also the Stallone conspiracy: the car (1952 Chop Top Buick Straight 8) is the same as in Cobra, the mom is the same character idea as in "Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot"... I see a Stallone pattern. I also agree that Matchstick is a timid attempt at recreating a villain as cunning and cruel as the Joker - the myth portrayed by the eternal Ledger, that Ving's Boulder is a rip off of Miller's Sin City character, Manute... and that the Mauler is the other Asian ninja hooker in Sin City, but she actually speaks (although poorly) in this flick. So a lot of this film is a collection of faulty rip-offs. Even the name Malone has been used countless times in this genre before!
Seriously, you need a writer? I'll script you right up!
Final words: it's a 5 for me. Because for all it's faulty downsides, it's actually a reasonably fun and funny film to watch, against all expectations. Something in it's imperfections makes it oddly unique, and almost so-bad-it's-good. There's something that came out OK in the end for me, but I can't really say what it was... maybe I was impressed by the first 3 minutes (the best part), and gave the rest a "discount". But I think it's the better part of the dialogs (as I hated the editing, too), I thought was funny, had verve and could keep me there, waiting for the next cheap and clever punch line. Or the cool car (rip-off, nonetheless), or the automatic revolver, or the way Malone was always half dead... or Pataki's swift nude scene. Well, I thought the movie had enough effort in it for me to deliberate and expose a supported opinion has a lover of all cinema, from mainstream to under-achieved.
James is not the best actor in the world, surely not as bad as his older lookalike, Lambert, but it's not fair to say he's not right for the part. I thought he was the only guy acting like the movie needed him to. I felt a lot of genre satire, and his apparent over-the-topping was precisely what I thought made Malone a pleasant character. Don't forget he did the amazing Stander in 2003, and worked great with Deborah Unger (now, she's something else...). Although he also did the pitiful Punisher.
As for Elsa... what a disappointment! Her Spanish- Italian accent makes the character sound like an amateur Pakistani singer trying to qualify for American Idol. Stupid accent, absurd acting... but a fine looking woman nonetheless. But in reality, the biggest casting mistake was here... a more skilled actress, or at least, one who had a proper believable accent perhaps. (I doubt an emigrant could be so eloquent and yet have such a weird accent, so that made her totally over the top).
Then, the "villain", Whitmore... never saw that actor before - that might not be a bad thing, though. But it was, he never felt dense, intense, or cruel... it's like he sounds like a detached and unrelated personage, someone who does not fit the movie. His output is the most evidently out of sync and the weakest of all, but I don't think this was a casting mistake - it's just bad writing and bad directing.
Then there's so many holes in the writing... when Matchstick holds the kerosene against Evelyn and stupid Malone doesn't shoot his ass. What could he do? Wet her full of kerosene?
I thought there was more attention given to the dialogs of Malone and Evelyn, and the speeches of Matchstick, that with any other character's discourse. Of course, Matchstick is annoying after 2 minutes into the film... his over-predictable and over-stereotyped infancy stories, his over-obsessed body language (the site does no allow me to use the proper scientific word for spacial body management) and his stubborn persistence throughout all the film kill the few moments of glory that Hutchison can provide for his faulty character.
Finally, the real great character... Frankie The Crooner, played by the hilarious French Stewart. I hadn't seen Stewart since his 3rd rock from the sun days. In this movie I got to hear him swear and play a pimp crooner wannabee. Loved his look, feel, output, delivery, all perfect. Too bad he's not cast more often.
Also the Stallone conspiracy: the car (1952 Chop Top Buick Straight 8) is the same as in Cobra, the mom is the same character idea as in "Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot"... I see a Stallone pattern. I also agree that Matchstick is a timid attempt at recreating a villain as cunning and cruel as the Joker - the myth portrayed by the eternal Ledger, that Ving's Boulder is a rip off of Miller's Sin City character, Manute... and that the Mauler is the other Asian ninja hooker in Sin City, but she actually speaks (although poorly) in this flick. So a lot of this film is a collection of faulty rip-offs. Even the name Malone has been used countless times in this genre before!
Seriously, you need a writer? I'll script you right up!
Final words: it's a 5 for me. Because for all it's faulty downsides, it's actually a reasonably fun and funny film to watch, against all expectations. Something in it's imperfections makes it oddly unique, and almost so-bad-it's-good. There's something that came out OK in the end for me, but I can't really say what it was... maybe I was impressed by the first 3 minutes (the best part), and gave the rest a "discount". But I think it's the better part of the dialogs (as I hated the editing, too), I thought was funny, had verve and could keep me there, waiting for the next cheap and clever punch line. Or the cool car (rip-off, nonetheless), or the automatic revolver, or the way Malone was always half dead... or Pataki's swift nude scene. Well, I thought the movie had enough effort in it for me to deliberate and expose a supported opinion has a lover of all cinema, from mainstream to under-achieved.
The Office
(2001–2003)
Brent VS Scott , Keenan VS Schrute...
9 November 2009
Much has been written about the contrasts between both versions, I do think it's a cruel and unfair exaggeration to say the American version is inferior. In the end, they key issues under the events that unfold are slightly different in either case. Brent is an execrable self centered cruel and ignorant bastard, Scott is an attention seeking, needy little sod that can be as self centered as he can be self-less. One is all evil, the other is all heart, and both are brilliantly portrayed... but when Brent gets sacked, you love it... when Scott gets sacked, you feel sorry for the poor guy. This sort of describes the minor differences in the mind frame of each set up.
Then of course, Gareth... and Dwight. First of all, having this para-military evil geek that only speaks to say nonsense works better if he looks bigger, indeed... the original character seems to be weaker both in mind and body than the American counterpart, and does not work as well in the dynamic. Then, of course, Tim/Jim. Jim is more confident than Tim, less sorry for himself, and I'd say funnier. But perhaps because the American version focuses more on this character than the British original... the American version tries to appeal to the audience's projection of themselves either through Jim or through Pam, while the British version centers it's action on the loath you feel towards Brent.
So, all to say, the thematics seem evidently different, and the overall picture is clearly not the same on each version, making them, in my opinion very different shows, where the American comes out as a more humorous and silly bunch, and the Brit comes off as a bleak, irritating, inhumane portrait of mediocrity. The Brit, more intense and harder... the American, funnier and easier. None necessarily better of worse, but it's clearly less of a challenge to watch the American version, but the American is also evidently lacking some of the depth the British version sometimes shows... but since both are brilliantly well written, I can't really say there is one superior version. I'm Office dependent either way and accept all the characters.
I would love to see Brent give a motivational speech in Scranton, though...
Then of course, Gareth... and Dwight. First of all, having this para-military evil geek that only speaks to say nonsense works better if he looks bigger, indeed... the original character seems to be weaker both in mind and body than the American counterpart, and does not work as well in the dynamic. Then, of course, Tim/Jim. Jim is more confident than Tim, less sorry for himself, and I'd say funnier. But perhaps because the American version focuses more on this character than the British original... the American version tries to appeal to the audience's projection of themselves either through Jim or through Pam, while the British version centers it's action on the loath you feel towards Brent.
So, all to say, the thematics seem evidently different, and the overall picture is clearly not the same on each version, making them, in my opinion very different shows, where the American comes out as a more humorous and silly bunch, and the Brit comes off as a bleak, irritating, inhumane portrait of mediocrity. The Brit, more intense and harder... the American, funnier and easier. None necessarily better of worse, but it's clearly less of a challenge to watch the American version, but the American is also evidently lacking some of the depth the British version sometimes shows... but since both are brilliantly well written, I can't really say there is one superior version. I'm Office dependent either way and accept all the characters.
I would love to see Brent give a motivational speech in Scranton, though...
The Perfect Sleep
(2009)
Fair is Fair
15 June 2009
I've just finished watching this... it's in my VLC player for two days. The main reason why it took me so long to go through it is that I find things that I love about it, and on the other hand I find things that I can't believe are so very poor and almost make vomit... and so this dichotomy makes the movie a hard piece to swallow.
I'll try to name a few of the negative aspects first:
1. The plot line seems confused and overly complex, and the poor graphic details of the movie make it pale and uninteresting to look at (which, if it where not the case, could help create interest on the viewer's part to keep pace with the strange and intricate family drama)
2. There are hardly any other actors apart from the characters; this means there are little to no extras, no population, no sense of society... all it looks like is a void and empty sequence of dark scenarios with little to no discerning features whatsoever... Making the whole thing a little too often look like a sequence of amateur theater shoots. In other words, the director and producers did not bother to put any effort into making the environment of the film credible. It isn't at any time delivering any kind of veracity to the possibility of the story ever finding an imaginable realm where it could take place.
3. Things don't seem too thought out. The main character is a prince, or some kind of bastard descendant of a ruler... but he does not behave like one. You can hardly piece together how he lived his life, why he is hunted down (right at the beginning), or why is his brother convinced that he is somehow responsible for his father's death. I mean... it doesn't feel like a noble family's intuitive dynamic at all, certainly not like the type on a Dostoievsky novel.
4. It looks like it's a student project, because the acting is so over the top, on a few of the parts... Other, elder, actors are brilliant. The difference is astounding. There seems to be no effort to push the younger actors into delivering a real credible performance. It feels very strange.
OK, on to the good parts:
1. The dialogs. They really present a vocabulary experience that is close to film noir classics, and and times is so poetic and powerful that it actually makes you think of Russian novels. It seems to be very well written throughout, but poorly executed. I almost need to close my eyes to the sad spectacle of the movie, to listen to the character's amazing discourse on some parts. The main character is poorly crafted, I thought... It lacked coherence in it's actions, some real sense of integrity, I feel the way it is both shown and interpreted is very silly, exaggerated and completely nonsensical.
2. Some of the acting is amazing, Tony Amendola especially! I rarely see such talent in an actor... he was the only one (maybe alongside Patrick Bachau) that picked up the text and brought it to a credible output... and he stands out brilliantly.
3. The fighting. Well, I thought fights here would be ridiculous... in the context of the dramatic feud that takes place through the plot. But in the end, they are quite contrary, almost the best this film has to show. They seem well rehearsed, well executed and choreographed, and look pretty cool. Too bad the scenarios in which they take place are so lame, and incoherent... Where it not for that, the fight scenes would be some of the most consistent I've seen.
4. The sense of sympathy. The core idea of this film seems to be so appealing, I can almost imagine this script beating the crap out of a Frank Miller adaptation of Sin City. I can compare this title to "The Spirit"... "The Spirit" has a million dollar budget, looks brilliant, but it's absolutely horrible (week and whack storyline, terrible acting, horrendously tedious and terrible directing), but "The Perfect Sleep" - if it had better and more consistent casting and directing - and the visual investments of "The Spirit" could have been a fabulous work of art. It feels like something that should be re-done by some serious experts, because I believe there would be much better ways of delivering the script.
In the end, it's hardly worth watching unless you don't have anything better to do. I hope this helped... My vote of 5 goes to the writers and the initial concept that could have been brilliantly executed, to the idea that could have been... And an incentive to Pardoe, who imagined it, to learn from this experience and do better next time.
I'll try to name a few of the negative aspects first:
1. The plot line seems confused and overly complex, and the poor graphic details of the movie make it pale and uninteresting to look at (which, if it where not the case, could help create interest on the viewer's part to keep pace with the strange and intricate family drama)
2. There are hardly any other actors apart from the characters; this means there are little to no extras, no population, no sense of society... all it looks like is a void and empty sequence of dark scenarios with little to no discerning features whatsoever... Making the whole thing a little too often look like a sequence of amateur theater shoots. In other words, the director and producers did not bother to put any effort into making the environment of the film credible. It isn't at any time delivering any kind of veracity to the possibility of the story ever finding an imaginable realm where it could take place.
3. Things don't seem too thought out. The main character is a prince, or some kind of bastard descendant of a ruler... but he does not behave like one. You can hardly piece together how he lived his life, why he is hunted down (right at the beginning), or why is his brother convinced that he is somehow responsible for his father's death. I mean... it doesn't feel like a noble family's intuitive dynamic at all, certainly not like the type on a Dostoievsky novel.
4. It looks like it's a student project, because the acting is so over the top, on a few of the parts... Other, elder, actors are brilliant. The difference is astounding. There seems to be no effort to push the younger actors into delivering a real credible performance. It feels very strange.
OK, on to the good parts:
1. The dialogs. They really present a vocabulary experience that is close to film noir classics, and and times is so poetic and powerful that it actually makes you think of Russian novels. It seems to be very well written throughout, but poorly executed. I almost need to close my eyes to the sad spectacle of the movie, to listen to the character's amazing discourse on some parts. The main character is poorly crafted, I thought... It lacked coherence in it's actions, some real sense of integrity, I feel the way it is both shown and interpreted is very silly, exaggerated and completely nonsensical.
2. Some of the acting is amazing, Tony Amendola especially! I rarely see such talent in an actor... he was the only one (maybe alongside Patrick Bachau) that picked up the text and brought it to a credible output... and he stands out brilliantly.
3. The fighting. Well, I thought fights here would be ridiculous... in the context of the dramatic feud that takes place through the plot. But in the end, they are quite contrary, almost the best this film has to show. They seem well rehearsed, well executed and choreographed, and look pretty cool. Too bad the scenarios in which they take place are so lame, and incoherent... Where it not for that, the fight scenes would be some of the most consistent I've seen.
4. The sense of sympathy. The core idea of this film seems to be so appealing, I can almost imagine this script beating the crap out of a Frank Miller adaptation of Sin City. I can compare this title to "The Spirit"... "The Spirit" has a million dollar budget, looks brilliant, but it's absolutely horrible (week and whack storyline, terrible acting, horrendously tedious and terrible directing), but "The Perfect Sleep" - if it had better and more consistent casting and directing - and the visual investments of "The Spirit" could have been a fabulous work of art. It feels like something that should be re-done by some serious experts, because I believe there would be much better ways of delivering the script.
In the end, it's hardly worth watching unless you don't have anything better to do. I hope this helped... My vote of 5 goes to the writers and the initial concept that could have been brilliantly executed, to the idea that could have been... And an incentive to Pardoe, who imagined it, to learn from this experience and do better next time.
Tell Your Friends