Change Your Image
showa48
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (2022)
Pretty, but dissappointing.
Given all the debate about the series beforehand, I was willing to give it a chance for a couple of episodes, too see for myself how it was really going and how it really was. The first 2-3 episodes were kinda alright, a little to the slow side, but I thought that it might pick up steam later on. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened. The latest episode (ep. 5) was the slowest one yet. The numenoreans basically ended the same place they started: On their own island. Not much better for the harfoots, that just wandered and encountered some vargs (which, by the way, was the most exiting battle in ALL 5 episides yet..).
If slowness was the series' only problem, that could be forgiven. Unfortunately, it suffers from a host of other problem. Chief among them are:
1) Bad manuscript/story; examples:
-Numenoreans are, supposedly mankind's finest - start acting like that.
-Galadriel has no learning curve and no real challenges. She is just perfect from the beginning. That doesn't make for a very interesting or engaging story (engaging story: Think Aragorn's arc...) -
Halbrand changes his mind constantly. Why? -Orcs can and cannot move in daylight - the writers and director should make up their mind.
2) Feels "cheap", although billion $$$ budget. The costumes, sets and CGI simply don't look like a billion US$. Another example: Numenor's pathetic fleet to Middle Earth. Don't they scare Sauron so badly that he gives up without a fight?!
3) (this one more for the Tolkien purists): It simply steers too far avay from the lore by now (elves need mithril to survive...?!) So all in all: 3/10. Very dissappointing..
Serenity (2005)
Cheap Star Wars meets cheap Aliens and cheap Equilibrium...
...Dön't get me wrong: A big budget (cough cough "Titanic") does not guarantee a good movie. It was the whole feeling of cheapness, that permeated this movie, that bothers me.
The acting, the dialogue, the plot and the SFX all seemed cheap, compared to other movies. It is not a budget problem as such, but more a problem of wanting to be everything for everyone at the same time - and ultimately failing at all fronts at the same time.
-I am not usually good at spotting plot twist, but the operative turning in the end could (and should...!!) be seen miles away.
-The action scenes looked and felt like cheap copies of Star Wars and Aliens.
-The dialogue was cringeworthy to sit thru at times (Example: The sexual tension between two of the characters, the operative being so darn stereotypically "bureaucratic evil" etc.).
I understand that the movie is based on a series, but as this is IMDb it is fair to judge this movie as a standalone product - ie. you cannot expect the audience having seen or being knowledgeable about the universe of the series beforehand. And as a movie, it fails to deliver.
Mibu gishi den (2002)
Excellent first 2/3. Last 1/3 bad and sugary-sweet
(There might be small inaccuracies in this review, because I saw the movie 1 year ago).
This movie starts out with a mini-mystery of a kind: Two seemingly non-connected persons (a modern, western-style doctor and an aging samurai) meets - and discover they do have a link, namely a third man: Kanichiro Yoshimura.
The plot thickens when we gradually find out that one of the men (the doctor) almost only knows the man for his good sides (unselfishness, family man, etc.), while the other man (the aging samurai) only knows the man for his bad sides (greed, cowardliness, being a ridiculous clown, etc.). This is in itself a very interesting way to start a movie, and a surefire way to keep the viewer wondering: What IS the truth about this man - if there is any single truth....
In the first (and good) 2/3's of the movie, these two views are gradually combined into one consistent picture of the enigmatic Kanichiro Yoshimura: He would do anything, no matter how low, to support his family back home. This part of the movie, with the gradual revelation of the Kanichiro Yoshimura's past is really well-made, and in itself deserves praise.
The bad part starts when we have watched about 2/3's if the movie, hence the headline of this review. For some reason the point-of-view changes to Kanichiro Yoshimura's. Suddenly he seemingly forgets everything about his family's survival (and the director forgets how the Kanichiro Yoshimura-character had been until then). He starts throwing himself into massed ranks of enemies with rifles, only armed with two swords. While he survives that, the movie doesn't quite "survive", and instead devolves into a series of sentimental tear-jerkers, involving both Kanichiro Yoshimura and the persons around him. I just ask: Where in the world did the old (...and WAY more fascinating and ambiguous) Kanichiro Yoshimura go?!?!? Wby this sudden change in character?!
Conclusion: A movie, which could have been good, had it not been for the strange character development and overt sentimentalism of the last 1/3 of the movie.
Vote: 6/10.
Spider-Man (2002)
ups and downs
As I see it, Spiderman has some good parts to it, but unfortunately one large drawback
(some spoilers)
The good parts: 1. The viewers follow Spiderman right from the (nerdy) beginning, where he starts out being the "wimpy and weird" kid in the class, and indeed in the entire high school. We see the blue-collar neighborhood where he grew up as well. This is all done very believable, and especially the uncle and aunt of Spiderman/Peter Parker are portrayed very heart-warmingly and realistically.
2. Comical/self-irony reliefs: Spiderman is portrayed as far less self-righteous and self-inflated than, for example, Batman. Especially the "wrestling scene", where Peter, having discovered his super abilities, wants to raise money by fighting "Bone Saw" for three minutes.
..And some other scenes/aspects of the movie..
The Bad Part: The Green Goblin. This must be one of the worst things I have ever seen, when it comes to "bad guys". After Norman/Green Goblin killed the board of the company, who fired him, he essentially seems to have no other motivation in his life as a super-baddie than bothering and bugging Spiderman. It is believable that he has some kind of subconscious grudge against Spiderman, but that his entire existence hinges on either "turning over to the dark side" or, alternatively, destroying Spiderman is not entirely believable or fulfilling. This is simply too little for a full-length feature!!
Der ewige Jude (1940)
Perhaps the most effective propaganda movie ever made.
Looking away from the content, and seen strictly as a movie whose purpose is propaganda and instilling hatred and dislike of jews, this movie did it's job very well.
If you see this movie as a document of the general atmosphere at that time (60 years ago, already dislike of jews in NS-Germany, lower educational level among the public in general, etc.) you can easily imagine how effective it was.
As an illustration of the atmosphere in prewar, nazi-Germany for the historically interested, this movie is a good document.
Citizen Kane (1941)
Possibly the most overrated movie ever...
I saw Citizen Kane (CK) some years ago, but the sense of deep dissappointment still lingers on.
Some points.
1. The storyline in CK: Inching ahead, tiresome, drawn-out, and at some points directly boring. Other movies from this era (and other eras) are far better. When "Rosebud" is mentioned the umpteenth time, I lost all interest - simply too thin a plot for my likings. This doesn't have something to do with the age of the movie or that is it black/white, simply my opinion about the story.
2. CK as a portrait of the archetypical "Great man, who ultimately fails".
This is done a lot better elsewhere. Need I mention Michael Corleone in the Godfather series. Doughboy in "Boys in the Hood" also makes for a far better and more believable "Great man, who fails at the personal/relational level" as well. Of course, I realize that CK came before these movies, but that doesn't quite make up for all of it. I simply don't find CK believable or interesting as a character.
Some of my disappointment possibly stems from all the "hype" CK has received thru the times, but not all of it. Usually I tend to like what serious critics acclaim as "great movies", but this time I found myself completely at odds with the moviewatcher "establishment".
3/10
Ying xiong (2002)
Machiavellian...
(Contains some spoilers)
The easiest part of Hero was enjoying the scenery and the use of colors - really well-made and captivating. Hero is definately technically a very superb movie.
The harder part is the messages contained in the movie. The "individual desires vs. the collective good" and "competing loyalties" themes seem to have a strong resonance with east asian storytellers. Hero contains both of those dilemmas in it - and the solutions it poses doesn't go too well with some western viewers (a swedish reviewer called it "beautifully wrapped fascism").
I disagree with this; in the end both "Broken Sword", "Nameless" and King Shihuang (the king of the Qin kingdom, who the four warriors "Nameless", Broken Sword, Flying Snow, and Sky sets out to kill) puts "the collective" (the Qin kingdom, and eventually united China) ahead of "the individual".
However: King Shihuang's lust for power is NOT greater than he is willing to let himself get killed by Nameless after listening to Nameless' story about the sacrifice Broken Sword made (the throne room scene in the end of the movie). Shihuang is as much a "spoke in the wheel" as Nameless, Broken Sword and the two other warriors, hence I cannot interpret the messages as "fascistic" in any way. It's message (as I see it) is that the system sometimes comes ahead of the individual, however excellent those individuals are....AND that in the end it DOESN'T matter whether Shihuang or somebody else unites China, what matters is that it gets done.....