greenbeavervideo Reviews

Room 237 (I) (2012)

One giant waste of money and time!

[1/10 · 6 October 2013]

I can't believe I paid to see this. I will regret it for the rest of my life. This is not a serious analysis of a film. Instead, it is an extremely subjective look at mindless theories and over reaching for meanings that are simply not there. The best way to put it is that this "documentary" is a joke. Please stay away and do not take it seriously in any way, shape, or form. If you don't take my word for it, you can find an article by the New York Times that lays it out for you. They interviewed Kubrick's assistant Leon Vitali about this ridiculous and amateurish piece of crap. The article breaks down why this "documentary" should never be watched by anyone and you can easily find the article on line.

What's worst, it's not as if this "documentary" offers one lunatic's theory of what Kubrick's intentions and meaning was for his film "The Shining". Instead, you get SEVERAL lunatic's theories of what the film was really about. They all contradict each other and one makes less sense than the other. In addition, the production value is horrible. It is as if it was put together in someone's basement, just like hundreds of conspiracy videos you can find on youtube.

Just do yourself a favor a stay away.

Inception (2010)

Is this a very entertaining movie? YES!! Is this a masterpiece? Nooooooo!

[8/10 · 7 December 2010]

First off, this is indeed a really good movie, probably the best I have seen this year. I can't wait to buy it on Bluray and watch it over and over. However, let's not kid ourselves, it falls very short of masterpiece/all time classic status.

When you think of this genre of movie, you can't help but think of The Matrix. That was a masterpiece in my opinion. And you can't help but draw comparison between these two films for many reasons, including the character of Arthur being made up to look like Neo and even having his wooden characteristics, not to mention that Arthur is in a scene obviously borrowed (cough, cough, stolen) from The Matrix's subway fight scene. What I love about The Matrix is how its universe is well explained and there's a solid logic behind everything. Notice I didn't say "perfect". You can go back and watch the movie and it all ties in together nicely. On the other hand, "Inception" explains the rules of its universe to the audience (quite a lot in the beginning) and I kept finding myself rolling my eyes and thinking, "that's convenient". Worst example is the "projections". Without these characters conveniently chasing people around, a lot of the story goes down the toilet, but the logic behind their actions is simply non existent. Another one is this whole thing about the "kick". Sure, gravity can wake you up from a dream. If you fall while asleep, your body will feel it and you will wake up. But please, to suggest that this concept would just magically work in a dream within a dream, within a dream is just ridiculous. There's the illusion of gravity in dreams, but no actual gravity, so wtf?

Then there are a lot of things not even explained. How does Cobb's dad spot someone who would be able to build multi level sets in a dream really well? Why does the chemist come along in the dream? You would think a strong action type guy would greatly advance the mission more so than a geek who doesn't add anything inside the dream. Why did Fischer go as far as to get training for fighting people who could invade his dreams, which means he fears his enemies, YET he has no problems getting on a ten hour plane ride BY HIMSELF!!!!!

I was also bothered by two other things that do not belong in a movie that wants to be labeled as a "classic": 1) Ken Watanabe is a good actor, but for the love of all things holy, can someone get this guy better English tutors? His English is worst than Jackie Chan's!!! You can tell he's saying something extremely crucial to the plot, but you can't understand any of it! 2) I know that a lot of action movies (yes, including The Matrix) take liberties with scenes featuring a shoot out. You always see the bad guys shooting away at the good guys at infinitum, yet not a single scratch on the good guys. We have now almost come to expect that in action movies, sadly. However, Inception abuses this concept beyond any reason. Bad guys empty machine guns within two feet of the good guy's vehicles, you see the bullet holes everywhere, YET, not a single scratch on anyone, except for one bullet. I don't mind suspension of disbelief for a good movie (which this is), but it got so bad that I was beginning to take it personal that a movie would try to insult my intelligence that much.

You will have a good time watching this movie, but like they said in South Park, just because there are a lot of twists, doesn't mean it's intelligent, and it's definitely not a masterpiece.

The Time Traveler's Wife (2009)

A lot of potential gone to waste!

[4/10 · 29 November 2010]

The trailer looked promising, but this movie was a huge let down.

The biggest mistake for me was having the main character appear through out the movie at different stages of his life, not chronologically, yet his appearance was basically the same. It created a lot of confusion for me. You don't know if it's the young him, the old him, or the older him. Adding a couple of gray hairs didn't really make any difference. At one point, the character goes to get a hair cut, and when he comes out, you can hardly tell; it looks like he just simply combed his hair. I saw it on Bluray, maybe in the theatres the time differences were more noticeable. I thought they could have done a better job of creating differences.

Besides the creepiness of seeing an adult male seducing a little girl, there were several other things that bothered me. He only traveled through time for a few minutes, so what was the need for stealing money like he did in the subway scene? It's convenient how he doesn't disappear at his wedding ceremony or when he has sex with wife in the future. Equally convenient how he never sees his daughter in his time travels until he finds out his wife is pregnant. He claims he can't change what happens, yet he never rally tries!! If he saw himself dying in a specific place on a specific day, why not go somewhere far away that day, at least to see what happens?!?! Instead, he has his wife invite a whole bunch of people over that day, WTF? If your life depended on it, wouldn't you try whatever it took?

Finally, liberals like to deny the existence of a liberal bias in Hollywood movies, yet, once again, a completely unnecessary shot (no pun intended) is taken at Republicans. They also produce tons of movies were the hero shoots multiple amounts of people, but then turn around and enjoy portraying hunters as villains. Just in kid's movies alone you'll find numerous hunters portrayed as villains. It's really laughable to think that Liberals in Hollywood actually think they can get away with offending a large amount of the audience.

Baraka (1992)

Great looking footage that gets too self indulgent.

[6/10 · 20 November 2010]

I had not heard of this movie until recently. It looks awesome on Bluray.

Let's get it out of the way, this is beautifully shot, it's very interesting, and the music is good too.

However, please, we should all (including the film makers) stop pretending that this represents human life. In real life, no matter where in the planet, things don't happen in slow motion, with "world beat" music in the background, and in optimal lighting. Same goes for the time lapse stuff. And don't get met started on the film maker's own admission (in the bonus features) that they staged some of the scenes. You can film many things in every day life, using the techniques of this film, and give an audience a completely different point of view than this film does. And if you don't think this film is trying to promote a particular point of view, then you really shouldn't vote or reproduce. Look at what the movie shows. They cut from crowds of humans in a large city, going through their daily routines, to crowds of baby chicks being sorted. You really don't think they are trying to tell you something and influence you?!?! Or when they cut from an aerial shot of a massive field crammed with US war planes to a Jewish soldier holding a rifle at the wailing wall and then to the burning fields of Kuwait, you really don't think there's a meaning in there? You think that order is a coincidence? Hmm, why is it that the footage of the native people is shown in slow motion, with beautiful harmonies in the background, yet the scenes in the cities are sped up and accompanied by frantic drums? If this film is supposed to be a representation of human life, why not show both at regular speed? Because if would be boring and not make any money for the film makers, who pretend to only be in it for the art.

This movie is beautiful to watch and shows cultures from around the world doing interesting things. But don't forget, it's footage from selected cultures, in selected countries, put together in a selected order, with music meant to manipulate your emotions as you watch. Don't take it too seriously, real life is quite different from this, that's what makes the movie fascinating.

Megamind (2010)

Good Story, Great Characters, Big Laughs

[7/10 · 16 November 2010]

This movie is not as good as other Dreamworks animated movies, but is still very good. I don't think the kids will like it as much as the adults. The themes explored are a little "dark" and the characters are quite layered and complex (for an animated movie), which is what I really liked about it, but I think it's a turn off for younger children. The humor is also geared more towards adults (probably 35+), as is the music. For me, I was vigorously laughing and slapping my knee during a "tribute" to Marlon Brando. I don't think many kids are familiar with the reference. It made it funnier for me having recently seen the Bluray version of Superman 2, with never before seen footage of Marlon Brando.

I do have to mention, as someone else did, that I was disappointed with how much Megamind looked like Gallaxhar (from another Dreamworks movie: Monsters vs Aliens). They are both blue with giant heads. You would think that if you are designing an alien, you basically could get as creative as you want, so why simply replicate another character? Still, Megamind is a great character. The best villains are always the ones who have things about them that you like or can relate to. There is plenty of that in this character. As a matter of fact, all the main characters have something about them that is unexpected, except for one.

The biggest disappointment in the film was the character of Roxanne. I know she was designed to be a regular person, but that doesn't mean they had to design her to look so uninteresting and plain. I was amazed with how expressive Megamind's face was, yet Roxanne's character looked so bland. Tina Fey added absolutely nothing to the character, which is exactly what happened when she voiced a character in Ponyo. This woman is supposedly so funny, yet that hasn't been seen (or heard) on the big screen. Everyone else did a great job (David Cross was his usual awesome self).

By the way, shame on you Dreamworks for releasing a scene that basically gives away the biggest twist in the movie. Thanks a lot!

Catfish (2010)

I call shenanigans!!!

[5/10 · 21 September 2010]

Two huge problems with this movie:

1) It is advertised as having a "Sixth Sense" type of surprise twist that you "must see" before someone "spoils it" for you and that you will be taken on an "emotional roller-coaster ride" for the last 40 minutes. None of that is true, there is not a big bomb dropped at the end. What happens is slowly built up to. To use the roller-coaster analogy, two thirds of the movie is a slow ascent to the top, then the last third is a straight, unsatisfying, plateau. I was not totally surprised or shocked at the last part of the movie (they basically hint at it long before) and it was a HUGE let down if you go by the movie's advertising campaign.

2) This is not a documentary; at least a large part of it is not. The story has a lot of holes and you can catch the main guy acting, but there are also several technical give aways. This is supposedly shot with several cameras at the same time, all of varying sizes that produce various degrees of picture quality. One of them is of extremely high quality, very professional looking, and another looks like an ordinary small photo camera that happens to shoot video. At one point, we are supposed to believe we are looking from the angle of the cheap camera, yet the image is high quality!!! In a couple of places they used sound effects to help the story, and if they embellished the sound, you have to ask, what else did they embellish? I have used one of the cameras they have and when you are holding it and you move to place yourself in a better position, there's a certain look to that movement. The way their camera moved looked completely fabricated and unnatural, just like "Cloverfield", trying to achieve the "documentary" feel. In several spots, the lighting was just too good for something that was supposedly shot as it happened. The framing constantly looks heavily planned. There are some out of focus shots that are meant to suggest a "raw footage" feel, but were obviously on purpose.

I would probably had liked this movie much better if it had been released as a movie shot in documentary style and they didn't have this whole charade about it being real and about how awesome the ending is supposed to be. It has its moments, but there's no need to insult people's intelligence.

The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009)

It seems this movie was made just to milk one joke.

[3/10 · 31 May 2010]

So, Ewan McGregor played a Jedi in the Star Wars series and here he is in a move filled with Jedi references. Isn't that hilarious? Isn't that one of the funniest things ever?!? Well, the makers of this movie seem to think so. The movie is filled with scenes of McGregor's character discussing Jedis. You can almost see the actors wanting to wink at the camera as they imagine the audience rolling on the floor laughing at this bit of manufactured irony (over, and over, and over, and over again). I can't see any other reason why McGregor was cast other than to have this one running joke. His painful attempts at an American accent are a constant reminder that the role should have been given to someone else. He's not an American and he's not a wimp (which his character is supposed to be). He's being forced into the role just for this one joke, and basically, that's all there is in this movie, this one joke.

Astro Boy (2009)

The Good, the Bad, and the very Ugly about Astro Boy

[6/10 · 26 April 2010]

I was really looking forward to this movie. I grew up watching Astro Boy on TV. I hadn't seen it in a few decades, so I was eager to see an updated version. In addition, I now have a young son who had never seen anything Astro Boy related. Here are my thoughts on the movie.

The Good: Visually, the movie is great. There's a lot of good action. I liked the story (well, at least 1/3 of it). My kid liked it and I think most kids will like it too. The main character is very likable. They incorporated some elements from the TV show, including some shots from the opening.

The Bad: After a particular point (there's a big fade to black), the story goes south and the movie becomes ordinary (hence you see a lot of people comparing it to many other movies). The villain is very one-dimensional. Every movie has a "shape shifter" (a character that is perceived by the audience as being bad and then turns out to be good, or vice versa). In this movie, the "shape shifter" is extremely obvious, no surprise there!

The Ugly: This movie is used as blatant propaganda for the left. I don't know if it's as obvious for people outside America. I had to check the credits to see if Michael Moore was involved with the movie. Before you label me as over reacting or even "paranoid", hear me out. At the center of the story, there's a conflict between good and evil, represented by red (negative) energy versus blue (positive) energy. In American Presidential elections, the color red represents conservatives and the color blue represents liberals. As it so happens, there's a Presidential election going on this movie. The villain of the movie is the sitting President, named Stone; he's running for re-election. Through out the movie, liberal causes and the candidate running against the President (named Logan) are connected to the color blue. The President mocks the blue energy as being all about "save the dolphins, give peace a chance". The audience is told blue energy is going to restore the forests and undo the damage caused by years of pollution. We see a billboard for Logan showing him holding a white dove and he happens to be wearing a large blue pin on his lapel. It says nothing on it, just solid blue color (strange, isn't it?). Tell me if this reminds you of anyone, the President, who is very adamant about using the red energy instead of the blue one, says "how can my approval ratings be so low", "I've cut taxes for a lot of very influential friends" and goes to refer to Logan as a "darn dirty hippie". In addition, in two separate occasions, the President states that he wants to start a war because "That's bound to get me re-elected". Gee, who could they be trying to make Stone represent? (LOL). Still not convinced? What is Logan's campaign slogan? "Prosperity and Peace". What is Stone's slogan? Well…wait for it…wait for it…"It's not time for change". If you are still in denial, I think you just lost your credibility. And, I haven't even said anything about the Lenin worshipping robots in this movie (they help the good guy of course). The political bias was even worst than Wall-E. I should have known as soon as I saw Nicholas Cage on the credits. He's also in the cast for a movie that uses an ant colony to represent a Communist utopia, called "The Ant Bullie".

Maybe you are OK with your kids being indoctrinated at an early age, but some of us, regardless of our own political views, we rather keep political messages out of kid's movies.

Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

Shame on you Oscars

[1/10 · 14 July 2009]

After seeing this movie, I think members of the Oscars should be arrested and interrogated for suspicion of fraud. As others have pointed out, this film is part of a continuing trend of the Oscars trying to shove mediocre movies down our throats. It is as though the intentions of this movie were good enough to make it a "great" movie.

First off, this movie asks way too much of its audience as far as suspension of belief. This is fine with a sci-fi or horror movies, but for a highly touted Oscar winner that claims to be a gritty drama portraying an often ignored part of a big society, it really goes overboard. The coincidences that you are asked to accept are just beyond human comprehension. I used to watch the American version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire, and to suggest that an uneducated homeless guy could win because just about every question is related to something obscure that happened a long time ago in his life, and which he happens to conveniently remember, is just ludicrous. Please, the coincidence of the little kid in God Rama custom was just laughable, and when movie critics decide they hate a movie, this is the kind of stuff they pounce on, but in this case, a clear example of complete amateurism is ignored.

And don't get me started about the TV host character. He blatantly belittles the contestant about being poor, again and again and again, with no subtlety whatsoever, just straight out laughs in his face while millions watch on TV. He is part of a collective that makes taking this film seriously completely impossible.

Somewhere between 20 to 30 minutes into this movie you realize how the rest of the movie is going to go. Those who you think will end up together, do. The characters you expect to die, do. The only thing that kept my interest was the notion that, since this was a critically acclaimed movie and a foreign movie, they would not cop out and do a Hollywood ending. I guess I was wrong. And maybe it's an Indian tradition, but what was the deal with ending the movie with a completely irrelevant dance number??? I know they did something similar in "There's Something About Mary", but that was a comedy!! Can you imagine a dance number at the end of "Crash"?

Another thing that bugged me was the so called love story. It was a big part of the second half of the movie and it just destroyed any sliver of credibility the plot still had at that point. The main character suffers from what I like to call "Hugh Grant Syndrome". This is when a movie gives us a male character who has a nonsensical, and self deprecating, obsession with a woman who obviously doesn't like him and even goes out of her way to hurt him just to show him how much she's not into him, but then the guy, against all logic, persist and eventually wins her. These movies have the audacity to asks us to see these stalker, unhealthy, relationships as "romantic" and "endearing" when any adult with half a brain knows that women like this (or any person for that matter) don't change over night and that the relationship is already doomed. The girl in this movie, except briefly when they were playing around as kids, never showed the same level or type of interest that the guy does through out the last half! She always followed whatever would allow her to survive. The only time she actually seems to want to be with him as much as he does with her is when he has fame and money. This is supposed to be romantic?

I decided to see this movie, despite the obvious red flag that this was hyped by the Oscars, because I wanted to see something different, something that would give me more insight into what I regard as a fascinating culture. In spite of the great cinematography and look of the film, all I got was a bunch of Western stereotypes wrapped in a silly and substandard plot. This was the best movie of 2008?!?! Really?!?! I thought "The Wrestler" was a better movie, and it wasn't even nominated!!!! Only the Hollywood elites don't see the big disconnect between their taste in movies and that of movie fans. In a move that reeks of desperation they are adding more nominees to the Oscars categories in an attempt to keep the ceremonies' ratings from going down the toilet even more. They don't get it, it's not about quantity, it's about quality, or in this case, lack of quality.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008)

If you "don't get" Woody Allen, this movie won't help.

[2/10 · 30 June 2009]

There were three things that bothered me about this movie. 1) Woody Allen, whose controversial relationships are well-documented, has created a movie promoting a judgment free world where people should do as they please with their relationships. Nothing wrong with that, but why does he need to put down conventional lives and relationships in order to do so? He mocks conventional life styles as mundane and torturous. Two male characters are negatively portrayed because of their huge sin: being boring (gasp!). You would think that a man whose movies are found to be boring by 95% of the population would be sensitive towards that label.

2) The writing when it comes to the characters. They all talk the same, use the same vocabulary, and posses the same wit. Maybe for New York intellectuals who only hang around each other that might be the case, but for the rest of the world, that's not the case and it makes for a rather unrealistic movie. Take the character of Juan Antonio as an example. When he introduces himself, he struggles with his English and fumbles for the right words, then two sentences later, he uses the word "subterfuge". What foreigner do you know who struggles with the English language and who also use that word? What native English speakers do you known who uses that word? Again, this is because all the characters are written to speak the same.

3) The story. At the end of the movie, all of the characters are exactly at the same place they were at the beginning of the movie. You could argue that Vicki's character views her life differently, but yet she's still following the same actions she did at the beginning. In essence, you just wasted your time watching this movie, for all of the weaving the story tries to do, in the end, you are back to where you started.

The cinematography was nice, but outside of that, not a good movie.