Change Your Image
miguel-guitarra
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Glass (2019)
Meh...
Shyamalan is capable of the best, the really disappointing, and the "meh". I'm a fan of his cinematography, the low angles, the in-your-face camera, the colors he uses and several other aspects. And no, i'm not a "critic", just someone who appreciates good directing, and Shyamalan is for sure a talent.
Having said that, and having followed the prequels, he had a brilliant set of actors in his hands, brilliant characters, he wrote and directed the films, so there should be no possible excuse for a "meh" movie, which i highly anticipated since Split, which hinted at the trilogy (you didn't know it on Unbreakable, so it must have been written along the years, as he was writing other screenplays.
WHO is and WHERE does Sarah Paulson come from? And WHY? Just for the "sake of unmasking superheroes"? Ok, i'll play. WHY does an asylum have a handful of patients, 3 or 4 staffers, NO security apart from the staffers? HOW can Glass walk around, do whatever he wants to, play with meds, etc, if "there are 100 cameras, looking at everywhere he can look at"? And he only talks the last section of the film, which was also disappointing (there could have been ways to explore the fact that his mind is intact without mixing it all up nonsensically in a brief "Mission Impossible-like" sequence. The whole "light" character is messy, and totally contrary to Split at times. Willis doesn't talk, basically, just sits there and listens to babbling theories by Paulsen. Since Jackson hardly talks as well, the film is basically (and kudos to MacAvoy for his brilliant part(s)) about the "Monster" and the other identities.
All the promises made in the film are broken in the end, and even though it's "not supposed" to be a "Superhero" movie (according to some "hardcore fans" (lol), EVEN Jackson says it is so. "It's an Origins story".
Except that, unless Shyamalan starts a new twist to it all, it would have been stories about extraordinary people who die stupidly, without ANY emotion between them, without any kind of REAL back story, other than the one provided in brief sequences.
These plot holes are just the ones i spotted viewing the film ONCE, and tired, at that...
All in all, it could have been great, wasn't utterly disappointing, but was unfortunately "meh"...
And since he killed the "Superheroes" i'm NOW waiting for a sequel to explain the "tattoo people". Or not.
Glass (2019)
Meh...
Shyamalan is capable of the best, the really disappointing, and the "meh". I'm a fan of his cinematography, the low angles, the in-your-face camera, the colors he uses and several other aspects. And no, i'm not a "critic", just someone who appreciates good directing, and Shyamalan is for sure a talent.
Having said that, and having followed the prequels, he had a brilliant set of actors in his hands, brilliant characters, he wrote and directed the films, so there should be no possible excuse for a "meh" movie, which i highly anticipated since Split, which hinted at the trilogy (you didn't know it on Unbreakable, so it must have been written along the years, as he was writing other screenplays.
WHO is and WHERE does Sarah Paulson come from? And WHY? Just for the "sake of unmasking superheroes"? Ok, i'll play. WHY does an asylum have a handful of patients, 3 or 4 staffers, NO security apart from the staffers? HOW can Glass walk around, do whatever he wants to, play with meds, etc, if "there are 100 cameras, looking at everywhere he can look at"? And he only talks the last section of the film, which was also disappointing (there could have been ways to explore the fact that his mind is intact without mixing it all up nonsensically in a brief "Mission Impossible-like" sequence. The whole "light" character is messy, and totally contrary to Split at times. Willis doesn't talk, basically, just sits there and listens to babbling theories by Paulsen. Since Jackson hardly talks as well, the film is basically (and kudos to MacAvoy for his brilliant part(s)) about the "Monster" and the other identities.
All the promises made in the film are broken in the end, and even though it's "not supposed" to be a "Superhero" movie (according to some "hardcore fans" (lol), EVEN Jackson says it is so. "It's an Origins story".
Except that, unless Shyamalan starts a new twist to it all, it would have been stories about extraordinary people who die stupidly, without ANY emotion between them, without any kind of REAL back story, other than the one provided in brief sequences.
These plot holes are just the ones i spotted viewing the film ONCE, and tired, at that...
All in all, it could have been great, wasn't utterly disappointing, but was unfortunately "meh"...
And since he killed the "Superheroes" i'm NOW waiting for a sequel to explain the "tattoo people". Or not.
Gotham (2014)
Good premise
I'm a huge fan of Batman, and as such I totally relate to Gotham City (I'm actually playing the Arkham City game, which adds to my personal fun in terms of Batman cities). And Gotham City is the perfect set for a show like this: You know the future Batman villains, you know there's corruption in Gotham and it's going to hell, you know Jim Gordon, and some pay attention to the Architectural city itself. I do, and I think it is a show that can go very far and well, if the writers treat well all there is to explore. I just finished the 1st episode and gotta say BRAVO! If they explore this well, you don't have to have Batman for this to succeed.
9/10
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)
Right title for sure... AMAZING!
Let me start off by saying I'm a huge Marvel/Graphic Novels/DC both comics and films. The thing is, many of the films falls short for real fans of heroes, be it because the actor was poorly chosen (the blatant case of Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker). AWFUL! Hugh Jackman is a GOOD Wolverine for instance and Brandon Routh was a pretty Good as C.K., having big shoes to fill! Andrew Garfield looked a little strange in these two films he starred, but only for the first five minutes, which are usually filled with «woo- hoos» and an action scene to «re-introduce us» to Spidey (as if we need to be reminded of who he is, lol). So OK, we get a «happy-go-lucky Speder-Man and a somewhat air-headed Parker. But this is just for these five minutes, until one gets used to the character. Passed that, he is a pretty convincing P.P., throughout the movie, and adds a certain depth that was needed.Good work there! The villain (main) is a fairly good choice, and there's a vast choice within Spider's foes in the comics to make pretty good movies. This is by far the best Spider-Man of all so far, and I'm not even a fan! And to conclude, I think that as far as a Superhero movie goes, it's very well directed, not «crazy-cams» like in Transformers, where you don't even keep up with who's fighting who! All in all, 8/10.
The Butterfly Room (2012)
Such a shame... (may contain a bit of spoiler... rules are rules)
It was a promising film, with loads of Argento-like captures and also in general plot. I really had a good time, although confused by the time-lines, that at some point go berserk.
At this moment, you don't know who is who, the what or why or when get all mixed up, messed up, and I can't even describe the last 30 minutes...
If anyone even read my comments, they should know I am a total horror/thriller fan, and it's not my business dissing movies, instead I'd love to say good things about this genre.
But really, this turns out to be pathetic, pointless, overall confusing, and really with no plot.
The Big Bang Theory (2007)
Funny? Not at all!
... Answer is a solid No. I have tried here and again to watch a full episode, but after 1 minute and 10 canned laughters, i give up. If I were a nerdy teen, and never had watched decent comedy, even then I wouldn't watch this (beep). It's cheap, brainless, aimed at the brainless course. I just watched a bit of one random episode tonight, and I couldn't spare a smile, it rather struck me as depressing, for the poorness in script, characters, actors, basically everything. If you think (scene from said episode) winking to your friend, and the friend winks back, and then a third wink provokes such huge laughter (canned, of course), be my guest, and watch this piece of garbage. And the winks were about something that wasn't funny in the first place. So in 30 seconds you have 4 barrelled laughters for nothing... And it goes on and on and on, for 7 seasons. Ridiculous...
Enter the Void (2009)
What now?
I'm not going into the story, so no spoilers here. What this "movie" does best is reaching for epileptics to drop spot on. It's not a "new thing" or a "movie that defies rules", none of that. It IS a basically European/Canadian "film", and being Portuguese I know what I'm talking about. Pretentious little thing, filled with strawb lights, unbelievable soundtrack (in a bad way), hand-cameras that per si make you dizzy. Colours and flashes all the time that can make one as well squirm. Visually, it IS A MESS, don't give me "impressive", for there are more colors per frame than frames at times. Soundwise, like I said, it's a mess. Two Things to consider before watching this "thing": 1- Be sure you don't suffer from Epilepsy (for real, and it should come with a warning, like some games do; it may really be dangerous, you will see why if you go and watch) 2- Rent whatever movie that sits on right or left of this one... It's for the best :)
The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 2 (2012)
This isn't happening!
Actually it's a 0, but that score doesn't count. We have vamps and wolves as friends, in cool houses, (wolves are with shirts on for a while until Taylor does a little gay strip for Kristen's dad, so teen girls can watch his chest. The story is this: Volturi are after the offspring of Kristen and Robert because Remesmee (yeah, great name, lol) is half human, half vamp. Apparently this can't be, so the Volturi are going to kill her. They talk amongst their friends around the world to have witnesses (whatever that is for the film's purpose) to claim she's not a threat. We then have 90 minutes of nothing with this, apart from some random vamps jumping just for fun. In the end, Alice (who sees the future) takes the hand of the Volturi chief, so he can see it too. After this moment, battle (as in all of this saga thing) ensues, etc etc, just to learn in the end that none of it happened at all. Alice showed the Volturi guy what would happen, and the battle never took place. They part, each side, the couples kiss, and the movie ends. Bravo Stephenie for making vamps with lipstick and shining under the sun, and werewolves whose only obligation is being naked for teens' purpose a SAGA! 0 out of 10
Revenant (2012)
Don't buy Swedish furniture (spoiler)
I read some good reviews on this movie, and was happy to watch it, that is, until I watched it. There are slow-paced movies where everything happens in the end, and those where the thrill builds up, and those where you can hardly breathe, for its intense pace. In each genre, there's good, bad and average, point taken. Some may even surprise you with one little twist. A good example of it, though i found it a good movie at the time was Blair Witch (the story about making someone face the wall, which appears in the end). This one is none of that. It's slow-paced, for sure, you read into Poltergeist here and there, and then, guess what? Nothing happens, apart from IKEA furniture and sheets, EVEN BABY TOYS haunting the house! Stel disappeared 15 minutes into the movie, so did the owner of the house, and that's about it. Nothing happens for a hole 90 minutes, apart from IKEA stuff moving around. 3/10 is a bit generous even, but well, you be the judge :)
Dead Souls (2012)
What happened there?
Yet again, as a horror/thriller/suspense fan: The movie starts off really well, and the first hour is very enjoyable. For those who read the plot, it's just that, and until that hour you may even be wondering about the low score on this movie. I watched it with pleasure until it crumbles down, like soufflés do sometimes. At some point, i don't know if someone ran out of ideas, the budget was downsized, or what the hell happened!!! This could have been a very cool movie (not top-notch but pleasant to watch for the genre fans), but it flopped in a really big way for the last 30 minutes. I feel sorry for this, but a movie, like a book, should be solid from page one until «THE END». So in my opinion, i'd give it a solid 6.5 until minute 60 or so, and then a solid 2.
A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)
The «new» NOES
Dear readers, here's the thing: Of course this is more or less the remake of NOES, with some ad-ons, where you learn something more about Krueger. That being said, I think it's probably the best remake ever (and a difficult one, for Englund was a charismatic Freddie). I hesitated before renting it, i confess. Boy, was I in for a treat! I've always been a NOES fan, watched them all, although the first one is really the one that counts (some were more of a comedy than a «Nightmare»). 15 minutes into the movie, i TOTALLY forgot there was a Robert Englund EVER! Jackie Haley IS Freddie, a darker one, much more sinister and brutal Freddie, which I, as a horror fan, applaud! I don't understand at all the detractors who sell the remake short, it's as good as the original one, with even darker environments, much better (of course) FX, but most of all, a SUPER FREDDIE. Sincere congrats on that note to Jackie Haley, outstanding job :) Miguel