The nonsense starts immediately. Even though the good guys have a castle, they decide the best course of action is to put the combined armies outside the gates and organize them in the worst possible formation with artillery in front of the infantry and the infantry in front of a poorly constructed moat. The episode begins with the Dothraki light cavalry awaiting charge orders. Melisandre shows up and does some magic and lights their weapons on fire. Ignoring the fact that her magic could be easily substituted for some oil and matches, the whole situation begs the question - what were the original plans before the red priestess showed up? Out of the blue, the cavalry charges into darkness, straight on, with no viable information about a vastly outnumbering enemy. They die almost instantly, to nobody's surprise, as whoever devised this plan should be court-martialed for treason. It's all downhill from here. With mistakes like these, it's a great wonder how these people managed to survive puberty.....
Bla,bla, Night King Command Ship somehow gets sucker punched to death by No One and its drones die immediately after and that's a good thing as the whole cast was in peril of getting tired after the tenth wight swarm. Turns out that what people believed to be the greatest threat to human civilization was in fact just a minor inconvenience at the outskirts of the Seven Kingdoms and The Wall was an useless, gross exaggeration.
Apparently nobody important died. Next episode, celebrations and getting wasted.
Reviews
12 Reviews
Lost in Space
(2018–2021)
Almost unwatchable
22 April 2018
I found myself screaming and cursing at the story and characters.
The first episode was like what the hell is going on? None of this makes any sense. Not a very good start.
The show grew on me a little bit in the second episode, by the fifth I started to hate it and by the end I loathed it.
The absolute worst for me was Dr. Smith (the character, the actress is doing a marvelous job), a demented psychopath who keeps running amok, creating havoc in the colonist camp and NOBODY seem to notice it. These people are supposed to be the best humanity has to offer, yet they don't seem to be very smart at all. At first I thought that they'll resolve this plot two-three episodes in and be done with it and get to the meat of the story. Unfortunately, this didn't happen at all, because this IS the meat of the story.
The social dynamics of the Robinson family barely functions, limping its way throughout the plot. I can't honestly say what type of psychological screenings they went through to get the green light and fly together into outer space as a group. They cheat, lie, withhold information, take poor decisions and act bizarrely through the whole first season, to the point where it becomes exasperating for the viewer.
I really wish this would have been an entertaining experience, but unfortunately it was quite the opposite and several times, out of sheer frustration, I had to fast-forward scenes. The only reason I watched until the end is because I like to finish what I start.
If you really need to know the story, read the episode summaries. That's more than enough. Let's hope the second season will be better, but I'm not holding my breath. Save time and just avoid.
I really wish this would have been an entertaining experience, but unfortunately it was quite the opposite and several times, out of sheer frustration, I had to fast-forward scenes. The only reason I watched until the end is because I like to finish what I start.
If you really need to know the story, read the episode summaries. That's more than enough. Let's hope the second season will be better, but I'm not holding my breath. Save time and just avoid.
The Putin Interviews
(2017)
Worth watching, with a grain of salt
18 June 2017
Oliver Stone is a good filmmaker. I wish I could say I enjoyed these interviews, but I mostly did not.
What I liked is that Oliver Stone understands subtlety and tries to have a cohesive and meaningful dialog above the black and white views and opinions, so heavily polarized in the media today. He's trying to understand the current state of the world as a multitude of multifaceted and complex issues that can't be addressed with just simple answers and demagogy. I respect that.
What I really disliked is the fact that talking with Putin about these issues felt like talking with a robot, programmed to deliver the same answers with different words each time. Oliver Stone's questions, however pertinent they were, their answers always fell short, dissimulated, meaningless and mostly boring. His courtesy, joviality, towards Putin, made me a bit uncomfortable and I had to ask myself several times "Does he know with who is he speaking?". I mean, it is pretty clear by now that Putin sure as heck isn't an angel, with many people arguing that he's exactly the opposite with other worrisome adjectives added to his title. Yes, I can understand that he needed to be polite, otherwise he would probably never finish the documentary, but honestly, sometimes it felt like a bromance between the two.
Digging a bit deeper in the analysis of the film, I felt it had several missed opportunities to convey a counterpoint or a different narrative using the most important toolkit a director can have, the visual language. Oliver Stone opted for some oblique footage (which are part of his visual style) used infrequently and some horrific footage of executions and other war related events, that apart for their shocking value, bring nothing else to the main story. There are some low angle shots that try to capture some body language from Putin, but I don't think they work very well in this context. I feel bad for criticizing such a great filmmaker, but I really think that there was more potential to create a more compelling story on the screen. One directorial device that I think would have worked better would have been to use the language barrier between the interviewer and the interviewee and rely more on the translator and give him a more important part to play in the dialogue and then emphasize the subtle changes between the translator and the subtitles, creating a small psychological dissonance for the viewer, which in turn would convey the complexity and ambiguous nature of Putin. I think the best example here would have been the director Claude Lanzmann, which heavily relies on spoken language as an integral part of his documentaries, especially considering that his films are also centered on very difficult and unpleasant subjects.
Even though I admire Oliver Stone and I understand and respect the importance of what he's trying to do and also the difficulty of such a task, I believe that this film only hit some minor goals, but overall, missed what I consider to be the main mark, which is a genuine attempt at a characterization of Putin, with all the good and the bad that entails. However, dealing with such complex issues, I do recommend that this film should be seen, because these issues will sooner or later affect all of us and there can't possibly be just one right answer, or just one objective conclusion.
I think that this film is a solid 7, but not much above that.
What I liked is that Oliver Stone understands subtlety and tries to have a cohesive and meaningful dialog above the black and white views and opinions, so heavily polarized in the media today. He's trying to understand the current state of the world as a multitude of multifaceted and complex issues that can't be addressed with just simple answers and demagogy. I respect that.
What I really disliked is the fact that talking with Putin about these issues felt like talking with a robot, programmed to deliver the same answers with different words each time. Oliver Stone's questions, however pertinent they were, their answers always fell short, dissimulated, meaningless and mostly boring. His courtesy, joviality, towards Putin, made me a bit uncomfortable and I had to ask myself several times "Does he know with who is he speaking?". I mean, it is pretty clear by now that Putin sure as heck isn't an angel, with many people arguing that he's exactly the opposite with other worrisome adjectives added to his title. Yes, I can understand that he needed to be polite, otherwise he would probably never finish the documentary, but honestly, sometimes it felt like a bromance between the two.
Digging a bit deeper in the analysis of the film, I felt it had several missed opportunities to convey a counterpoint or a different narrative using the most important toolkit a director can have, the visual language. Oliver Stone opted for some oblique footage (which are part of his visual style) used infrequently and some horrific footage of executions and other war related events, that apart for their shocking value, bring nothing else to the main story. There are some low angle shots that try to capture some body language from Putin, but I don't think they work very well in this context. I feel bad for criticizing such a great filmmaker, but I really think that there was more potential to create a more compelling story on the screen. One directorial device that I think would have worked better would have been to use the language barrier between the interviewer and the interviewee and rely more on the translator and give him a more important part to play in the dialogue and then emphasize the subtle changes between the translator and the subtitles, creating a small psychological dissonance for the viewer, which in turn would convey the complexity and ambiguous nature of Putin. I think the best example here would have been the director Claude Lanzmann, which heavily relies on spoken language as an integral part of his documentaries, especially considering that his films are also centered on very difficult and unpleasant subjects.
Even though I admire Oliver Stone and I understand and respect the importance of what he's trying to do and also the difficulty of such a task, I believe that this film only hit some minor goals, but overall, missed what I consider to be the main mark, which is a genuine attempt at a characterization of Putin, with all the good and the bad that entails. However, dealing with such complex issues, I do recommend that this film should be seen, because these issues will sooner or later affect all of us and there can't possibly be just one right answer, or just one objective conclusion.
I think that this film is a solid 7, but not much above that.
La La Land
(2016)
What the La La?
19 January 2017
I've joined the hype train and I got really burned. This film was mostly bad. How in the world it won so many awards?
First of all, E S and R G can't sing to save their lives. E S got only one song which she really sang using her chest voice and I don't really think it was her voice because of the discrepancy of what she sang previously up to that point. This film has no plot. It's like a musical version of Fifty Shades of Grey without the "action", distilled for kids, reaching really cringe-worthy moments. The love story is a Hollywood cliché, sterile and devoid of any real meaning or connection to reality.
I'm really confused about the music, since this is what I've been doing for the past twenty years to make a living. Most of the songs are somewhat immature in the composition manner while their arrangements are quite beautiful. They are not close to how a true pedigree musical should sound like. They feel like the cheap version for a true musical, especially considering that the film goes to great lengths to substitute the ineptitude of the lead actors / singers with many many instrumental parts that most of the time feel inadequate, even though the orchestration and the mixing, in theory, is flawless. The whole movie revolves around just one melodic motif which gets overused really fast. Most of the arrangements are well executed, yet simplistic in manner with mostly appearance over essence. It's like reading a children's book. For me, that illustrates overreaching, without the necessary experience or profoundness to fully grasp the important concepts one is trying to say. The elements that constitute the movie just don't synergize good enough with each other to make it work. However there are several jazz arrangements that stand out of the crowd, and there's even a pop song which is pretty dope. I think it was the high point of the movie.
The film digs deep into its technicality to recreate the look and feel of the golden age of American cinematography. It uses almost all the tricks in the book: they dress the extras in very earthy colors and the leads in bright and vivid colors so they can really stand out, the use of silhouettes, a lot of floodlight reminiscent of carbon arc lightning, classic red green blue primaries color palette which is a true beauty to behold in several scenes. They used old anamorphic lenses, they color graded the footage as to be reminiscent of the glorious Technicolor age and its 3 strip process. The sets are beautiful. All this requires tremendous work and it really shines throughout the film. The team that was in charge of the technical aspects is top notch first class hands down no question. And here lies the true sadness: what it is and what it could have been.
La La Land has many nods to different classic films. It clearly pays respects to Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire. And here lies another big problem. Those guys were Gods with shoes on. Compared to them, R G is a world class grade A dilettante. He's a good actor, whatever, but his dancing skills reminds me of that show Dancing With the Stars at most, which I always zapped away from. The film pays respects and nods at many old classics, while itself achieving nothing except basking in a pool of mediocrity, and worse, it's getting big time rewarded for it. No! That's just wrong. It's a disturbing trend and a symptom of a much greater and complex problem our society suffers from. It's like anti-vaxers for art.
The ending is the lowest point for this film. I'm obviously not spoiling it, but it will leave you wanting your money back. For me it was the killing blow. If there's a word to describe this whole experience, it's kitsch. For a comedy, it's barely funny and apart from the technical aspects which are really good, there is very little of movie metamaterial that could hold up under close scrutiny when compared to the great classics, or even other modern musicals for that matter. I'm sorry.
First of all, E S and R G can't sing to save their lives. E S got only one song which she really sang using her chest voice and I don't really think it was her voice because of the discrepancy of what she sang previously up to that point. This film has no plot. It's like a musical version of Fifty Shades of Grey without the "action", distilled for kids, reaching really cringe-worthy moments. The love story is a Hollywood cliché, sterile and devoid of any real meaning or connection to reality.
I'm really confused about the music, since this is what I've been doing for the past twenty years to make a living. Most of the songs are somewhat immature in the composition manner while their arrangements are quite beautiful. They are not close to how a true pedigree musical should sound like. They feel like the cheap version for a true musical, especially considering that the film goes to great lengths to substitute the ineptitude of the lead actors / singers with many many instrumental parts that most of the time feel inadequate, even though the orchestration and the mixing, in theory, is flawless. The whole movie revolves around just one melodic motif which gets overused really fast. Most of the arrangements are well executed, yet simplistic in manner with mostly appearance over essence. It's like reading a children's book. For me, that illustrates overreaching, without the necessary experience or profoundness to fully grasp the important concepts one is trying to say. The elements that constitute the movie just don't synergize good enough with each other to make it work. However there are several jazz arrangements that stand out of the crowd, and there's even a pop song which is pretty dope. I think it was the high point of the movie.
The film digs deep into its technicality to recreate the look and feel of the golden age of American cinematography. It uses almost all the tricks in the book: they dress the extras in very earthy colors and the leads in bright and vivid colors so they can really stand out, the use of silhouettes, a lot of floodlight reminiscent of carbon arc lightning, classic red green blue primaries color palette which is a true beauty to behold in several scenes. They used old anamorphic lenses, they color graded the footage as to be reminiscent of the glorious Technicolor age and its 3 strip process. The sets are beautiful. All this requires tremendous work and it really shines throughout the film. The team that was in charge of the technical aspects is top notch first class hands down no question. And here lies the true sadness: what it is and what it could have been.
La La Land has many nods to different classic films. It clearly pays respects to Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire. And here lies another big problem. Those guys were Gods with shoes on. Compared to them, R G is a world class grade A dilettante. He's a good actor, whatever, but his dancing skills reminds me of that show Dancing With the Stars at most, which I always zapped away from. The film pays respects and nods at many old classics, while itself achieving nothing except basking in a pool of mediocrity, and worse, it's getting big time rewarded for it. No! That's just wrong. It's a disturbing trend and a symptom of a much greater and complex problem our society suffers from. It's like anti-vaxers for art.
The ending is the lowest point for this film. I'm obviously not spoiling it, but it will leave you wanting your money back. For me it was the killing blow. If there's a word to describe this whole experience, it's kitsch. For a comedy, it's barely funny and apart from the technical aspects which are really good, there is very little of movie metamaterial that could hold up under close scrutiny when compared to the great classics, or even other modern musicals for that matter. I'm sorry.
Oh JJ, what have you done?
22 December 2015
HA.
You thought Lucas was bad? You know that saying "Be careful of what you wish for, because it might come true"?
This film makes the prequels seem like Renaissance masterpieces. The new Star Wars has not one original idea. It is a complete flowerpot, rehashed from the original Star Wars Episode IV mixed with elements from all the other episodes.
Two weeks prior to the premiere, I watched the George Lucas interview after he watched the complete version and in which you could read the disappointment on his face. I said to myself that it can't be true, he's just old and crazy, but after I have watched it myself, I completely feel his pain.
I could try to explain all the reasons I have for bashing on this sequel, but all the words I can think of cannot express the sorrow I'm feeling. The closest feeling I have that I can relate here is that I just watched a film made by an insane nostalgia driven fan, not by far an actual Star Wars official movie. I was never a huge admirer of Mr. JJ Abrams, but I respected his work and enjoyed his films, including the new Trek reboots. But this? This is an abomination. I wish I knew in what measure JJ had authority on the final cut and the story decisions. I refuse to believe that he was OK with the direction that the film was taking during production. If he was OK with it, then he truly earned the "Jar-Jar" nickname.
Still, "We'll always have Paris!"
You thought Lucas was bad? You know that saying "Be careful of what you wish for, because it might come true"?
This film makes the prequels seem like Renaissance masterpieces. The new Star Wars has not one original idea. It is a complete flowerpot, rehashed from the original Star Wars Episode IV mixed with elements from all the other episodes.
Two weeks prior to the premiere, I watched the George Lucas interview after he watched the complete version and in which you could read the disappointment on his face. I said to myself that it can't be true, he's just old and crazy, but after I have watched it myself, I completely feel his pain.
I could try to explain all the reasons I have for bashing on this sequel, but all the words I can think of cannot express the sorrow I'm feeling. The closest feeling I have that I can relate here is that I just watched a film made by an insane nostalgia driven fan, not by far an actual Star Wars official movie. I was never a huge admirer of Mr. JJ Abrams, but I respected his work and enjoyed his films, including the new Trek reboots. But this? This is an abomination. I wish I knew in what measure JJ had authority on the final cut and the story decisions. I refuse to believe that he was OK with the direction that the film was taking during production. If he was OK with it, then he truly earned the "Jar-Jar" nickname.
Still, "We'll always have Paris!"
Fear the Walking Dead
(2015–2023)
Maybe, with a strong emphasis on maybe.
24 August 2015
Having a story before the apocalypse it's interesting as a concept and definitely worth watching, but what we get in FTWD is a meaningless plot that cannot carry itself into the apocalypse because it's pointless. All we saw are some characters that I personally disliked and cannot relate to, that defy all logic and reason with their actions.
Another problem is the content, more like lack of content in the pilot, with a lot of filler shots that add nothing to the current story. You can easily skip the first 45 minutes without missing anything. A pilot is a pilot for a reason and its main purpose is to create a good impression, which FTWD failed to deliver. Maybe a 2-hour premiere would have been better.
However I am enthusiastic about what's in store for the rest of the plot, even though I'm a bit skeptical since I believe that this season is wrapped and ready for broadcast without the possibility of changes in its structure.
Let's not forget that zombies are not trending very much these days and if the show wants to build notoriety, it has to do much better than the pilot. For comparison, I think that the original TWD's pilot humiliated this one. Time will tell if we're gonna fear the walking dead or be bored to tears by the walking dead.
Another problem is the content, more like lack of content in the pilot, with a lot of filler shots that add nothing to the current story. You can easily skip the first 45 minutes without missing anything. A pilot is a pilot for a reason and its main purpose is to create a good impression, which FTWD failed to deliver. Maybe a 2-hour premiere would have been better.
However I am enthusiastic about what's in store for the rest of the plot, even though I'm a bit skeptical since I believe that this season is wrapped and ready for broadcast without the possibility of changes in its structure.
Let's not forget that zombies are not trending very much these days and if the show wants to build notoriety, it has to do much better than the pilot. For comparison, I think that the original TWD's pilot humiliated this one. Time will tell if we're gonna fear the walking dead or be bored to tears by the walking dead.
Constantine
(2014–2015)
JC is back! Woo-Hoo.
26 October 2014
I've been waiting almost ten years for some sort of sequel or reboot of the first Constantine movie back in 2005. I'm not a big comic book fan and I never knew the character prior to the film, but for what is worth I enjoyed it back in the day and I was hoping for more for a long time.
The series starts off on the right note and with a proper rhythm. The protagonist (Matt Ryan) looks ready to undertake a main role. The script isn't the strongest point so far, but it almost never is after just the pilot. I'm sure that in time, it will become much more detailed and interesting.
For me personally, it is a very good alternative to the Supernatural series, that keeps taking a dive for the worse with every season passing. I love Supernatural, but that show should have ended 5 seasons ago.
Overall, the pilot was cohesive, concentrated and left me curious for more. The scares were also very good with awesome make-up and CGI. If this level of quality can be sustained, I'm sure that we will be on a great ride with John Constantine.
The series starts off on the right note and with a proper rhythm. The protagonist (Matt Ryan) looks ready to undertake a main role. The script isn't the strongest point so far, but it almost never is after just the pilot. I'm sure that in time, it will become much more detailed and interesting.
For me personally, it is a very good alternative to the Supernatural series, that keeps taking a dive for the worse with every season passing. I love Supernatural, but that show should have ended 5 seasons ago.
Overall, the pilot was cohesive, concentrated and left me curious for more. The scares were also very good with awesome make-up and CGI. If this level of quality can be sustained, I'm sure that we will be on a great ride with John Constantine.
The Wolverine
(2013)
You know you are a bad director when:
10 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
You know you are a bad director when...
you negate the conclusion of the previous movie.
your plot makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
you have more plot inconsistencies than Swiss cheese.
your favorite X-men character fights and moves with the grace of a rock.
your favorite X-men character acts like a cretin and his decisions are abysmally bad.
your favorite X-men character gets totally owned by a... ¿corporate samurai?.
your favorite X-men character loses his power more than half of the film.
your favorite X-men character cuts a tree with an axe and then gets tired.
you can cut adamantium.
you can drill into adamantium.
your adamantium cutter fails to cut flesh.
Japanese swords can withstand adamantium.
your villain is not even clownishly developed.
your villain has absolutely no motivation for how she acts. NONE. Worst villain ever.
your villain sheds her skin for no reason.
inexplicably you can suck a mutant of its power with a giant adamantium suit.
you kill a bear for no reason.
grandpa is a douche for the completely wrong reasons.
you take 50 rope arrows to your back and not try to get lose.
you have an awesome army of ninjas, yet in the end they decide to go on a sudden camping trip.
!!!!! you perform heart surgery on yourself, even if you can't heal back !!!!!
you don't pass out during heart surgery on yourself, but scream with excruciating pain when someone cuts your nails.
you live after performing heart surgery on yourself.
the best scene in the film is a scene after the credits.
you force a love relationship that is somehow immoral and has no meaning or conclusion.
your film has an ending without any conclusions; except Wolverine now has crappier claws.
You know you have a successful PR when:
people still pay to see this mess.
Be warned.
you negate the conclusion of the previous movie.
your plot makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
you have more plot inconsistencies than Swiss cheese.
your favorite X-men character fights and moves with the grace of a rock.
your favorite X-men character acts like a cretin and his decisions are abysmally bad.
your favorite X-men character gets totally owned by a... ¿corporate samurai?.
your favorite X-men character loses his power more than half of the film.
your favorite X-men character cuts a tree with an axe and then gets tired.
you can cut adamantium.
you can drill into adamantium.
your adamantium cutter fails to cut flesh.
Japanese swords can withstand adamantium.
your villain is not even clownishly developed.
your villain has absolutely no motivation for how she acts. NONE. Worst villain ever.
your villain sheds her skin for no reason.
inexplicably you can suck a mutant of its power with a giant adamantium suit.
you kill a bear for no reason.
grandpa is a douche for the completely wrong reasons.
you take 50 rope arrows to your back and not try to get lose.
you have an awesome army of ninjas, yet in the end they decide to go on a sudden camping trip.
!!!!! you perform heart surgery on yourself, even if you can't heal back !!!!!
you don't pass out during heart surgery on yourself, but scream with excruciating pain when someone cuts your nails.
you live after performing heart surgery on yourself.
the best scene in the film is a scene after the credits.
you force a love relationship that is somehow immoral and has no meaning or conclusion.
your film has an ending without any conclusions; except Wolverine now has crappier claws.
You know you have a successful PR when:
people still pay to see this mess.
Be warned.
Pacific Rim
(2013)
Pacific Grim.
16 July 2013
Going in with this expectation, you will not be disappointed, but if you think you will have an awe inspiring experience you might have a bad time. I just seen it in IMAX and I have to say that half of the time I couldn't tell what's going on during the fight sequences. I'm not the only one here complaining about this. It is clearly an editing defect and also a color grading defect since everything is too dark during the fights. I do not understand this new trend by splitting the movie in very long and stale sequences and then cut to endless fighting scenes which strain the eye and over-saturates the senses. Just intertwine them up into a more coherent story driven film. It is not rocket science. It's editing 101.
The acting was exactly what you would expect from a robots vs monsters film. Nothing more nothing less; cardboard cutouts, stereotypical, without any arcs. There is only one female role (except few others extras) in the whole film which is totally out of balance with the social dynamic created within the narrative.
The music is good and it works. It is funny that "works" today turned into a compliment though. It does a good job of embracing brutal fighting sequences and it also works on squeezing out that much needed gram of emotion. It feels really nice to hear thematic and fleshed out melodic material making a comeback in a world where soundtracks have become mostly sound design.
CGI is well... CGI. The monsters sometimes look silly, not menacing enough and the giant robots seem very fragile and clunky. I know this is a form of a tribute to the golden age of cinematography where giant monsters were some guys dressed up in rubber suits walking around a set made out of cardboard, but a tribute should be a short and clear statement, not an entire two hours film. In my opinion, CGI should complement and augment good acting, good story telling, good character development, not to be the sole reason for the existence of a film. Yes, this is a robots vs monsters movie, but that doesn't justify disregarding the very foundation that makes up a cinematic experience. Popcorn and all, i saw at least three opportunities for the story to take an alternate route to a more complex and fulfilling end scenario.
Like any other of my fellow sci-fi enthusiast, I can suspend my disbelief. I can even stretch it pretty far. But I cannot in good faith support the stupidity needed for a story to exist. Darwin winning prize minds thought it was better to build giant robots that work via an incredibly complicated and unexplainable mind meld of two people instead of arming strategic nuclear devices on the bottom of the Pacific and detonating them whenever one of the monsters emerge. I have games where I can operate giant robots using my keyboard and mouse only. There are surgeons who in extremely difficult operations are using robots that are capable of performing incredible and accurate tasks. There are guns today that can inflict unimaginable chaos and destruction on almost any kind of earthly scale. Yet in this film, we need giant clunky robots that perform ninja-like actions to wrestle and beat the monsters to a pulp, piloted by some people that are somehow compatible to mind meld in a black magic driven process. And let's put them right in the middle of the action, because you know, remote control is too futuristic. We see steel penetrating the monster's skin while F22 rockets are barely effective against it, because again, there's nothing better than a knife at a gunfight. This is Occam's razor violation at its finest. You want to justify giant robots fighting giant beasts? Then please make it so in a way not to sound so abysmal when the whole script is laid out on the table.
Comic relief is a poor attempt to say the least. The only two "bright minds" available in the whole world act like Laurel and Hardy all throughout the film, reaching idiotic and blatantly obvious conclusions. They are nothing more than embarrassments for the scientific community and they are the perfect portrayal for how this movie treats its science.
The film has its few moments to shine, but that's about it. They do not add up to something more. The story is too simple and it's told in an amateur way. Acting is bad not because actors fail to deliver a good performance, but because there is no performance for them to give. Directing is not good; fighting scenes are too pampered becoming over-saturated, and in other scenes it is almost absent. Music is the only redeemable quality of this title that I quite enjoyed. This is a high-budget triple A popcorn flick, but for me personally this film was a let-down. After all that hype and attention it received in media, I hoped at least that at the end of it I will get that smile, that u-mph that says "Ok, this was a decent summer flick", but alas, it did not happen.
Even if you have low expectations like I had, you still might not enjoy this title, therefore I would recommend you not to go and see it, because you would only feed the hungry money making Hollywood machine and right now they need to realize that spewing out half baked films like this will not help them for the future. But that again what do I know? I'm just another random ticket-payer movie-goer, who wrote another review in a sea of endless reviews that are disregarded completely by the film industry.
The acting was exactly what you would expect from a robots vs monsters film. Nothing more nothing less; cardboard cutouts, stereotypical, without any arcs. There is only one female role (except few others extras) in the whole film which is totally out of balance with the social dynamic created within the narrative.
The music is good and it works. It is funny that "works" today turned into a compliment though. It does a good job of embracing brutal fighting sequences and it also works on squeezing out that much needed gram of emotion. It feels really nice to hear thematic and fleshed out melodic material making a comeback in a world where soundtracks have become mostly sound design.
CGI is well... CGI. The monsters sometimes look silly, not menacing enough and the giant robots seem very fragile and clunky. I know this is a form of a tribute to the golden age of cinematography where giant monsters were some guys dressed up in rubber suits walking around a set made out of cardboard, but a tribute should be a short and clear statement, not an entire two hours film. In my opinion, CGI should complement and augment good acting, good story telling, good character development, not to be the sole reason for the existence of a film. Yes, this is a robots vs monsters movie, but that doesn't justify disregarding the very foundation that makes up a cinematic experience. Popcorn and all, i saw at least three opportunities for the story to take an alternate route to a more complex and fulfilling end scenario.
Like any other of my fellow sci-fi enthusiast, I can suspend my disbelief. I can even stretch it pretty far. But I cannot in good faith support the stupidity needed for a story to exist. Darwin winning prize minds thought it was better to build giant robots that work via an incredibly complicated and unexplainable mind meld of two people instead of arming strategic nuclear devices on the bottom of the Pacific and detonating them whenever one of the monsters emerge. I have games where I can operate giant robots using my keyboard and mouse only. There are surgeons who in extremely difficult operations are using robots that are capable of performing incredible and accurate tasks. There are guns today that can inflict unimaginable chaos and destruction on almost any kind of earthly scale. Yet in this film, we need giant clunky robots that perform ninja-like actions to wrestle and beat the monsters to a pulp, piloted by some people that are somehow compatible to mind meld in a black magic driven process. And let's put them right in the middle of the action, because you know, remote control is too futuristic. We see steel penetrating the monster's skin while F22 rockets are barely effective against it, because again, there's nothing better than a knife at a gunfight. This is Occam's razor violation at its finest. You want to justify giant robots fighting giant beasts? Then please make it so in a way not to sound so abysmal when the whole script is laid out on the table.
Comic relief is a poor attempt to say the least. The only two "bright minds" available in the whole world act like Laurel and Hardy all throughout the film, reaching idiotic and blatantly obvious conclusions. They are nothing more than embarrassments for the scientific community and they are the perfect portrayal for how this movie treats its science.
The film has its few moments to shine, but that's about it. They do not add up to something more. The story is too simple and it's told in an amateur way. Acting is bad not because actors fail to deliver a good performance, but because there is no performance for them to give. Directing is not good; fighting scenes are too pampered becoming over-saturated, and in other scenes it is almost absent. Music is the only redeemable quality of this title that I quite enjoyed. This is a high-budget triple A popcorn flick, but for me personally this film was a let-down. After all that hype and attention it received in media, I hoped at least that at the end of it I will get that smile, that u-mph that says "Ok, this was a decent summer flick", but alas, it did not happen.
Even if you have low expectations like I had, you still might not enjoy this title, therefore I would recommend you not to go and see it, because you would only feed the hungry money making Hollywood machine and right now they need to realize that spewing out half baked films like this will not help them for the future. But that again what do I know? I'm just another random ticket-payer movie-goer, who wrote another review in a sea of endless reviews that are disregarded completely by the film industry.
Conan the Barbarian
(2011)
This is NOT Conan
20 November 2011
I am 28 and Conan was one of my favorite characters growing up. I'm gonna keep this short because I don't want to waste any more time on this garbage.
The original Conan film had more meaning in it than a thousand 2011 Conan remakes. It was about days of high adventures, the primordial relationship between man and divinity, duality motifs, ancient myths about death and rebirth, morality as an entity not seen only through a narrow view corresponding to today's standards and etiquette, human evolution for better or worse, a one man's struggles with life and destiny and the list can go on. My point is that even if you disliked the original, at the end of it, you still can take something positive from it.
I pity today's generation of kids for this reason in general. Films today are made only for the sake of profit, they are rushed, contain no original ideas and unidimensional characters, bombard the viewer with 3d and visual effects nonsense and at the end of it the audience remains a hollow shell void of any original thought because the film takes all decisions for them. This is not the art of cinematography, it is blatant garbage. Conan 2011 is no exception to this. It is flawed in every aspect of the film-making process but not from a technical point of view. Hollywood makes sure that Technology is atop of their priorities.
To summarize Conan 2011; all the elements of the movie come together to create a cocktail that is bad smelling, bad tasting, doesn't give satisfaction while drinking it and it cant even quench thirst after you drank it. I am unable to go more into detail because i was really repulsed and I regret seeing it. As a fan, I have been utterly betrayed and totally let down by the new Conan. Please buy the original which is now even on Blu-Ray disk. It is an immeasurable better movie and experience than the new version. Forget that Conan 2011 ever existed.
The original Conan film had more meaning in it than a thousand 2011 Conan remakes. It was about days of high adventures, the primordial relationship between man and divinity, duality motifs, ancient myths about death and rebirth, morality as an entity not seen only through a narrow view corresponding to today's standards and etiquette, human evolution for better or worse, a one man's struggles with life and destiny and the list can go on. My point is that even if you disliked the original, at the end of it, you still can take something positive from it.
I pity today's generation of kids for this reason in general. Films today are made only for the sake of profit, they are rushed, contain no original ideas and unidimensional characters, bombard the viewer with 3d and visual effects nonsense and at the end of it the audience remains a hollow shell void of any original thought because the film takes all decisions for them. This is not the art of cinematography, it is blatant garbage. Conan 2011 is no exception to this. It is flawed in every aspect of the film-making process but not from a technical point of view. Hollywood makes sure that Technology is atop of their priorities.
To summarize Conan 2011; all the elements of the movie come together to create a cocktail that is bad smelling, bad tasting, doesn't give satisfaction while drinking it and it cant even quench thirst after you drank it. I am unable to go more into detail because i was really repulsed and I regret seeing it. As a fan, I have been utterly betrayed and totally let down by the new Conan. Please buy the original which is now even on Blu-Ray disk. It is an immeasurable better movie and experience than the new version. Forget that Conan 2011 ever existed.
Bloodlust Zombies
(2011 Video)
Hear me out before judging me of giving this ten stars...
10 July 2011
Judging this thing at film standards would be like blaming a duck for not knowing second degree equations or like judging Mr. Spielberg's work in horticulture.
I am sure that the cast and the crew are all around great guys in their personal lives, but when it comes down to film they are incompetent. If you chop it into small web-isodes, this "film" wouldn't even get thumbs up as a weekly podcast on YT.
Let's see: Script - appalling; Acting - appalling; Lightning - appalling; Visual and Special Effects - appalling, Editing - Oh my God; Music - appalling; Sound Design - almost nonexistent.
The main star of the movie, Alexis Texas, has fewer scenes than other supporting cast members, which is ridiculous to say the least. It is also a shame because she has that "je ne sais quoi" quality about her.
Having said that, it is very easy to bash in pixels and diminish someone's work and though I felt that it would deserve a harsh review, I changed my mind and here is why I decided to write the most positive criticism I can about this "film"..
I sat and watched heroically throughout the entire thing and there were moments where I actually burst into uncontrollable laughter because all the deliberately funny scenes were completely lacking any amusement and the more serious scenes were actually creating involuntary humor through really bad acting and writing. It is sad really, and I feel bad for laughing because the director who is also the writer was trying hard to convey totally different emotions, but had no clue on how to do it. Working my way through the shear nonsense that fills this "film" and bypassing the enormity of the "action", I could faintly distinct and resonate with few very nice and grand ideas that the director tried to tackle. Of course he failed miserably but skill is something you gain mostly by failing not by winning. It is meaningless to go on trying to find other constructive criticism to write about this "movie", because there is nothing else good in it, as the rest is just a big pile of wasted film.
I've seen a lot of very bad movies that have no redeeming qualities that deserve bad reviews, but in this case I really felt that there was -at least at some point- a good will and a sincere spirit to create something good and enjoyable. Unfortunately, in the way that it exists today, Bloodlust Zombies cannot be considered more than a draft cut of a B flick.
If it makes any sense, I recommend this film only to those that like to gather among friends and comment B(ad) movies for some genuine giggles, or to those more serious persons who have enough patience necessary to find and glimpse a beautiful idea drowned in an ocean of junk.
Call me crazy but here is ten out of ten stars from me only for encouragement and a faint hope of something better to come in the next years from the same director.
I am sure that the cast and the crew are all around great guys in their personal lives, but when it comes down to film they are incompetent. If you chop it into small web-isodes, this "film" wouldn't even get thumbs up as a weekly podcast on YT.
Let's see: Script - appalling; Acting - appalling; Lightning - appalling; Visual and Special Effects - appalling, Editing - Oh my God; Music - appalling; Sound Design - almost nonexistent.
The main star of the movie, Alexis Texas, has fewer scenes than other supporting cast members, which is ridiculous to say the least. It is also a shame because she has that "je ne sais quoi" quality about her.
Having said that, it is very easy to bash in pixels and diminish someone's work and though I felt that it would deserve a harsh review, I changed my mind and here is why I decided to write the most positive criticism I can about this "film"..
I sat and watched heroically throughout the entire thing and there were moments where I actually burst into uncontrollable laughter because all the deliberately funny scenes were completely lacking any amusement and the more serious scenes were actually creating involuntary humor through really bad acting and writing. It is sad really, and I feel bad for laughing because the director who is also the writer was trying hard to convey totally different emotions, but had no clue on how to do it. Working my way through the shear nonsense that fills this "film" and bypassing the enormity of the "action", I could faintly distinct and resonate with few very nice and grand ideas that the director tried to tackle. Of course he failed miserably but skill is something you gain mostly by failing not by winning. It is meaningless to go on trying to find other constructive criticism to write about this "movie", because there is nothing else good in it, as the rest is just a big pile of wasted film.
I've seen a lot of very bad movies that have no redeeming qualities that deserve bad reviews, but in this case I really felt that there was -at least at some point- a good will and a sincere spirit to create something good and enjoyable. Unfortunately, in the way that it exists today, Bloodlust Zombies cannot be considered more than a draft cut of a B flick.
If it makes any sense, I recommend this film only to those that like to gather among friends and comment B(ad) movies for some genuine giggles, or to those more serious persons who have enough patience necessary to find and glimpse a beautiful idea drowned in an ocean of junk.
Call me crazy but here is ten out of ten stars from me only for encouragement and a faint hope of something better to come in the next years from the same director.
Starship Troopers 3: Marauder
(2008 Video)
Why?
5 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Spoilers.. so don't read forward if you are sensible. First of all, this is my second review that i write on IMDb. The first one was for Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation. In that review I wrote that I, personally, refuse to consider it a sequel to the original Starship Troopers film. Having said that, I might have to reconsider that, in light of the recent Starship Troopers 3: Marauder film. Bad. I cant even find a start from where to start commenting. I'm usually very tolerant to B or C Class movies, but it's the second time I was terrible disappointed by a sequel to Starship Troopers. A lot of people here said that the original movie was very high budget bla bla. Yes. It is true. But it is not an excuse to make such a Bad movie. I'm not talking about highly expensive Vfx or Basil Poledouris's music (R I P). Take for instance -acting. It is so bad that when several characters die in the movie, you feel like being relieved of a tooth ache. Even Casper Van Dien plays with a full bladder, like he wants to finish the scene as fast as possible to run to the toilet. His lines are empty and shallow. We all know he can do much better. After all, he was lead in Starship Troopers 1. Screenplay. Much to comment here (or not). Mixed themes. There is even God evolved in the script^^. Pathetic lines, like a girl is reciting (barely, not by far convincing) Our Father, and then another girl comes and makes a big fuss out of it, and then everybody starts arguing about religion; all this, when the big, brightly and vividly colored bugs are coming to kill them. Story.(spoiler) A Sky Marshall is corrupted by the old brain bug from S T 1, and he thinks that a huge bug from some planet is actually God. Somehow he ends up on that planet with some other miscellaneous disposable crew members. In the end, he's eaten alive by the big bug and the other two chicks still alive,seeing that, start praying Our Father in despair. Johnny Rico & The Gang shows up in some weird looking robots (like mechs, but honestly the Marauder looks like the evil robot from Robocop 1) and save the day after a very very VeRy brief bug-extermination. Remember... This is the only time in the movie when we see the Marauders!!!! When they are safely away, they blow up the planet with a "Q bomb". The end. "Would you like to know more?" Vfx. Not much to say. Think of it like this: How would you feel if in the movie "Godzilla", Godzilla shows up only for 3 minutes in the end of the movie? Why is the movie called ST:Marauder?! The Marauders show up at the end for barely 3 minutes and the CgI here is very bad. And I'm being optimistic. Here, the CgI gets pwned by even an in-game cut-scene from my Xbox 360. It is shameful that in 2008, a movie CgI offers so little to the viewer. The bugs are very nice colored, very vividly, like -fresh new from the box bugs- just waiting to be butchered by a shower of metal. Sike! No! No metal shower for you viewers! Those guns just fire paper shells. Nothing real here either. On a lighter note, the movie has some fairly good composition. Explosions are almost nice, but they always look like they don't do any kind of damage. Cinematography is good for the budget. Music is also good for the budget. Make-up is interesting and the sets are really nice. I think a lot of budget went in the sets. They save the movie to some extent. Overall. The movie does have its own ups but for the most part is dooown! Good ideas are inserted here and there in the film but way not enough. The fascistic government portrayed here doesn't really provide any new entertainment or ideological ideas. I'd have to say shallow. The movie offers the viewer some new information about the whole S T universe, but it feels really inconsistent to the first one. It also offers some brief nudity for witch I give it a 4. Otherwise it would have been 3 :). I wish i could say that I was somehow intrigued buy this movie but no.. it's like a balloon. One pop and is gone forever. I'd certainly have to reconsider much to see it twice. Overall Starship Troopers: Marauder really feels like is glued together with Duct tape and it barely can hold like this. In the end the question is: Why make a bad low budget film? Especially Sci-Fi? Write a book, draw a comic, make a game, build a site..... I think anything would have worked better. It seems that the original Starship Troopers -by Paul Verhoven and his team (!!1997!!) and I'm emphasizing that- has rose the standards to high for an attempt at trying to achieve even the same level of depth like the original movie had. I recommend this film only to the hardcore Starship Troopers Fans like myself. Hopefully, in the near future, master Paul Verhoven would reconsider taking another Starship Troopers project into his hands. All the best.
Tell Your Friends