Change Your Image
xray-953-237678
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Maniac (2018)
Whow! How original! Haven't we see that a zillion times already?
A dystopian future or alternate reality. A catatonic hero who jerks around under heavy psychological issues. A girl with equally heavy issues. Surpise! They meet!
Why? Why does future has to always be dystopian? Why the hero has to be catatonic, looking far beyond the camera, mesmerizingly reflecting upon the problems existence brings? Why does this stupid concept have to reemerge again and again ever since Lang's Metropolis or Orwell's 1984?
We GOT it!
Move on people!
The Shape of Water (2017)
What a bunch of outdated cliches! Definetly deserved the Oscar!
A poor, lonely, disabled girl.
A poor, lonely strange (!) creature.
A friendly gay helper.
A friendly girlfriend.
Aaaaand...
The Bad Guy who speaks a dialogue written say.. a hundred years ago by someone who would like to be Tarantino when he'll grow up. It's a good thing he doesn't laugh at least...
Guess what! The girl and the creature like each other!
A story told a million times, it wouldn't suffice even kindergarten story telling. Guillermo's vision could mean something at the time the film is set on. Now it's so outdated, it really surprised me. We don't expect the academy to uphold novelties, but this is beyond criticism. This film is so bad, it makes one wonder how and why it was conceived in the first place.
I would want to say that it's a waste of talent, but the performances are of the quality of soap operas, so it's not. It's a total waste of our time with a laughable effort.
Somehow it's kinda sad to see pieces of art as bad as this one to get so much attention and make millions. It says something for the audience...
Hot Enough for June (1964)
Ruined by one of the most boring actors of all ages
The most untalented Dirk Bogarde managed to ruin any film he was involved with, no exception in this one. The story is a rather predictable one and the film shows it's age very clearly. It could have been very much better though with a different leading actor. Bogarde seems always to be thinking something else from what is happening, constantly constipated. It was a different time of course, but the fact that this man made a career in the film industry never stops to amaze me. The rest of the crew performs within the standards of the era, no ups and downs really, the story in it's simplicity borrows elements from older similar ones, nothing bad with that. Sylva Koscina is an adequate actress and a great presence, Robert Morley is a delight as in all his performances, the rest just add up to an oldie that could be very different if the lead actor was anybody else. It's very interesting to observe the way the story telling evolved through the entire 20th century and even later on. Films like this show us very clearly the do's and don't's of film making in general. (Sounds like a museum item and it sure is.) Useful for a limited audience.
Autómata (2014)
Bandera's legentary inability to act in new heights
What a great pity! A great story, superb scenery, a very good script, ruined all by the presence of Banderas in the leading role! (Banderas leading is a joke of it's own). Griffith's performance is even worse, but at least it last's very short thank God. What we have here, is a story of a dark future, a very common theme in science fiction. A story very similar to Bladerunner, up to date with all the new science achievements, completed with great animation work, you can't miss with all that. You can, if you don't choose the actors that can perform adequately to the last stunt man. Not to mention the leading roles for god's sake! What we get is a pathetic performance that would embarrass even school plays directors. Why? Why? Why? I would have left the building if the rest was not so good, but still, the question remains: Why?
The Fault in Our Stars (2014)
So very disappointing. It seduces teenagers, but what do they know?...
It's a pity. A book like this, one in a decade, from an incredibly talented author, to have this fate! A disastrous film, nothing works. First, the script: Almost always it's different from the book it's based upon, which is not a bad thing, but here, we have a complete misunderstanding from the script writers. Green constructed his story so beautifully, piece by piece with the precision of a clockwork. All of his work went down the drain. I don't want to go into the details of the story, but if you've read the book, just don't see this film. The casting is a joke. Two perfectly healthy young boy and girl, pretend to be suffering from cancer. Not even their make up is believable. Willian Dafoe even worse of his usual bad self. A disaster. The director is a complete failure, in directing actors, as well as picturing interior, or exterior spaces. Last but not least, the music is so bad, it sounds like a cheap - very cheap - TV series selection. Everything in this film is so bad, I wouldn't know which is worse. In total, John Reed's masterpiece should have a better fate being filmed. Of course it seduces teenagers, but what do they know?...
Only Lovers Left Alive (2013)
Yet another disappointment...
After Ghost Dog, Jarmous career took the expected dive. What I mean is that from first class directors you would expect either to continue their march to the top, or to stop and give way to youngsters to carry on. Unfortunately the movie at hands is yet another example of the opposite.
Jarmous is just exploiting his name and fame having chain himself on the directors chair not wanting to admit that he just can't deliver any more. It's more than normal to run out of ideas after having create masterpieces such as the 'Dead', the 'Mystery Train', or 'Down by law', but from an artist of the caliber of Jarmous I would expect the self awareness that would prevent him from exposing himself with garbage like 'Broken Flowers', or 'The Limits of Control', or these ridiculous lovers that had been left alive.
Actors have to act,not to pretend. That is what we see in this film, a bunch of lost souls (and I'm not referring to vampires) who pretend to be bad actors and do not even succeed on that! Of course, with this scenario at hands, they couldn't do much more, but I blame the director for this too.
I understand the studio and the producers pressure on anyone who can sell a couple of hours of cheap entertainment, but I feel very sorry seeing Jarmous falling in this pit. The movie is so bad that I can't describe flaws and weak parts, it's a piece of junk altogether. It's such pieces of junk that gave art cinema the bad reputation it carries.
Before Midnight (2013)
Wish this was a silent movie, or, better, complete silence !
Filming a story, means communicating it through the virtues and techniques of cinematography. This was not the case here. Linklater had set up a story so boring, it could beat any love story that had ever been filmed. Ever. On top of it, he was so bored himself (and how it could be otherwise), that he attempted to tell it with a dozen or so scenes, made up from about 20 shots in all. The point is that today, nobody wants to watch a thirteen minutes scene from the same angle (the scene in the car for example), with a couple boring as hell, talking about their personal life and the kids, and their prospects, and the kids again, and so on. The thing that run on the screen, was not a film. It was a clear attempt to capitalize on the success of the previous movies, witch might have been less boring than this one, but the result is an hubris at the face of cinema. The writers, the 'stars' and the director, should be ashamed of themselves. Period.
Blind (2007)
Great cinematography !
Truly great cinematography, at a minimum cost, with unknown actors. Can it be? Sure. Just sit comfortably, relax and let this film tune up with your breath. Tamar van den Dop delivered a hollow drama, with an approach that brings to mind Lars von Trier at his best. She is presenting images of her story with unparalleled power, filmed in a minimal way that underlines every single moment, every single shot, every breath the characters take. The story itself is a very powerful one, carrying echoes from ancient Greek tragedies. A love story, the most common story in all times, takes off here and grabs us in a turn no one could imagine. Brilliant. Besides the poetic images, the use of sound and music pieces is Dop's secret weapon. Some of the best secanses I've ever seen, have been filmed with utmost care, superbly designed and executed. Really, you must see for yourself. Last but not least, the actors. Halina Reijn and Joren Seldeslachts are perfectly casted to give flesh and bones to two difficult characters, under the exceptional guidance of van den Dop.
A very original and unconventional point of view, the new era in cinematography. Don't miss it.
The Kingdom (2007)
Superb cinematography.
Great, just great film. Peter Berg delivered a superb film, despite the difficulty of the subject. The angles, the framing, the camera motion, all just great, underlining the gravity of the matter every single moment. There are only two things I'd like to mention: One, the character of Jenifer Garner seemed out of context, since a field agent shouldn't and couldn't be so emotional engaged in the situation, (something that changes in the second half), making her more of a stereotype rather than a flesh and bones person. Again, in the first half only. Two, all the team job didn't seem to matter so much in the end, since coincidences played such an important role in the story. These are two things I consider a script flaw. Regardless, Berg did an excellent job filming the script he had, making us holding our breaths to the very end, the last but not least important part of the story. I reserve the ten stars for the ten greater films of all times and give an 8 plus, due to the weak spots I mention before. Thumbs up for Peter!
In the Cut (2003)
It takes more than an unstable camera to create atmosphere Jane
Jane Campion clearly can't make it. The film doesn't work at all. At first, we have the framing, witch is very tiring, with the continuous close - ups and the hand held camera only makes things worse. Blurring things or dimming the lights does not, I repeat does not creates atmosphere, it only shows luck of creativeness together with a very old fashion approach in film making. Showing us again and again every detail of the faces of the actors does not engage us more, it only makes us want to zoom out ourselves to see wtf is going on. The music is so academic that it doesn't exist. Worst of all: The dialogs. The film crawls all the way from the beginning to the bitter end and the dialogs are drugging it the other way. What can I say? Together with Holy Smoke, a film that ruined the talented Harvey Keitel and Kate Winslet, (a tragedy really), In The Cut is so pointless that makes you wonder, was she really thinking making them? I wouldn't consider watching anything else from her. I gave her a four, for it's obvious that she tried, but she clearly failed. She doesn't have it. Sorry Jane.