Change Your Image
Syrchek
10 Absolutely perfect or extremely close to complete perfection, a genuine masterpice
9 Excellent, very rare, almost perfect, very special, mostly a masterpiece
8 Very good, already a superior film , way above average, a partial masterpiece
7 Good, most content is above average, partially very good
6 Solid, OK, partially average and above average
5 Average, passable, sometimes dissapointing, some of it is allright
4 Bad, pretty flawed, below average,
3 Very bad, still not watchable
2 Still crappy, can hardly tolerate it
1 Complete crap, lord have mercy, I have no words to describe it
1/10 is -1/5... COMPLETE CRAP
2/10 is 1/5... STILL CRAPPY
3/10 is +1/5... VERY BAD
4/10 is -2/5... BAD
5/10 is 2/5 and +2/5... AVERAGE
6/10 is -3/5 and 3/5... SOLID, OK
7/10 is +3/5 and -4/5... GOOD, ABOVE
AVERAGE
8/10 is 4/5 and +4/5... VERY GOOD, A PARTIAL MASTERPIECE
9/10 is -5/5 and 5/5... EXCELLENT, ALMOST PERFECT
10/10 is +5/5... ABSOLUTELY PERFECT, A GENUINE MASTERPIECE
My vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=8760281
My comment history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur3828553/comments-expanded?order=date
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try again
My alternative SUMMER SCHEDULE
Reviews
Inception (2010)
The astounding art of MANIPULATION
I think I finally came around this movie after months. My first review was sloppy and superficial. I've seen it months ago and since then I haven't give it much of a thought. But now it hit me from nowhere, I finally see what the essence of this piece of art is- it's about the art of manipulation.
There are only a handful of movies, every now and then a new one is made, for which it can be truly said that it represents some kind of a "document" or at least an amazing meditation of how we already live today and how we will live in the near future. In this regard I would put Inception right next to the Matrix. The later is in essence a film about a completely ignorant super-used workforce of humans, who haven't actually moved from their wombs yet, but at the same time they have computer generated illusions about how they reached "the peak of civilization". This kind of humanity is completely immature (but not pure, or innocent) until a New man comes from somewhere and decides to move from this cave of ignorance and unconscious slavery. Most of them stay there, some by their own free will, because it's pleasant.
Now the key thing about this movie, is not just that it's a long "journey into the mind", but what matters is what comes out. It takes inception to make perception. That's the whole trick. The conciseness is a product and the subject of manipulation doesn't know a bit about it. He wrongfully thinks that his consciousness "mirrors" the world "as it is", but it doesn't, it never did and it never will.
Inception is a pure and plastic example of how we live in the 21. century. We live in a world where there is an infinite amount of media inception of ideas on a daily level. All of it is very well planned and targeted, nothing spontaneous about it. And yet we still egoistically think how our minds "mirror" the world as it is and how independent we are. We cannot except or even know that our minds are a product, that our perceptions are a product. To realize that, one would at least need to "plug off" for a substantial amount of time from this. But that is costly, so nobody does it. In the end our own defense mechanism screw us up, because we refuse to recognize what kind of fools we are.
Iron Man 2 (2010)
A sequel that doesn't bet on "twice the action" formula.
This is one of the very few blockbuster franchises that I have followed so far. I usually see them fast, or I don't see them at all. And following the Iron Man franchise has "payed off", so far. But this part is different and does feel different than the first, and for some reason it's not so easy to immediately answer why exactly.
The first thing that came to mind is that despite the bigger budget of the second part, the "level" and the time of action is the same if not shorter than in "Iron Man 1". I never thought that I will ever caught myself thinking that there should be more action and less talking in a so-called "summer film".
The real substitute for all the chasing, shooting and blowing up that is a bit missing in this film, is an array of new characters. The constant talking of everyone, especially Tony Stark of course, gives the film a dynamic pace and probably makes those 2 hours go by much quicker. But from my view, the most silent character of all, Vanko, was the most interesting one.
What is also specific for the Iron Man franchise and many of this kind of big films of the new millennium, is the skillful adding of "counter-culture" elements in a very mainstream product. This part left me down here quite a bit. The first trailer for the film had me thinking and hoping that we'll see some kind of a critique of war-profiteering and that it will all lead us to a path of at least some moral dilemmas. But sadly, all of Vanko's motives for vengeance are reduced to some old family rivalry. I guess it is (still?) too much to ask for more from a king-size summer opening film like this.
Die Welle (2008)
The makers probably has good intentions making it, but mostly it doesn't seem to reach further than A, B and C.
Just the first thing I noticed here is that the only thing that makes this movie "German", is the German language. Visually it completely matches American films, the cinematography, the cuts, the style and even the content itself, just about anything I can think of, looks "American". If the actors would speak English, it wouldn't have been a "European film", which is known to be different than Hollywood pictures.
This makes me think that the Germans have a peculiar love/hate relationship with American culture and also politics. For instance you cannot miss the sign on the teachers mailbox that says F Bush. I wouldn't call it "anti-Americanism" so quickly, because anti-Americanism is something that in my opinion is more related to cultural, life-style things, than politics. And about cultural, life-style things, there doesn't seem to be a dispute here. They show teenagers doing the same things you see in American movies and the stereotypes also look the same. Jocks, nerds, anarchists, minorities and very boring and annoying teachers.
The cultural things are basically identical, the political, national pride which is kind of quietly present in some, even if critical American films (flags waving) is on the other hand, absent. And you see a little bit of vulgar critique of American politics that you normally don't see in American films. In this film, political idealization of (for instance American) politics is absent, of course, it's Germany, but all the rest, is basically the same. The problem I see, is that politics and culture are not so easy to separate, they are interlinked. That is why I think this German-American relationship or attitude is kind of peculiar.
There is talk about politics here of course, not just autocracy, but a small bit about more present political and economic issues, about capitalism and democracy for instance. So therefore it leads to the crucial theme, is it possible in today's age, when people are so "individualistic", when they don't seem to care about anything, is it possible to bring them together for a common goal and at the same time, is it possible that the goal and the group activity would be in a large dispute with current "civillizational" norms. And the answer, which you can predict, is yes. And this is where the other part of the problem starts.
I think a better film about this sort of issue, would make us think during the start and the end, a lot better about it's topic. Instead we mostly see gang activity, too simplistically portrayed "brainwashed" teenagers and in the end it all leads to the kind of obvious "I told you so" conclusion. The road to that conclusion could and should have a lot more curves and stops than it has here.
I still think that this is a decent picture. It could be considered learning material for high school kids for instance. But sadly it doesn't say much or too little about the complexity of authority, autocracy, group psychology, obedience, politics and more. It seems like it's American style makes it show more and say less. Or to cut the long story short, we see WHAT is going on, and then HOW it's going on, but practically nothing about WHY is it going on. Although there is guessing in the beginning of the film about the rise of Nazism, but those reasons don't apply to the situation and the behavior of the pupils.
The picture should explore better both, the topic and it's characters, but it stops somewhere in the middle or even in the beginning and goes sideways.
In Bruges (2008)
Hit men with a conscience.
Great, sad, brutal, funny, pardon me, I meant f***n' funny, are the first things that I can think of just after seeing this quite simple but effective movie. As the title says In Bruges, the story is set in a medium-sized Belgium town with a very rich historical background, an earthly paradise for tourists of a more "cultural" type. Just one of the last places on earth where you would put a story that involves professional hit men.
"Bruges dangerous" doesn't seem to make any sense, but there are enough elements thrown in that make this concept work so well, you almost wish to go there someday for yourself. But let's face it, off-screen Bruges itself must really be kind of boring if you are not a "cultural" fan, that's why it is apt to throw in American dwarfs, movie scenes, prostitutes, drug dealers, some of the crudest humor you can think of, etc, all that to go with those Gothic churches and make the story more exciting to follow.
But what also makes it appealing is that our two protagonists, especially Farrel with his bleak feelings, almost couldn't blend better with the cold, dark and depressive atmosphere of the town. But like most good comedies this film also builds it's story on certain contrasts. And the main contrasts that seems to exists is this notion of hit men that have a sort of a conscience, which is what it's all about. And I have to say that at times this idea does seem a little unbelievable, but without it the bleakness and guilt would disappear, the atmosphere wouldn't have it's effect and the story would have to be mostly rewritten.
Yet this is clearly not a motion picture for everyone, since the R rating is very much in place. It isn't always a plus, because there seems to be just a scene or two that is almost ridiculously violent and that mildly spoils the otherwise very, very thoughtful story.
Zwartboek (2006)
It should have been on several kinds of top movies lists.
I saw it minutes ago, I know it's not very "objective" to write comments right after seeing a film, but here we are commentators, not established critics. I was sure I would find this in the Top 250, but I was a bit negatively surprised, again.
Before seeing it I didn't know what it was exactly about, I just knew that it's a story at the time of World War II. I really did not expect such a gripping and twisted thriller, more of a drama and luckily you get all of it. There are moments when you are at the edge of your seat because of the brutality between the Germans and the Dutch resistance, the filmmakers do not spare much with the violence. I haven't seen exactly every movie about WW II, but this one is such that it can really make you squeeze your teeth when you think of the Germans at that time. But I wouldn't say it's in any way offensive of Germans, because by the time of the third part, it seems that the blood is on each and everyones hands.
The story is really one of the most intriguing ones I've seen in a long time. And everything is enriched with the acting, for which the main credits go to Carice van Houten as Rachel Stein/Ellis de Vries. Speaking just out of the blue, she seems to have buckets of talent and if she can handle this, she can handle anything. The supporting cast as well. This film really seems like a quite heavy thing to pull of so authentically as it was. In the end it made me feel exhausted and shaken.
There is also one other thing that is worth mentioning, and that is that this film is not American, which shows a lot in the way it's made. There are scenes that are those by-the-way scenes, pulled of so easily and naturally, but you would probably never see them in a Hollywood picture with similar content. Think of the conversation between Ellis and Ronnie in the toilette, to give just one example. It's true that a lot of American films are adult-oriented dramas, but in a different style than European films. But this kind of difference of European cinema is just another plus in my opinion. All I can say is that Zwartboek is simply a "two thumbs up", to express myself in the usual critical manner.
Tropic Thunder (2008)
Perhaps it's a little "too American" to be really funny for a worldwide audience.
I'm not from the US, but I admit I had a few good laughs while watching this at a theater the other day. But there were just these few quite good laughs, probably not more than five. It made me think that the film is a bit "too American", it happened quite a few times when something was supposed to be funny and people didn't take it as such. One good example is the "DVD comment" from Downey Jr., people didn't laugh much, probably because they didn't get it. There are more of these examples, but I don't want to mark my comment with spoiler alerts. Or sometimes people laugh at the accent and not at what't actually said.
A lot of the jokes get "lost in translation" if you are not American and if you read subtitles. The other problem in my opinion is that there isn't a peak laugh, or a really big laugh in the end. Because of that I think a lot of people left the theater a bit disappointed. When I saw such high marks for this film I was a little negatively surprised. It almost seemed to me that I didn't watch the same movie. Some would argue that despite the lack of grand laughs in the end it's "overall" funny, but in my view, more mildly.
The Dark Knight (2008)
Honestly, I haven't felt this excited in a theater since The Matrix
I will let out the synopsis of the film this time, since almost everyone knows it. Instead I would just like to simply express some of my impressions.
First off, I think the best thing about this film is not "The Joker" as many say, but the short little moments when Nolan, Ledger, Hans Zimmer & James N. Howard (the composers), join their forces and create these little tense and anxious moments that are slowly rising the tension and leave you in limbo. Anxiety contrary to phobia, as you may know, means the absence of a feared object and the anticipation of something. My personal favorite: the scene with the Joker and Rachel at Wayne's party. And there are a few more. I think the instrument that is used during these scenes is some sort of a horn and it's getting slightly louder and louder and joined by other instruments, combined with the actual happening in the film of course.
And a few words about the Joker. If I would describe him it would be excessive enthusiasm, pathos, or even immortality. There are two opposite situations where you can't possibly put the Joker, because he wouldn't be the Joker anymore. One situation is being dead, the other is waking up. Why? Because when people are waking up they are always serious, I can imagine the Joker sleeping and snoring, it would still look kind of funny, waking up no. Except if it would happen extremely fast, with the speed of light. The Joker is always in FULL conscience, contrary when we are waking up we are in these states of, how would I say it, vulnerability. We can easily start to ask ourselves about what is the purpose of our doing, the meaning of our life, etc... And that is the last thing that a psychotic villain like the Joker would do. Try to imagine it for yourselves. Ledger played him 100 percent proper.
There are so many more things I could say about this film. All the elements just seem to collide, there are basically no big flops in my opinion. I just don't give 10's very often, I don't know exactly why, It's just this "rule" I have and I'm quite invariable about it. I think the film has to be "tested", viewed many times before you can consider it perfect and in time you might change your opinion and I would feel stupid if I would go from 10 to 9 later or something like that.
Premonition (2007)
The fear of what?
One mind, one consciousness, two worlds. At the beginning it is clear that we are going to take a trip into isolation. Linda Hanson has it all. A loving husband, two healthy young children, and a prosperous life with not that little time on her own. Seems like a pretty good picture of a well-off middle class home. Something we've seen on film like ten thousand times before, which is probably why the film isn't treated that good.
When suddenly we find ourselves in a different world, seeing it all from Linda's point of view. Although she knows a lot more than the rest of the people, there is still something that remains unknown. It's because of this "unknown" thing that Linda is seen as a mentally unstable person, although she remains completely normal. It delves her further into loneliness, and this is what I think the film is best about.
The middle-class perspective probably makes it easier to relate to her and also to get absorbed into hear fears. After all, like it or not, in the back of our heads we're all probably daydreaming of a life similar to her's. But this "unknown" thing, a premonition, remains. It doesn't only make her look frail in front of others, but it can make her feel bad even about her self.
I think that this is a good film about loneliness, isolation and some of the darkest fears we have. And how no living standard can make these feelings go away. It's about the fear of loss. The loss of love. It's no coincidence that in the end, she remains a widow. The important thing is that this time, she accepts it differently. She accepts it.
Apocalypto (2006)
Are people really aware of how inaccurate this is?
Or should I say how much does it really matter to us? I think it really should. You know I've thought a little about all the historically based films I've seen in recent years and how careless I've been about the facts that appear (or should appear) in them. But before seeing Apocalypto I looked into some of them.
Gibson basically put 600 years of time into a few days. I've read that the classical era of the Mayas was in the 9th and the 10th century. That's also when their civilization actually went into decline. All the major centers in Mezoamerica were falling apart, and to this day it isn't exactly clear why it happened. But it's known that it was a partial decline. So by the time the Spanish conquerers came (the beginning of the 16th century) there was nothing like that going on. No decline. The conquerors destroyed them entirely.
So that means that the starting quote, that you can only conquer a civilization once it's decline began from 'within' is more or less a hoax. And a huge discrimination. People bitterly protested against the film in Gvatemala. It's also known that the Mayas were by far not as savagery as they appear in this film.
I mean what was Gibson trying to do? A little more than two years ago he made The Passion of the Christ. He often said that the reason for doing it was very personal. Some kind of cleansing through religion. Was he afraid to show us that religion can also become a reason for (ethnic) cleansing? That it's not always just good and purifying, but it can also play a part in brutal deeds? Who knows.
But if we ignore the facts (which can't be done lightly) I think that the film is pretty high on an artistic level. The Maya language makes it feel pretty authentic. The brutal scenes do make it kind of hard to watch but they contribute to the dramatic events towards the end. That's when 'Paw' runs away from his capturers. The scenery also makes you feel as if you were sent back five centuries, and gives a really stirred up feel for danger. It conjures a kind of race for survival perception.
It's just too bad that it's so incorrect, that even it's main purpose becomes meaningless. It just can't reach it by definition. Historical facts really should matter here. So I won't rate it. There's just too much ambivalence here. If it were more correct I'd probably gave it a 7 or even an 8, but it just seems too cynical to do that. So I'll stay cool this time, which seems a better option than thoughtless appraisal that some people are giving it. For the wrong reasons in my opinion.
Babel (2006)
I'm sure it's about something mutual to all of us.
First, why I think it's called Babel (Babylon). Check out the 32nd parallel of geographical latitude. It goes right from beneath the US-Mexican border, thru the mountains of Morocco, and thru Japan's most southern island Kyushu. And geographical coordinates are a system which was invented by the Babylonians. The point of it is to express every location on earth.
I think that's what the director was mainly trying to do. I don't think that it's just a dumb coincidence that the characters are at the places they are. The director was trying to express different places and meanwhile showing that there's a common dimension within them and people. The dimension isn't just latitude, but perhaps fate. On all three places people are experiencing something very similar.
The tag line goes: If You Want to be Understood...Listen. The ancient tower of Babel is also a very important allegory. It's known that it's used in Judeo-Christian context to explain the existence of many different languages and races. In the allegory God destroyed the tower to prevent the efforts of humans to create a unified language and race. The point of the film isn't that we have to learn different languages to understand each other, but we have to LISTEN.
The poor Mexican woman will get sent back 'home', because nobody listens to what she's saying. All because of her nephew running away from the boundary patrol. She is very much misunderstood and accused. At the next location an innocent man get's beaten up and an innocent boy gets killed, no fault of theirs. All because of one pointless shot. They are both misunderstood and accused. A girl in Japan is as lonely as can be, because she cannot speak to 'ordinary' people. They don't listen. She is getting accused with filthiness, although she wants something completely pure. She is as much as others, misunderstood and accused.
If we won't listen carefully, innocent people will keep getting hurt. I think Iñárritu prepared us a very humane story. Something that's very apt for consideration. I guess that's what makes a movie great. That it's worth to consider it, instead of seeing and forgetting all about it. And by now this is honestly the best movie I've seen from the previous year. I wish there were more...
........ +4/5 ........
Miami Vice (2006)
Actually it's pretty well delivered.
I'm glad I resisted the curiosity of peeking into the ratings before I saw this one. A 7/10 is a pretty honest rating from me and I was a bit surprised when I saw such a low score. A logical conclusion: too many people compare it to the original TV series. I have to admit, I haven't seen one single part of the original 80's show. My guess is that the movie is far grittier than the series, but it maybe lacking some good chemistry and a finer story.
What I like particularly is the use of digital HDTV format. This is probably the first mainstream film where digital format was used so often and so obviously. The use of the format creates a distance between modern film making and 80's film making. Miami Vice (2006) want's to look like it's own film, from it's own separate era. The effect of the digital format is that it somehow makes the action scenes look far more realistic. It looks as if you have live access to a gun rally that a TV reporter is filming on the spot.
Pretty realistic I know. Well almost the same could be said about Farrel and Foxx, but they do suffer the lack of a good dialog at times. Something not very significant for a Michael Mann picture. This time the whole atmosphere doesn't reach the level of his previous film Collateral. Maybe it's because Crockett and Tubbs aren't dark enough characters to create a cathartic experience. They don't even come near it.
But in general this is still a very adult oriented crime-drama, mainly because of the interactions between the mob and the cops. As I've said. The problems seem to be the lack of chemistry, maybe an even better story and a more persuasive and logical ending. Luckaly the story was still complex and twisty enough to keep my attention for a little more than two hours. But a better conclusion and a focus for more climatic events could make this movie better. I honestly hope that Mann will fully succeed the next time.
....... +3/5 .......
The Departed (2006)
It really deserves a spot among the best crime flicks.
I heard this film is allegedly a remake of a Hong Kong film called Mou gaan dou, which I sadly haven't seen before this one. That fact takes off a lot of the originality that The Departed would have poses if it hadn't been a remake. So I'll try to take that in consideration. But since it's a Scorsese flick I spent a little more time comparing it to his (still) better crime-drama, Goodfellas. In my opinion, just because of the pure chronology, considering that Goodfellas was made about sixteen years before The Departed, that alone makes it a more original piece of the crime world.
Let's face it. The crime genre is by now a pretty well investigated universe. I'm not thinking just about films, but tens of TV series as well. So in sense of originality, The Departed does come a little short. However, the cast, the performances and the entire realization of the project are quite a different story.
These are probably DiCaprio's and Damon's toughest roles yet. I've read one review of the film in the papers so far, and the critic described them as 'eternal boys', that just couldn't fully pull it off. But I think he was wrong, because the film doesn't rely that much on their brutality. Instead we really get a view into an intense struggle on two opposite fronts. I think most of the beauty of the film lies within Costigan's and Sullivan's insecurity and unawareness of who's who in this game. It kind of feels like good old fashioned voyeurism, since we are the ones that see it all from a bird's-eye view. And along with the story, the characters just get more and more corrupt.
I would say that this one does deserve a good spot on the chart of best crime films in recent years. The only problem I see in it is that it doesn't appear to be that quite fresh. Like I've said the crime genre is already very well worked and tested. But if you take all the attributes into account I think it's very worthy to spend two and a half hours of time on it.
........ +4/5 ........
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Thank god Mr. T saved the best for last.
OK, where to begin? First, why did it take soooo long to see this movie? I have no idea, I guess I see to many of the latest flicks and don't pay a lot of attention to stuff that's more than 5 years old. The other reason must be that this flick is less on TV than Forrest Gump for instance. I've seen Gump ages ago, but Pulp just dodged and dodged my proximity. Who knows, maybe I was afraid of the disappointment of seeing 'the best of the best' and then begin to wonder what's left?
Now I'm not wondering what's left, just why was the movie that different from my expectations? I just expected something... bigger. A bigger, more important plot. I won't get into the details, but it evolves around a group of small criminals, who's lives change because of a few incidents. Nothing really that big. If we get to certain characters, like Uma Thurman for instance, it's a pretty insignificant character. The same I felt for Harvery Keitel. Now really for a film on this level you don't expect your characters to go dry. But the fact is that some of the actors didn't do that much for the film at all. Just the opposite of what you've heard from your friends (or suspected from the film poster).
An hour and a half or more into the movie I started to wonder if this is it? People consider this to be the single best crime/thriller of the 90's and so far it hasn't been all that. As it's already well known, Tarantino likes to make his films feel nonlinear. But still, we get the best for last, ending up exactly where we stared. My favorite part of the film. The best laughs and thrills were in my opinion from those scenes.
Someone once wrote: 'We don't judge films on what they are, but how they are about it'. And that's the thing with Pulp Fiction. I mean there are hundreds of films with drugs involved, gun shooting, gangsters, all sorts of violence and just what in the world makes this one so significant? And a famous saying goes: 'The devil is in the details' and so is Pulp. And all I can say is: Just freakin' see it already!
......... -5/5 .........
Green Street (2005)
Pretty powerful but the plot is a bit shaky.
Matt Buckner is a student of journalism at Harvard University. One day he lets his roommate talk him into dropping out of college just to help him protect the reputation of his family. Matt drops out just a couple of months before his degree and receives a nice amount of money for doing it, letting his wealthy pal get the easy way out. Therefor Matt decides to pay a visit to his sister and her husband in London whom he hasn't seen in three years.
It's here that he meets his brother-in-law's brother who lours him into hanging out with his friends who are all members of a 'firm' called The GSE. Matt feels pretty aimless because of the lack in having any real goals in life right now. So therefor we see a good case of slipping deeper and deeper into a truly restless crowd and joining their activities.
The film is rich with really good performances and uncompromising depiction of gang violence. There's hardly any holding back on that part. The whole thing about 'hooligans' looks even more realistic than most documentaries on the subject. But I couldn't get rid of the sense that the plot is a bit fetched if not ridiculous. That rings somewhere in the back of your head all the time.
I mean it's a little hard to believe that some student would get affiliated with a crowd like that so quickly. And the whole American-Brit relationship seemed a bit dated if not a little pathetic. But despite the shaky premise it succeeds wonderfully in making you see how pointless it is to keep getting involved in violence. In that point of view the film is easily comparable to genre gems such as American History X. Who knows, maybe one day this film will be shown across high schools to kids at sociology.
....... - 4/5 .......
Thumbsucker (2005)
Good old bitter-sweet stuff.
A 17 year old kid named Justin is a typical high school numskull. Never good at school, never fully interested in his activities and like that wasn't enough, he's also 'weird'. Nothing non typical here, except that most people don't know that he's a.... thumbsucker. He just can't live without it.
One day everything changes. He knows a really nice orthodontist named Perry who offers him some suggestions about how to solve the problem with his thumb. It somehow works but not without it's side effects which lead to other methods of handling such problems.
Now it's really nice to see big names like Keanu Reeves and Vince Vaugn undertake a part in a little project like this. Vaughn really surprised me and this is probably the maturest role that he has ever been in. Reeves was of course like Neo, and looks like him every time he questions about life in general.
The film is really good for growing up teens but adults will enjoy it as well because of many 'grown up' subjects like disappointment in marriage, addictions, etc... You know how this works. It's one of those bitter-sweet stories that lift you up, take you down and say a bitter goodbye at the end. But not without a taste of sweetness because of knowing that in the end everything will be alright. It's no big deal but it's pleasant non the less.
....... +3/5 .......
Inside Man (2006)
A solid cast (un)rolls a complex 'joint'.
I must shamefully admit that this is the second movie from 2006 besides V for Vendetta that I've had the chance to see. Not much I know, but is it just me or has 2006 so far been the crappiest year for film since... who knows. Anyway this is my second Spike Lee's 'joint' besides 25th Hour and I must say it's pretty striking.
Denzel Washington, Jodie Foster and Christopher Plummer all played their characters fluently without having any problems but Clive Owen is the one that had some minor greatness attached to him after all. His intro was awesome and I consider it to be one the film's best moments.
Since all of the action evolves around the bank robbery, we are pretty sure that the only motive for doing it is money. And if we wouldn't have been questioned about the 'why' in the beginning it would have seemed even weirder as it did. No I won't give away the plot, I'll just say that I'm glad I knew very little about it. The last half an hour turned the movie upside-down three times for me.
It's not without it's problems though. The problem is the films pace and narrative which are pretty 'genrey' in the first hour, but I feel that a lot could have been made better. The tension could have been screwed up tighter but you feel as if a lot is saved for the last half an hour. And yes a lot of (side) characters could have been developed a bit better. Yup, the hostage situation was definitely robbed of it's tension because of the last part. And because the robbers were too nice.
Although this is a 'medium' budget Hollywood flick and by no chance an independent one, as I've said, you will be surprised. At least from that point of view. I know I was and I regret I didn't see it in a theater just because I couldn't hear the audience say "WTF(?), roll it back please". So yes paying strict attention is required. Otherwise see it again like I did.
....... - 4/5 .......
The Descent (2005)
A definite improvement compared to directors previous work. Could have been even scarier, but I'm glad it wasn't.
Sounds kind of familiar: a group of cave explorers goes on a cave trip in which they find out that they are the first people to ever walk through it. Then comes the line: 'I think I saw something' and we are off to a suspenseful, chasing blood fest. The directors previous film had a practically exact same plot, where a group of soldiers was hunted by a pack of hungry were-wolfs. The one thing I really 'hate' about horror films is when they're full of sudden scary scenes. This one is full of them.
The film has a really good premise where there's a woman named Sarah that's full of grief for her lost family, especially her daughter. Her tragic loss resonates through her life and pushes her in extremely horrifying resurrections of that fatal event. This is the scariest part of the film. Now the director isn't really good in making the beasts in his films that scary. This time he merely succeeds in making it so, though it doesn't come close to the psy-terror of Sarah's odd syndromes.
This time the boys are girls and they act like super-girls which is kind of a let down and looks like another Alien series recycle. I thought the film's plot would spin around Sarah's fears and make the rest of the team get swallowed in an endless series of devastating hallucinations. That would have been too much for my achy heart that doesn't handle horror all that good. So I'm glad that the creators choose a more empirical enemy. For horror fans: highly recommended.
....... - 4/5 .......
Just Like Heaven (2005)
Love is the sixth sense.
Elizabeth Masterson is a hard working young female doctor who spends most of her days in a San Francisco hospital. One night she drives home and has a fatal car crash and the next thing we see is her wondering in her ex apartment. A guy named David has moved there and he looks like the ultimate nightmare for Elizabeth's neat and orderly spirit. David can somehow see and hear her and at first he's normally spooked by her unusual presence. At first there's a lot of argument about who has to move out but later they find a compromise in the quest for Elizabeth's lost identity.
Just like heaven is a fine mix between a romantic 'chick' flick and an inflow from the male universe, evident in David's alienated lifestyle, partying and guzzling. I never really liked Reese Witherspoon and I never really found her very attractive. Not exactly my type I thought to myself. But here she blooms and I didn't mind one bit that she's present in almost every shot of the film. Mark Ruffalo is also great. Although he isn't young enough anymore to be considered 'new Hollywood material', I'm still surprised how such a talented actor was put in so many side roles and is mainly unknown to the widest film audience. I think he can handle a lead as well (or better) as any of the A list actors.
Anyway I consider the film good because of it's downright casting, fluent laughs and the right bit of romance. It's just not all that original since it's genre looks pretty retro. It's not a remake but it's another (successful) rummage through Hollywood's rich history that goes back to the early 90's (Ghost) and probably 80's (Splash). A fantasy like this takes the romance genre one step higher in making you feel that love can really be something extraordinary. If only it were true.
....... +3/5 .......
Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005)
Not for a careless viewer. In terms of politics and history of course.
George Clooney's second fully-length feature takes on a past but remarkably present theme of protecting the civil liberties in an otherwise democratic state. We see him perform the role of a CBS producer Frank Friendly who worked on the early 1950's show, hosted by Edward R. Murrow. Murrow was a broadcast journalist on CBS and an open critic of the internal politics of that time's senator, Joseph McCarthy. He made history with his approximately half an hour long show in which he aired his thoughts on the senator's stands on communism. He also reported about the otherwise obscure stories of civil liberty violations that were a result of the senator's activities.
I was stunned by Murrow's prefatory speech that happened a few years after his bold activity on CBS. Talking about the obvious but strangely concealed always sounds stunning when it comes from people of his type. David Strathairn gave an incredible performance and made me wish to see more of these kind of shows where a cigarette smoking commentator provokes your thoughts on the up-to-date topics.
Seeing it in black&white makes the film feel more unbiased. Overall, people who see movies for sheer entertainment and who are more or less unaware of past and present events in politics don't need my warning. Like some movies, this one doesn't market itself like it's something else than what it is, meaning that it's pretty much what you might expect but well executed. It's a small possibility that the 'wrong' kind of viewer will see it. It can seem boring at times but it was worth the attention because of Murrow's lucid and consistent criticism. Good night, and good luck.
........ 4/5 ........
Munich (2005)
This is one gruesome and haunting political thriller.
Munich follows the story of the 1972 assassination at the Olympic games in Munich, Germany. A group of 11 Israeli athletes was kidnapped and murdered by a group of Palestinians, known as Black September. The Israeli intelligence agency Mossad was determined to find and eliminate the people who executed the attack Therefore Mossad sent five men who were all trained professionals for specific fields, erased their entire data and provided them with large funds. Their mission was to find the members of Black September on the territory of Western Europe and eliminate them one by one.
The film is specifically marked by Spielberg's precise handling and direction. Using long shots, slow zooms and other techniques he intentionally made it look like it was made in the 1970's. The set-design really deepens the sense of being there at that time and place in Europe. As we follow the group of five men, they shortly tracked down and murdered the first one of their targets. Every time they search for someone they move to a new location. They're paying large amounts of money to a source named Louie who provides them with precise info about the identities and whereabouts of their targets. But despite the incredible accuracy of their source, certain members of the group are becoming more and more paranoid and start to doubt about the justification of their mission. Particularly the group's leader, Avner. His head is becoming fuller with horrible images and even fictions about what really happened to the Israeli hostages on that faithful day.
There are at least three parts of the film I would like to stress out. First is the incredible throat-grabbing paranoia that is rising within the group. The danger of their work becomes evident when it's clear that their as much of an easy target as their victims are. The second stress would be about the gruesome and uncompromising graphic depiction of violence. It made me feel repulsive but simultaneously related to the guilt in Avner's head. The third thing that deserves a point out is the performing of all the characters which stays sober and never goes off the tracks to the very end. One thing is also interesting, it's how Avner is unable to recognize himself with the consequences of the mission. Facts just don't matter to him, rationalizing doesn't do him any good. He simply finds no legitimate reason for what he's done. To me this makes Munich a more or less unbiased statement about the events that it described. Besides Brokeback Mountain this is easily the most touching, haunting and quality film I've seen to come out of 2005 (so far).
........ +4/5 ........
The Matador (2005)
A smooth and polished hit-man comedy.
The Matador is a story about a practiced assassin and a salesman, who meet at a bar in Mexico City. Both are total strangers to each other and start a conversation just out of politeness. Pierce Brosnan who plays the assassin named Julian Noble seems to be weary of his profession and is spending his evening where he usually does. At the bar table. Throughout the conversation with the salesman named Danny (Greg Kinnear) he ties a bond with him talking about his personal life. They spend the next day hanging out at the bullfights. Danny is still curious about Julian's profession. Therefore Julian demonstrates to him just what exactly he does for a living. When Mexico City is all over, they both go back to their lives. Later on things aren't going right for Julian. He cracks down and just isn't his old self anymore. His governors find his professional superficiality unacceptable and make a decision about his furthermore fate.
If there's anything good about this movie it's the two main characters. They're the exact opposite of each other. I've never seen Brosnan squeeze a better performance out of himself than this time. The role of a slightly year stricken hit-man who just loves to spend his free time with hookers and booze, looks like it's been written just for him. Plus his contagious optimism and clownish character make it really fun to watch. When he's in trouble he goes where people in trouble usually do, he goes 'home'. He pays a visit to his old chump Danny. Danny is quite the opposite of Julian. An honest, successful salesman, married and living in a Denver suburb. His wife Bean, played by Hope Davis just can't wait for their guest to show her his gun. Having Julian at their house seems like the most exciting thing that happened to her in years.
All in all The Matador is a fine movie where two completely different worlds pour into each other. Julian made Danny's life feel more exciting, Danny helped Julian save his. It seems like they have a serious necessity to switch lives. Throughout the movie we are entertained by Brosnan's careless and adventuress lifestyle and calmed with Kinnear's grief and settlement. Recommended for both fans of dramas and comedies that have a grown-up feel to them.
....... - 4/5 .......
Fun with Dick and Jane (2005)
Fun and it mostly does what it promises. That's all.
Jim Carrey is playing in his standard way, this time a suburban dad and husband working for a large corporation. Tea Leoni plays his bored suburban wife. It all looks nice, Dick gets his awaited promotion and the family's social status seems to be on the rise like never before. But Dick and Jane corked the champagne too early. It's all a big sick joke where Dick is sent on a TV-show to discuss the company's blossoming business situation. One of the funnier scenes in this film. It all went down the drain, the company's executives pulled an 'Enron-type' financial scam and Dick is nothing short of embarrassed on the show.
The movie looks like a mix between Requiem for a Dream, with some elements of Pulp Fiction and Carrey's previous role in Me, Myself and Irene. There's just too little originality to make this film hilarious and too little of the same to make the robbery scenes look thrilling. It's just,... fun. It's fun to watch Jim Carrey act like a monkey in the elevator, it's fun to watch him get embarrassed on TV, it's fun to see others laughing at him, it's fun to see his son talk in Spanish when they call at his house, etc... So the movie fairly does what it promises.
Alec Baldwin gave an okay performance as the rich and careless executive, living in profusion while the rest of the region lives jobless and without fake lawn grasses in front of their houses. All presented in a funny and non-painful way as it really isn't. One of the utterly funny scenes is when Carrey gets drunk and stands on the bar-table. The film does nicely pass over between bad consequences and making them look amusing. It's all concluded with a few exciting incident's at the bank and with a fun and happy ending. So it more often does what it promises, nothing more. No shiny awards for this one, except at maybe the DVD market. And that's all that really matters. This corporate parody even proves it.
...... -3/5 ......
Revolver (2005)
Lots of curves in this one. Despite it's confusion and familiarity, I just couldn't keep my eyes off of it..
Revolver is one of those movies that the audience will find really hard to define. I can't remember a single film with a more mixed reception. A lot of people must think it's a total mess. Some consider it average or too confusing to be good enough. Some think it's a masterpiece. But of course you're gonna say. There isn't a single movie that wouldn't have that, right? Well, not with Revolver people. Don't take my word for it, but check out the user ratings in detail and you will see that the voters are absolutely scattered about this one. Although it doesn't have a high rating average, the majority still gave it the highest possible vote.
Snatch has been the only Guy Ritchie movie I've seen so far. The first couple of ten minutes I've walked into Revolver I expected something similar. There he is, Jason Statham again with a pack of other criminals and that familiar smell of gangsters teasing and playing tricks with each other again. Nothing unusual for a Ritchie movie so far. Only later you see that Ritchie is more of a Bryan Singer this time than he is his usual self. Jason Statham plays a guy named Jake Green. He just got out of prison where he's been for the past seven years and is obviously already looking for trouble. He came to a casino to play a few games with a man named Mr. Macha (Ray Liotta) who also owns the place. Jake wins the game but on his way out he collapses down the staircase for apparently no reason. Mr. Macha wasn't too happy about Mr. Green showing up in his casino. Because he feels deceived he orders his men to take Mr. Green and his associates out. But something strange happens (again) and Jake Green is the only one that survives the shooting, saved by a man he sees for the first time in his life. Jake doesn't know why he's saved, Macha doesn't know why Jake isn't dead. But you feel as if someone knows everything.
If I would try to write a more exhaustive intro you wouldn't read this comment till bed time. There is so much going on in this movie. Where do I start? Well the performances, especially by Statham and Liotta are really convincing. They are both really familiarized with their roles. André Benjamin wasn't something I expected but he seemed to have a smarter role than he usually does. The rest of the cast was awesome and played an essential role in the movie. What I will most likely remember about this film are some really outstanding scenes. The one where Macha is being pushed onto the floor by his bodyguard has to be one of the best scenes in modern-day thriller history. The script is very stirred up and everything is in motion all the time. The mysterious identity of a man called Mr. Gold is yet to be revealed. This is where it goes down somehow. Jake's odd behavior was a put-off and thank god that everything is given more sense in the last few minutes.
I would definitely recommend Revolver to fans of The Usual Suspects. At times the plot seems identical. Also recommended if you liked Léon and the rest of Ritchie's films. I think it's best to see this movie without any knowledge about the plot what so ever. A friend recommended it to me, saying nothing else than it's good and very unpredictable. 'It's not like the rest', were his exact words. He wasn't far off. Word of mouth is something really rare when it comes to movies in my life. I usually give recommendations too others. Thank you for that Stojan.
....... - 4/5 .......
The Curse of the Were-Rabbit (2005)
Short but not too short. A cure for a bad day, carried in a small bottle.
Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit is the first feature from the famous animated series I've seen so far. Frankly I could say it's the finest computer-animated film I've seen so far. I'm not much of a fan of these sort of films and I must admit that I haven't seen neither one of the proverbial Pixar animations. On the other hand as it's written in my Madagascar comment, I've seen quite a few of them produced by DreamWorks. And if that studio ever hit a nail with these movies, they did it this time.
The set is an old, small and quite conservative English town. And it's not long until the villagers are hasting for the help of our inventive and crafty pair. Together they run a fine business, perfectly suited for this environment. We could call them parasitology specialists. As they salve most of the problems in no-time, using state of the art technology, the master Gromit gets a little too inventive. Meanwhile we get to know the town's cream. Kind and fluffy-loving Lady Tottington along with her suitor, snobbish Victor Quartermaine. The town is also fully prepared for the most important event of the year. The annual Giant Vegetable Competition. The villagers, including Lady Tottington are all first class veggie-maniacs. By this time something outrageous is happening to the peoples potentially prize-winning vegetables. Every night an unknown predator sabotages their work. So who you 'gonna' call? Pestbusters!
The clay-CGI really worked for me. If you noticed it's really interesting how the distant objects seem so real. The closeups seemed more cartoon-like. As for the film itself, it's amazing. The humor is multi-layered. The little bunnies will appeal to kids. The cowardly vicar was my coupe of tea and the 'Were-Rabbit' was drop dead hilarious. Then we have Gromit and his rival and especially the amazing and thrilling action sequences towards the end. What's also become a tradition in this genre are the movie references. They play a part towards the end and are a fine insert, ranging from King Kong to 8 Mile and a few others. Some characters did seem annoying. Lady Tottington was one of them. Her image didn't really bring much good to the movie, except for the unraveling of the Wallace-Lady-Victor triangle for which we all knew how it's going to end. All I can say is see it, it's a must-see if you like animated movies.
........ +4/5 .......
The Constant Gardener (2005)
Intense, enigmatic and cathartic but in some strange way not quite enough.
The Constant Gardener was made after a novel written by John le Carré. I just couldn't believe that he's the same man who wrote the novel for The Russia House, because there were several times when I actually thought of that movie during this one. One lucky guess, I guess. The Constant Gardener is at first concentrated at a couple, Justin Quayle and Tessa Quayle. He's a diplomat, she's an activist and both are present in a remote area of Northern Kenya. Tessa or 'Tess' is quite a sensitive and bold woman, which is clear from the beginning when she openly criticizes Britain's passivity and suspicious standards of morality. Considering the country's foreign policy of course.
Her bold and uncompromising character is pretty much the reason why Justin devoted his attention to her in the first place. The technique isn't quite new, but the exchange of past and present events in their private lives really anchors you into their relationship. Then comes the journey to Africa, specifically Kenya where Tess is really anxious to escort her husband. They both seem to be well assimilated to it as we already see them living there. This is where the trouble start. Tess is getting more and more involved in the local pharmaceutical affair and finding out more, without her husband ever even suspecting a thing. She does this with the help of her husband's colleague, Sandy Woodrow. What she finds out doesn't stay hidden because of her informing a few high officials in Britain. Despite the warnings, Tess refuses to keep her voice down about the local community being an experiment for global pharmaceutical companies. That is pretty much the reason for the mysterious murder of her and her good friend Arnold Bluhm.
Justin is now left alone and shocked, not having a clue about what happened. The same goes for the viewer as the rest of the mystery is yet to be revealed by Justin's relentless search. The most important part of the movie is the unraveling of that single mystery. Director Fernando Meirelles, well-known for his previous film City of God, draws the techniques of zooming, camera shaking and using vivid colors to the max. This is what makes this film more exciting and thrilling to watch. The story is quite complex and at times too rapid to comprehend all that is being said. It kind of reminds me of JFK because it's stampede throwing of all sorts of facts. Nothing wrong with that, it actually makes the story look more intelligent and dynamic.
Of lots of espionage and political thrillers released in the past decades, this one could be considered good not because of it's plot, but because of it's execution and the authentic presentation of completely different societies. It really is one of the rare movies to make the constant change of surroundings look quite untroubled. Adding really fine performances should do the trick for me but I didn't find the story as thought provoking as I hoped I would. I think that all of the techniques and tricks used by the director worked as a disguise to make us forget what the reason for killing Tess was. We already figured it out. You might think that there's a grand conspiracy waiting to unfold itself, but you are left a little disappointed. The Constant Gardener is mainly a very good thriller, enriched with some great performances and stand-out direction as well as editing and credible presenting of different environments. A specific extra is the all-embracing sensation of guilt for all the suffering of mankind. Something rare in films today. It missed an 8 within a hair. 7.5/10.
....... - 4/5 .......