Change Your Image
billy_man78
Reviews
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
The best book...the worst movie...
I am almost 27 years old. A lawyer. A pianist. A computer freak. But above all, a Harry Potter maniac. And I feel proud to admit that, because, for me, the HP universe is something extremely exceptional, powerful, full of substance and every true value we hold. A whole new complicated, parallel to ours, world with a lot to teach every kid or adult, capable of making each and every one of us think and think again. The character analysis is awesome and the plot childly enjoyable but brilliantly mature. So, I'm a HP fan. And, naturally, I've read all the books (10 times each) and I've watched all the movies (20 times each!!).I loved the first movie, I had some objections about but still I enjoyed much the second one. But the third book was destined to give the best motion picture. Because it has everything in it, all the very fine ingredients to provide a great total!! Because of the Olympic Games, the movie came out in Athens in September 2004 and after a lot of irritating waiting we rushed to the cinema the very first day, full of excitement and predisposed absolutely positively. The result: THE BIGGEST DISAPPOINTMENT OF MY LIFE.THE HARDEST ONE TOO... Is that movie an "adult" movie as they baptized it?Why? Because it has nothing to do with Potter?Because it was deprived of everything that matters in the Potter universe? Because "magic" is a "childish" thing and we have to eliminate it to make a mature movie?Or the kids wearing cloaks and uniforms of Hogwarts would humiliate Cuaron's creation?And I ask all of those who have read the sixth book, how in the name of God is this little "sissy" of Cuaron's Draco going to be the person he is supposed to be in the 6th movie??? The atmosphere is changed dramatically and not because of the Dementor's presence. The Hogwarts is changed substantially too, and not because of the different location. Of all the classical British super-actors, only few remain decent and even fewer do something more than that. From all the new characters only Trelawney makes a statement-but that's because she is Ema Thompson-and Thewlis' Lupin is also something relatively memorable, while Gary Oldman's Black is not acting but absolutely overreacting, making you think whether Black was in Azkaban or in St Mungus' Hospital!!And that's definitely not Odlman's fault.Further more, the unavoidable replacement of the late Harris' Dubbledore with the Gambon's one has seemed to have a deteriorating effect on the Headmaster!He simply is...less magical, less proud, less grave, less "aristocratic", less important and less.....clean.And that's not Gambon's fault either..... The only really decent element of the movie is the artistic creation of the beasts. Hippogriff is a piece of art and Dementors exactly as anybody would picture them reading Rowling's description.Some elements of the plot - things that could not be anyway altered - also remain thrilling or sentimental or terrorizing but the question is whether all these are enough to save the movie... When, in the beginning of the movie, the Knight bus is running on the streets of London and it is IT that gets out of the way of things and not THE THINGS getting out of ITS way (like in the book), we overpass it without difficulty.But, in the end, it's all about the same thing: GET THE MAGIC OUT OF THE WAY. Deminisize it. Reduce it. Eliminate it...Or even humiliate it (see shrieking heads, the most ridiculous idea in the history of ridiculous ideas...). Cuaron is no fan of HP. He knows it. We know it.I doubt whether he has ever read any other HP book except from the 3rd one//If we accept that he has really read that too!And he has the right too hate HP and magic in general.What he is not allowed to do is force us to witness the desecration of our beloved world!!!THAT HE CANNOT DO!! 6/10 only because it is theoretically based on the third HP book, a triumph of J.Rowling...
Sin City (2005)
Graphic violence with best results!For a change...
The very first feeling you have of this movie is that you have been cheated by its trailer to expect some kind of a noir action movie. The very next feeling is intense satisfaction that you were cheated. Because this is "more" noir. "More" action. "More" terror. "More" comic-style. And "more", "more", "more" dark. DARK. BLACK. And on the whole it's a brand new type of movie with no precedence but hopefully a lot of future. There can be no opposition to the fact that it's one of the most violent movies of all times. It pictures violence in a most realistic but nonetheless artistic style and its brutality generates a combination of feelings that under no circumstances can they be disgust or repulsion or apostrophe. So, it is most difficult to try and explain the sensation that overcomes you during this movie. Me, personally, I found myself really puzzled by the fact that what I was watching freaked me out and scared me to death while I really loved it all the same!! In each one of the film's separate stories, evil is at last defeated and good prevails. But things are not really that simple, because life is not that simple. The "good" guys are not boy scouts or angels but probably ex-prostitutes or ex-cons driven by revenge or even - not very politically correct - cops. And the bad guys could be kind of "yellow bastards" and man-eaters or they could just be corrupted millionaires and powerful men of the cloak. Hard reality mixed with pure sarcasm and allegory, inspiring direction, powerful performances, smart cartoon-creation, deep meaning and enjoyable outcome. A movie type on its own, this film is a real challenge for every true cinema- lover. Well Done!!!!!
Cape Fear (1991)
Fear...in its best!
Remake of a classical psychological thriller. Scorsese's movie. De NIro's performance. Plus Nolte, Lange, Lewis... Yes, there were plenty of reasons to watch this movie. Unfortunately for me, I watched it only about 10 years ago (16-17 years old). And I couldn't sleep for a month!!! Still, even then, before I became the movie-maniac I am today, I characterized the movie as "masterpiece".And I never changed my opinion since. The powerful, dark and "hypnotistic" direction of Scorsese's early days can only be matched by De Niro's hypnotizing, absolutely terrifying performance and the latter is additionally surrounded by actors who not only are not overshadowed by him but they deliver performances equal to his. Agony, terror in its most magnificent form, a twisted comprehension of a psychopathic behavior and a plot ingenious in its simplicity construct this motion picture, which cannot be referred to as a mere "remake" but at least as a complete "re-construction" of an old successful film. While Max is tailing his ex-lawyer and his ex-lawyer's family, our emotions change rapidly from curiosity, uncertainty and disbelief to pure fear and absolute terror and, in the end, we are certain the something of Max's evil has remained;because no such evil could ever be extinguished... Bottom line, one of the best movies of all times and a really intense experience to live...
Under Suspicion (2000)
An anatomy of the human soul
It's lately undoubtedly rare to watch a movie that will actually leave you with something to think about. With a weird feeling in your stomach.A sense of something or someone having secretly pushed you inside the obscure world of the true human soul. The majestic, astonishing, deepest and most important parts of you, of me, of anyone. What this intelligent piece of art does is take us through one person's entire life's most important 2 hours. His violent fall from power, dignity and arrogance to complete surrender, despair and humiliation.His realization of the truth in the hardest and most cruel way. Whether his is immoral or not is not really important in the end. Because, in the end, he is everything like us. And that's all he is... More "practically" the leading character is portrayed "demonically" by the ultimate actor Gene Hackman. No flaws, no overreaction, absolute commitment.Morgan Freeman is classically classic and he offers us yet another strong and mature performance. While Belucci is doing nothing less than what she has done already more than once in an at least satisfying way. The total is thrilling and the atmosphere shivering. The plot is simple in a most complicated style and the outcome long expected and hopped for by all those who really "watch" a movie and not just look at the screen while eating pop-corn. A huge "bravo" to everyone involved and a strong wish for even more similar surprises.
Helen of Troy (2003)
Desecrate something else, please....
I was getting ready to watch "Troy" when I heard of these mini-series which was on TV as a complete movie. And then I made the terrible mistake....and I watched it....
**SPOILERS**
Nothing I ever watched or read or heard ever made me more furious than this unspeakable desecration of Homer's Iliad.NO, ladies and gentlemen, Paris was not borne as Alexander, neither was he abandoned on the mountains.No, Menelaus did not become Paris' friend neither did he ask him whether Helen was talking about him or not.EVER!!And, for your information, NO, Achilles was not a professional wrestler, nor was he bold, or mad and he did not kill Hector without a reason. He killed him because Hector had killed Patroklus first, whom Achilles loved.And much more than that, which I was not able to watch, because my TV is not expendable... But, I guess, all these are meaningless details to those, whose brains are not too sharp and their education not that high...And for those who had not been taught that people should respect what's above them, older than them, unreachable by them.... I have only one request from them:Go and desecrate something else! Homer's saga is not a toy to play with!And if you ever feel the need to "shoot" Odyssey too, please....DON'T....
Van Helsing (2004)
Could be, but it isn't...
SPOILERS..I watched this movie expecting to see something like Mummy or, at least, like The Mummy Returns. I was not expecting too much. Having thrown in one movie Dracula, Frankenstein's monster and the Wolfman means that it can't be a serious horror movie. Or can it be?? Perhaps in this question Mr Sommers gave the answer "yes" or, even worse, "maybe". And what's the result?? In one word CATASTROPHE!!! SPOILERS: We have Van Helsing. "Gabriel" Van Helsing.The "left hand of God"!!!Does this ring a bell??It does for me.You want help?? Well, obviously somebody thought it would be clever and deep and intriguing to create a connection between the monster hunter and an Archangel!!Yes, AN ARCHANGEL!!And the excuse is that Mr Sommers did not like the name "Abraham"!Pretty convincing, right?? We leave that aside and we move on:We have Dracula.And the brides. And they want to have kids (about a million of them!!) and thus destroy the world. And, in order to bring their - obviously dead, since their parents are dead - kids to life, they need Frankenstein's monster.And this monster is hiding in the basement.And it definitely likes Jonh's "Apocalypse" as well, since it screams in an advanced shakespearean way "As I walk in the valley of the shadow and death...".And we have the good girl's brother who becomes a wolfman and wants to kill the girl.And, of course, we have the beautiful heroine and the sexy hero...And, naturally, when we have all these together, we can have anything but a serious movie.But some people did not seem to realize that. So, we have a script suitable for a good parody, a nice comic relief guy(Wenham) and an excellent portrait of a self-sarcastic Dracula by -clever- Roxburgh. The rest of the cast/crew/film, though, seems to fail to understand how and what. So, they act seriously while dealing with extremely hilarious facts and situations and they end up looking stupid and ridiculous. Obviously Mr Sommers spent large amounts of money on visual fx and other technical things.Perhaps he should spend a little more time in guiding his cast, leading them through the same way into a "pure-blood" movie. A movie that knows what it is and does not hover between the super-light and the super-grand.3/10 for decent performances.
Troy (2004)
Surprisingly semi-decent...
For over six months we happened to fill our movie-conversation with a little bit of the "Troy project".We discussed a lot about the possibility and the probability of Hollywood creating something that would not be the "Helen of Troy"(2003). Something decent, at least a little bit closer to the spirit of Homer's saga.We watched -kind of terrified(!)- the preparation and as time got closer to the first screeners, we prayed to God that this time we wouldn't have to endure a disgrace of our legacy. But what we heard was not really encouraging... Still we watched the movie to have an opinion of our own and the result was far better than expected:"Inspired" by Iliad - and not "based" on it, the film did not in any way "insult" Iliad or the heroes.The differences are plenty but- in the end- we cannot expect a lengthy epic poem, written about 2.600 years ago to become a contemporary movie without being altered at all. SPOILERS:I must admit that some things in the movie could strike to a person who knows about Trojan war a little too much: Watching Menelaus dying, for example, or watching Brisseus killing Agamemnon (who was supposed to be killed by his wife and he took part in other stories told in ancient tragedies) was somewhat shocking. Also Paris staying alive and fleeing with Fair Helen was too much "dynasty" or "the bold and the beautiful".Still, I could accept that. The performances were decent.Sean Bean impersonated the clever and cunning Odysseus in an amazing way.Peter O'Toole was pretty shakespearean. Brian Cox was good in being the -far too evil- Agamemnon and Menelaus was decent, as was Byrne too.Eric Bana was really "royal" but his performance was somewhat "wooden", while Brad Pitt did the best he could (which was possibly not enough) to impersonate his extremely difficult character.Kruger was not convincing as the daughter of Zeus and the Queen of Sparta or as the divine woman everybody desired.Bloom was in short almost unacceptable. I would like Troy to be Iliad but it isn't and I don't think it could ever be.But -as a cinematic creation- it was grand.The scenery, the costumes, the battle scenes, the special fx, all were at least admirable.The character's analysis was decent and-considering the lack of gods- the plot was at least not insulting for Homer.6/10 for good intentions and a semi-decent result.