Change Your Image
sheydari
Reviews
Warehouse 13 (2009)
So much potential wasted
The idea of artifacts with special powers had already been put into a successful film - Syfy brilliant miniseries "The Lost Room" in 2006. Fans like myself were thrilled to hear that a new series -warehouse 13- would pick up the idea and develop it into a longer show. and I have been following warehouse 13 since then.
The series, sadly, disappointed me though. The story has so much potential. It could have been a fascinating show, better than law and order, the x-files, or CSI. However it was done so lamely that Canada's CityTV dropped it in the second season, and no one even noticed! The first problem is the cast. While the cast of the Lost Room were solid, believable and fully in character, the cast of warehouse 13 are just out of place. Their act is almost comic. It is so hard to take Myka, Pete, Artie and Claudia seriously because they look and act nowhere like what their roles are.
The show's poor character development doesn't help either. All characters have too much comical traits to be taken seriously. And they all are so one-dimensional. This show was supposed to be about the fascinating world of strange historical artifacts with magic powers, and the writers have reduced it to ridiculous comic stories played by a group of circus clowns.
The background stories are not helpful. McPherson's story was the only relevant one, but the stories of Mrs. Fredric, Claudia and H.G. Wells just distract the audience.
I still watch warehouse 13; just because I loved "the Lost Room", and perhaps because there isn't much more to do on Friday nights (when it is aired in Canada). However I am so disappointed. Such a great story, so much potential, are wasted because of bad writing.
Poirot: Murder on the Orient Express (2010)
A different take on the original story
Agatha Christie's "Murder on the Orient Express" is one of her books that was perfect for big screen. That's why early on we had Sidney Lumet's version in 1974 with Albert Finney as Poirot, and now the new episode with the ever magnificent David Suchet in that role.
Between the two versions, the 1974 film remained true to the original story - and it is still one of the best adaptations of Christie's work prior to the series with Suchet. Now those familiar with Christie's work know that her books are focused on the mystery that is to be solved and nothing else. There is no character development aside from Poirot himself, and every side story is either for comic relief or to distract you from an important clue. The 1974 film followed the same approach, with every turn and every incident only magnifying the mystery at hand. The 1974 film keeps you thrilled and curious, with a great end scene (common in all Christie's stories) where Poirot discovers the truth. And it ends there. No hidden philosophical message. No personal conflict. Just a mystery solved.
The new (2010) TV version seems, well, different. The story has been turned from a pure mystery into a moral judgement about justice, God and taking law into your own hand. The focus on Poirot's Catholicism (which does not appear in any Christie's book) and the question of whether he will tell the truth or not - something that in the original story is left to the train boss and passengers - makes it quite a different story from the original.
It would have been okay to have a different take on the murder on the orient express if the new story had been told with the same magnificence as the original story. Unfortunately this was not true. First of all, 1.5 hour is not sufficient to properly develop a moral story as the director wanted to say. Perhaps if it was a big screen movie and an hour longer, it might have turned better. Second, in developing the moral/religious line of the story, the director has taken out a great deal of focus and thrill of the mystery story. The end scenes, especially the reaction of the colonel to Poirot's discovery of truth, is in line with the moral message of the film but looks ridiculous to veteran Poirot fans, and so is Poirot's hesitation at the end on what to do. A deep scene, but uncharacteristic of Poirot.
Overall, seasoned Poirot fans will be disappointed as this film is not really Poirot or Christie. Not even a good mystery. Others who like a film about moral judgements may enjoy it.
I was also shocked to see how old Suchet looked in this movie. I am not sure how longer he plans to play Poirot but the way he looks is now perfect to play Poirot in "Curtain", his last case.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
Lame in every way
Quite disappointed by this movie. The word "lame" is the best way to describe it: lame action, lame humor, lame plot. It is like the movie itself has aged. What can we say when the main action scene is about Shia Labeof jumping with Monkeys from one tree to another? Compare it with the "the Last crusade" with Indy barely hanging from a German tank while fighting a whole German army.
And just one scene with the "whip"? That's heresy!
As if the lame actions weren't enough, the acting was horrible (perhaps with exception of Shia Labeof who did just OK). Could someone please wipe that silly smile off Marian's face? And how could the new dean ever compare to the legendary Marcus Brody?
I have every Indiana Jones movie and computer game in my collection, but this one would not be added to it.
Marmoulak (2004)
One of the best Iranian movies, but for an Iranian audience
Summary: One of the best Iranian movies ever made, but for an Iranian audience only.
Marmoulak is a political/social satire, but its comedy is subtle and better understood by an Iranian audience. I'd like to compare it to "Blazing Saddles", often cited by American movie watchers as one of the funniest movies ever made, while a non-American audience is only mildly amused by it. Cultural differences play a big role.
Marmoulak's power of humor lies in the comments, words, situations and overall behaviour of the characters, which are not always understandable to the non-Iranian crowd. For instance, many of the seemingly innocent comments in the movie are copied or distorted very cleverly from the political/religious slogans, speeches and actions of Iran's religious clergy. Those parts are easily identifiable and enjoyable by Iranians, while non-Iranians may not quite understand the subtlety of it.
That said, the movie is powerful, enjoyable and with brilliant acting. The story is quite simple and has been repeated in many forms before. A jailed thief seizes upon a chance encounter to escape from prison using the stolen clothes of a clergyman. With Prison's warden (depicted as a despotic maniac) after him, he escapes to a border village where the local people think he has been sent for preaching in their mosque. The rest of the movie depicts the thief's efforts to find a way across the border, while playing the role of an unconventional preachers who actually plays a huge role in the life of the villagers.
Parviz Parastooi plays the lead role in a breathtakingly magnificent way, and this fact is again only obvious to an Iranian audience who know exactly the class of people he is trying to portrait. The movie has a good pace; in contrast with other well known Iranian movies such as Kiarostami's and Panahi's works that are typically very slow. Dialogues are extremely clever.
Given 9 out of 10 by this reviewer.
Man on the Moon (1999)
Beautiful, best performance from Jim Carrey
Rented the DVD, which also included great behind-the-scene interviews and amazing soundtracks by R.E.M. group. Watched it five times again and again in one week and enjoyed it every time.
The movie depicts the life of Andy Kaufman, the unconventional comedian who achieved fame in late 70s and early 80s. Avid Kaufman fans who know every details of his life, complain about inaccuracies and lack of details in this movie. But for the rest of us who have barely heard of Kaufman, the movie is powerful, entertaining and touching.
Jim Carrey presents a magnificent performance as Andy Kaufman, proving again that he acts better in dramatic movies than comedy. His portrayal of Kaufman is close to heart, and in words of his colleagues, it appeared as if Andy Kaufman had invaded his soul.
Few people mentioned it here, but both Danny DeVito (as George Shapiro, Andy's manager) and Courtney Love (as Lynn Margulies, Andy's girlfriend) do a great job. The audience relate to them easily, admire their loyalty to Andy Kaufman and follow their emotional up and downs. Paul Giamatti does a decent job in portraying Bob Zmuda, Andy's writer and best friend.
I was particularly touched by the last fifteen minutes of the movie, especially the funeral scene; laughed and cried with Shapiro, Margulies and Zmuda through the whole time. And if a movie could stir up emotions in the right way, who cares if a few historical details are inaccurate?
Rated R for brief nudity, brief scenes of wrestling, and one scene with obscene language.
Highly recommended.