No, really, this episode IS hilarious. The subtle satirical sub-tone might not be visible by everybody, but it's there. At some points I was laughing out loud. Now, I'll try not to spoil anything, but this episode does not belong to a horror or thriller category (apart from some short scenes). I started giggling once I saw Nick Offerman as the confident "prepper" and lost it, when Nick's character was approaching the Home Depot. Also, keep in mind, that Joel and Ellie aren't the main protagonists here. As the main plot evolves around Bill and Frank, whose resemblance to one contemporary philosopher (not gonna name him) in some scenes is almost uncanny, I was grinning like a joker! Brilliant comedy, well executed tongue-in-cheek satire. If you're insulted by it, then you're the subject of that satire.
Reviews
19 Reviews
Lajkó - Cigány az ürben
(2018)
Give me Back One Hour of my Time Please
12 July 2019
I said one hour, because I haven't finished watching this. I usually finish watching movies, but in this case I couldn't. Felt like torture. The gags in this comedy are either cheap, lame, cliché or simply not funny at all. The production is good though, the idea had a potential, but the overall execution made this a pure time waster without any value. Do yourself a favor and skip this one.
Blade Runner 2049
(2017)
Overdone
31 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Let's start off positively. For me, Blade Runner 2049 is Villeneuve's best achievement. His blurry fogginess blended quite nicely with the world of Blade Runner set by creators of the original movie. The overall audiovisual experience was good enough for me to rate this movie 6/10. And the rating might have been much higher if the creators of BR2049 haven't had decided to turn the milking machine off the reasonable limits. So yes, I've enjoyed it, but...
...they've decided to milk one of the best sci-fi films of all time. And should we review Blade Runner 2049 in the light of the previous Blade Runner, it's obvious a lot of reviewers (and fans) are sharp. And rightly so.
To be frank, I don't like Villeneuve's movies. So far, apart from Blade Runner 2049, I've seen Prisoners, Sicario and Arrival. So only three movies, but all of them resemble a perfect definition of the term "polished t#*d" - great acting, great camera, great editing, everything fits, yet it feels hollow, distant, forgettable. I haven't had any hopes for Blade Runner 2049, since doing a sequel to something like that, whoa, that ain't an easy one. And surprisingly, as noted above, Villeneuve improved a bit. But let's not blame just the director.
Don't read on, if you haven't seen the movie yet. SPOILERS ALERT!
Let's see the script. The writing. People, please keep in mind, that simplicity is the key. Look at the original Blade Runner - you can summarize the story in one simple sentence: "Replicant killer falls in love with a replicant, while on a mission to kill another 4 replicants". That's it. It's the acting, soundtrack, camera, execution, in one word cinematographic, which takes the "simple" and transforms it into art. Now try to summarize the story of Blade Runner 2049 in similar fashion. It's a mess! "Replicant is a replicant killer and is on a mission to kill some old replicants, while having a romance with a hologram girl... and maybe he's a 'chosen' one, a 'born' replicant... and maybe not... and Tyrell successor wants to fill the world with replicants... and the outcast replicants want that too... but in a 'human' way... and maybe Deckard is our hero's father... and maybe not..." See? The whole story is way too much overdone. And what's worse, they've even tried to alter the original story! That Deckard back then had been chosen for Rachel deliberately to produce an offspring! How about that?
Unnecessary bits. The movie is stretched to 164 minutes. I don't mind longer run time, but only if it's not filled with confusing/useless scenes. Some examples: Wallace is piercing with a knife (probably) the reproduction organs of a new replicant. Why did he do that? He's trying to develop a replicant with a reproduction ability, but because he's not successful yet, he pierces the wombs of the new replicants instead? And what about this idea sending Deckard to off- world colony to inflict "more" pain to extract some information? Really? In fact, most of the scenes with Wallace might have been cut out. Much like the ones with Joi, a character almost useless in the whole story (oh yeah, K's pet and that much needed connection to the "lower" class replicants, which are in fact useless too). There were also some cringe-worthy scenes, like the one when K is entering the LAPD building in the beginning and is being mocked by humans. Or re-creation and then killing Rachel (that was really a pointless scene). Or K's rage after visiting the memory maker. I like Ryan Gosling and I think he fits the character of a replicant Blade Runner well, but sometimes his performance have been overdone here.
Just like the whole movie - in one word: overdone. Audiovisually satisfying, but nowhere near the original masterpiece.
So, you have a lot cliffhangers there, when's the next cash cow (sequel) coming out? 2019?
...they've decided to milk one of the best sci-fi films of all time. And should we review Blade Runner 2049 in the light of the previous Blade Runner, it's obvious a lot of reviewers (and fans) are sharp. And rightly so.
To be frank, I don't like Villeneuve's movies. So far, apart from Blade Runner 2049, I've seen Prisoners, Sicario and Arrival. So only three movies, but all of them resemble a perfect definition of the term "polished t#*d" - great acting, great camera, great editing, everything fits, yet it feels hollow, distant, forgettable. I haven't had any hopes for Blade Runner 2049, since doing a sequel to something like that, whoa, that ain't an easy one. And surprisingly, as noted above, Villeneuve improved a bit. But let's not blame just the director.
Don't read on, if you haven't seen the movie yet. SPOILERS ALERT!
Let's see the script. The writing. People, please keep in mind, that simplicity is the key. Look at the original Blade Runner - you can summarize the story in one simple sentence: "Replicant killer falls in love with a replicant, while on a mission to kill another 4 replicants". That's it. It's the acting, soundtrack, camera, execution, in one word cinematographic, which takes the "simple" and transforms it into art. Now try to summarize the story of Blade Runner 2049 in similar fashion. It's a mess! "Replicant is a replicant killer and is on a mission to kill some old replicants, while having a romance with a hologram girl... and maybe he's a 'chosen' one, a 'born' replicant... and maybe not... and Tyrell successor wants to fill the world with replicants... and the outcast replicants want that too... but in a 'human' way... and maybe Deckard is our hero's father... and maybe not..." See? The whole story is way too much overdone. And what's worse, they've even tried to alter the original story! That Deckard back then had been chosen for Rachel deliberately to produce an offspring! How about that?
Unnecessary bits. The movie is stretched to 164 minutes. I don't mind longer run time, but only if it's not filled with confusing/useless scenes. Some examples: Wallace is piercing with a knife (probably) the reproduction organs of a new replicant. Why did he do that? He's trying to develop a replicant with a reproduction ability, but because he's not successful yet, he pierces the wombs of the new replicants instead? And what about this idea sending Deckard to off- world colony to inflict "more" pain to extract some information? Really? In fact, most of the scenes with Wallace might have been cut out. Much like the ones with Joi, a character almost useless in the whole story (oh yeah, K's pet and that much needed connection to the "lower" class replicants, which are in fact useless too). There were also some cringe-worthy scenes, like the one when K is entering the LAPD building in the beginning and is being mocked by humans. Or re-creation and then killing Rachel (that was really a pointless scene). Or K's rage after visiting the memory maker. I like Ryan Gosling and I think he fits the character of a replicant Blade Runner well, but sometimes his performance have been overdone here.
Just like the whole movie - in one word: overdone. Audiovisually satisfying, but nowhere near the original masterpiece.
So, you have a lot cliffhangers there, when's the next cash cow (sequel) coming out? 2019?
The Man from Earth
(2007)
It's good, but it doesn't deserve all the buzz
24 July 2017
What's sad about the other reviews, is the fact, that they're mostly two-dimensional. Either 10/10 or 1/10. This movie doesn't belong to any of the extremes. It definitely doesn't deserve the lowest rating, since the idea and the theater like execution keeps you awake and also the discussions between the characters throughout the movie is sort of entertaining. But it also doesn't belong to the TOP. Current 8/10 rating is a bit overrated. Especially the cheesy and kind of rash ending ruined the whole movie for me. So yes, it's enjoyable, not the usual dumb sci-fi full of explosions flick, but it has some unnecessary flaws in the script. Overall a good film for an easy Sunday afternoon. 7/10.
Primer
(2004)
When entertainment switches your brain on
9 July 2017
I don't really get those 1 star reviews stating "I'm a sci-fi / time traveling movie fan". You see, Primer is a perfect example of a movie, where the execution doesn't really matter. It's low budget, acting might seem corny to some viewers and the talking of the actors sounds like it's coming from some sort of a plastic box. But that's not the point. As we've been taught in our film class, the most important thing for a good film is an idea not the actual execution. And what a hell of an idea the creator of this one had! I've never seen a more plausible time travel movie before. The idea is so realistic, it kept me thinking until I went to sleep... and dreamed about it! Primer is maybe not fun to watch, but it did something not every movie can pull: A sort of an enablement - A need to find out what the hell happened right after the rolling credits. If there was no internet, you'd HAVE to watch the movie again. Maybe even several times to "get deeper". I have to admit I was too lazy for that and did the googling. There are bucketful of articles, videos, schemes, timelines etc. Have your other "sci-fi / time traveling movies" done the same? To enable the viewer to think and research? Or does it hurt? How's that the thinking shouldn't be a form of entertainment? Or are you simply angry you have to think? But enough of the accusations. Any form of good art should move you, enable you, change you, leave a mark in your mind and Primer have definitely done that. Not only with me, but with all the other movie buffs, who've sacrificed their time for the sake of explanation, questions, discussion. That sort of community is the best proof, that this movie deserves highest rating.
T2 Trainspotting
(2017)
A DVD Bonus Material
24 February 2017
Warning: Spoilers
That's what this is. It really feels just like a DVD/Blu-Ray bonus material for the original Trainspotting. Now don't get me wrong, Danny Boyle and his crew did quite a good job, it was really interesting and sometimes funny to watch the fate of the four main characters from the cult classic. But that's the point - Trainspotting was basically about life and death around heroin addiction. T2 is just about those 4 guys from the first film. Like an extended version of a film. Of course they tried to fit in the "choose life" message for the current standards, but it failed to meet the merit of the original, it's just floating there without any clue to hold on. Also I can't imagine how this movie would be judged by somebody, who haven't seen the original Trainspotting. I guess it would score pretty low, because T2 builds on the contexts from its predecessor. So yeah, for the Trainspotting fans quite enjoyable, for the rest probably not. I give each star for Renton (who's running in the fog), Spud (who is trying to fix his life), Sick Boy (who's just a sick boy making out his living the sick way) and Begby (who shouts "Cunt!" most of the time) and of course one star for Danny Boyle for bringing back a huge portion of nostalgia.
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
(2016)
The best SW movie since Return of the Jedi
15 January 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Watch out, there are some heavy spoilers ahead!
After I've seen the episode VII (basically garbage), I've almost gave up seeing any other new Star Wars movie. But based on the recommendation by a co-worker, I gave this one a try and boy was I pleasantly surprised! Rogue One has everything the other post episode VI attempts lacked. It's original, but not overdone. It's intense, unpredictable and holds this delicate touch of surprise. The funny character (K-2SO) is witty, yet not annoying. And its finale might be even compared to some of the original SW episodes, also with a connection to the beginning of the episode IV. so fluent and fitting, the other new SW films can only dream about. There were some cringe-worthy moments, like the cliché and somewhat chaotic start of the movie, which eventually moved along into very nice cinematic experience though and there's also the much debated CGI characters of Tarkin and princess Leia. While the later mentioned was done much better (has also just about 2 seconds of screen appearance), Tarkin's face has this classical "CGI look" of a computer game character and in my opinion the effort of bringing the original character didn't add up the desired value for the whole picture. Apart from that, Rogue One is a great Star Wars film and restored my faith in the force. ;)
After I've seen the episode VII (basically garbage), I've almost gave up seeing any other new Star Wars movie. But based on the recommendation by a co-worker, I gave this one a try and boy was I pleasantly surprised! Rogue One has everything the other post episode VI attempts lacked. It's original, but not overdone. It's intense, unpredictable and holds this delicate touch of surprise. The funny character (K-2SO) is witty, yet not annoying. And its finale might be even compared to some of the original SW episodes, also with a connection to the beginning of the episode IV. so fluent and fitting, the other new SW films can only dream about. There were some cringe-worthy moments, like the cliché and somewhat chaotic start of the movie, which eventually moved along into very nice cinematic experience though and there's also the much debated CGI characters of Tarkin and princess Leia. While the later mentioned was done much better (has also just about 2 seconds of screen appearance), Tarkin's face has this classical "CGI look" of a computer game character and in my opinion the effort of bringing the original character didn't add up the desired value for the whole picture. Apart from that, Rogue One is a great Star Wars film and restored my faith in the force. ;)
Who Am I
(2014)
Grossly overrated
9 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Normally I'd give 5 out of 10, because the movie was somewhat entertaining. But I'm giving 3/10, just for the sake of lowering the confusing rating 7.6, since this movie has nothing to do in such heights. Who Am I rips off from every major movie in the genre. Some were already mentioned, I can name 3 right from the start: Fight Club, Usual Suspects and Swordfish. There were also another words stuck in my head after the credits started to roll: Cliché, cheesy and unoriginal. How come that so many film makers have this picture of a hacker, who MUST wear a hoodie with its hood on while "hacking"? Is that some kind of metaphor for somebody, who doesn't want to be seen? Well so be it, but this movie isn't a poem, it's obviously trying to be some sort of entertaining hacker movie with a "believable" view inside the h4x0r scene. And it fails miserably. The members of the "CLAY" group are so cheesy and simply superficial it hurts. The romance between the main character and a random college girl is dull, empty and doesn't fit in the whole story. And the execution of some of the hacking activities is laughable as it's technically not possible. But after all, I remained seated and watched it through, because as stated, it bared some sort of entertainment and I wanted to see where it's going to land. And it landed in my drawer named "Never see again".
A very strange kind of disappointment.
18 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I couldn't find more appropriate title for this review. As I walked out of the cinema, I just felt this strange kind of disappointment. It wasn't like I was watching a bad movie. This was different. Star Wars: The Force Awakens isn't a bad movie. It's just not a Star Wars movie.
Now the three prequel episodes I. II. and III. were bad Star Wars movies. But to some extend, still "Star Wars" movies. They were overdone by an overgrown kid with a bucket load of money, but still somehow felt like Star Wars. I saw the original Star Wars trilogy on VHS when I was 5 years old. That was in 1986. And all three episodes drew my attention with this magic feeling of a dreamy adventure, which George Lucas tried to lever up with his prequels and special editions, but somehow didn't meet not only his, but also SW fans expectations.
The episode VII. is not a bad movie, but for a SW fan it feels like a flat soda. There's no Star Wars feeling at all. Could it be I'm not a kid anymore? Maybe. But let's look closely, maybe it's not just me.
*** Watch out, some spoilers ahead! ***
Ripoff. Some reviewers come with a word "reboot", but this clearly isn't a reboot. A reboot is telling the original story in a new modern cloak to please the new generation. However The Force Awakens isn't telling the original story. It takes only the pattern of the original story to make a new one. That's called a ripoff. Or also lack of originality, plagiarism, copycat. The storyboard and the script for the prequels were bit of a mess, but nonetheless, still original. This one is really just a ripoff. The similarities with the episode IV. are so bright it hurts. The predictability of this movie is awful. Remember watching the original series, how you didn't know (to some extent) what happens next? Forget that. Here you not only know how it ends, you basically do know what happens next. All the time.
Time compression. There are a lot things going on here. It almost felt like two movies being shrunk into one. It felt like everything is done very very fast. Even though the story pattern was exactly the same as in the episode IV., the fast pace of the VII. episode was somehow disturbing. Even though it's fast, I started yawing somewhere in the second half of the sitting.
The new lead characters. Don't get me wrong, some of the new faces were even a pleasant surprise. I haven't had high hopes for Kylo Ren, but it actually turned out to be the best new Star Wars character. Funny how some complain about the similarities between episode IV. and episode VII., while disliking Kylo Ren for not being the same cold, ruthless and powerful villain like Darth Vader. The personality of Kylo Ren is the one aspect, which does not go along completely with the original story/character pattern. And I think this is good! I disliked Fin in the trailers, but he fits overall in the movie pretty well. Even though his role feels prefabricated. And that's the problem. He's like a fifth wheel on a car here. The idea of a rebellion storm trooper is interesting, but it doesn't go well with the logic of a cloned warrior, who is genetically prepared for the role of a mindless warrior. Similar with Rey, who should be apparently the new Luke Skywalker here. Not a bad character, but for some reason I couldn't believe the connection between her and the force. The rest of the new crew is somehow poorly developed. Poe Dameron is supposed to be one of the best pilots among the rebells, but he doesn't get much time in the movie and leaves a hollow picture of a character. Quite a thing if you imagine he's the one who blew up the new Death Star. And the others are ripoffs. BB-8 is a R2-D2 ripoff, Snoke is a emperor ripoff, Maz Kanata is Yoda ripoff. Not good. Oh yeah by the way Luke Skywalker? Do you know how many lines he has in this movie? Yep. Zero. He appears only for few seconds in the end of the film. Last but no least, the third Reich wannabe scene with general Hux triggered a face-palm effect on me. This was really bad.
I mean, all in all, if there were no Star Wars films in the past, then The Force Awakens would score a lot higher in my book. But it presents itself as a Star Wars movie, even a sequel, so it's hard to take this one out of the context.
It's one star from IMDb, one star for bringing up the old Star Wars characters and one star for being quite a nice and enjoyable movie. The missing stars are because this is trying to be something it isn't - a Star Wars movie, sorry.
Now the three prequel episodes I. II. and III. were bad Star Wars movies. But to some extend, still "Star Wars" movies. They were overdone by an overgrown kid with a bucket load of money, but still somehow felt like Star Wars. I saw the original Star Wars trilogy on VHS when I was 5 years old. That was in 1986. And all three episodes drew my attention with this magic feeling of a dreamy adventure, which George Lucas tried to lever up with his prequels and special editions, but somehow didn't meet not only his, but also SW fans expectations.
The episode VII. is not a bad movie, but for a SW fan it feels like a flat soda. There's no Star Wars feeling at all. Could it be I'm not a kid anymore? Maybe. But let's look closely, maybe it's not just me.
*** Watch out, some spoilers ahead! ***
Ripoff. Some reviewers come with a word "reboot", but this clearly isn't a reboot. A reboot is telling the original story in a new modern cloak to please the new generation. However The Force Awakens isn't telling the original story. It takes only the pattern of the original story to make a new one. That's called a ripoff. Or also lack of originality, plagiarism, copycat. The storyboard and the script for the prequels were bit of a mess, but nonetheless, still original. This one is really just a ripoff. The similarities with the episode IV. are so bright it hurts. The predictability of this movie is awful. Remember watching the original series, how you didn't know (to some extent) what happens next? Forget that. Here you not only know how it ends, you basically do know what happens next. All the time.
Time compression. There are a lot things going on here. It almost felt like two movies being shrunk into one. It felt like everything is done very very fast. Even though the story pattern was exactly the same as in the episode IV., the fast pace of the VII. episode was somehow disturbing. Even though it's fast, I started yawing somewhere in the second half of the sitting.
The new lead characters. Don't get me wrong, some of the new faces were even a pleasant surprise. I haven't had high hopes for Kylo Ren, but it actually turned out to be the best new Star Wars character. Funny how some complain about the similarities between episode IV. and episode VII., while disliking Kylo Ren for not being the same cold, ruthless and powerful villain like Darth Vader. The personality of Kylo Ren is the one aspect, which does not go along completely with the original story/character pattern. And I think this is good! I disliked Fin in the trailers, but he fits overall in the movie pretty well. Even though his role feels prefabricated. And that's the problem. He's like a fifth wheel on a car here. The idea of a rebellion storm trooper is interesting, but it doesn't go well with the logic of a cloned warrior, who is genetically prepared for the role of a mindless warrior. Similar with Rey, who should be apparently the new Luke Skywalker here. Not a bad character, but for some reason I couldn't believe the connection between her and the force. The rest of the new crew is somehow poorly developed. Poe Dameron is supposed to be one of the best pilots among the rebells, but he doesn't get much time in the movie and leaves a hollow picture of a character. Quite a thing if you imagine he's the one who blew up the new Death Star. And the others are ripoffs. BB-8 is a R2-D2 ripoff, Snoke is a emperor ripoff, Maz Kanata is Yoda ripoff. Not good. Oh yeah by the way Luke Skywalker? Do you know how many lines he has in this movie? Yep. Zero. He appears only for few seconds in the end of the film. Last but no least, the third Reich wannabe scene with general Hux triggered a face-palm effect on me. This was really bad.
I mean, all in all, if there were no Star Wars films in the past, then The Force Awakens would score a lot higher in my book. But it presents itself as a Star Wars movie, even a sequel, so it's hard to take this one out of the context.
It's one star from IMDb, one star for bringing up the old Star Wars characters and one star for being quite a nice and enjoyable movie. The missing stars are because this is trying to be something it isn't - a Star Wars movie, sorry.
Cobain: Montage of Heck
(2015)
The worst kind of a "documentary"
27 May 2015
First of all, I'm neither Nirvana lover nor Nirvana hater. I didn't pay much attention to the band in its heyday. It was Cobain's performance of the last piece played during the MTV unplugged, which got my attention. I find the Nirvana's music OK and in my opinion beyond the mainstream standards. Even back then. In today's standards it would be light years beyond, because today there's no music in the mainstream.
Secondly, I'm reluctant to call this a "documentary" at all. It's just a mash up of private recordings along with babbling how Kurt Cobain miserable was. There are barely some dates or facts, interviews with record company members are missing completely. It just spins around a depressed heroin addict, who in fact was a pretty good poet. But that, along with the main subject of Cobain's and Nirvana's success, music, is almost not mentioned at all. The only interesting thing was the first part of animated cartoon, which seems to be narrated by Kurt himself. The rest is just kind of junk which was bothering not even Kurt Cobain back then, but is bothering other artists of today as well. This piece of low life thrash is nothing more than polished tabloid journalism. Did you hear Kurt and other band members their general opinions about the interviews? They didn't like them. They didn't like to be covered by media parasites. Sadly, the market demand was and is still very big, because the moronic so-called "fans" would do anything to get more of their idols (gods). For example PJ Harvey expressed the sickness of "journalists" (more correctly "paparazzi"), who are trying to strip the artist to the bone, so they could deliver either "biography" of "documentary". Similar thing happened to Tom Waits as well. An unauthorized biography book was published few years ago. People, would you be please so kind and leave your favorite musician/actor/princess alone, especially if they wish not to be bothered? And by the way how the hell could this Montage of Heck be "authorized", when the subject is dead? Is there a mention in his testimony, that the personal tapes should be put on the big screen? Those kinds of intimate personal recordings shouldn't be published this way at all. Never, ever.
To me it seems it was exactly this type of media coverage, which helped Kurt Cobain to pull the trigger. But I didn't know him, so I really can't tell. Still, this isn't a documentary. This is a tabloid journalism flick for the reality show freaks.
If you've paid to see this garbage, you're the part of the problem.
Secondly, I'm reluctant to call this a "documentary" at all. It's just a mash up of private recordings along with babbling how Kurt Cobain miserable was. There are barely some dates or facts, interviews with record company members are missing completely. It just spins around a depressed heroin addict, who in fact was a pretty good poet. But that, along with the main subject of Cobain's and Nirvana's success, music, is almost not mentioned at all. The only interesting thing was the first part of animated cartoon, which seems to be narrated by Kurt himself. The rest is just kind of junk which was bothering not even Kurt Cobain back then, but is bothering other artists of today as well. This piece of low life thrash is nothing more than polished tabloid journalism. Did you hear Kurt and other band members their general opinions about the interviews? They didn't like them. They didn't like to be covered by media parasites. Sadly, the market demand was and is still very big, because the moronic so-called "fans" would do anything to get more of their idols (gods). For example PJ Harvey expressed the sickness of "journalists" (more correctly "paparazzi"), who are trying to strip the artist to the bone, so they could deliver either "biography" of "documentary". Similar thing happened to Tom Waits as well. An unauthorized biography book was published few years ago. People, would you be please so kind and leave your favorite musician/actor/princess alone, especially if they wish not to be bothered? And by the way how the hell could this Montage of Heck be "authorized", when the subject is dead? Is there a mention in his testimony, that the personal tapes should be put on the big screen? Those kinds of intimate personal recordings shouldn't be published this way at all. Never, ever.
To me it seems it was exactly this type of media coverage, which helped Kurt Cobain to pull the trigger. But I didn't know him, so I really can't tell. Still, this isn't a documentary. This is a tabloid journalism flick for the reality show freaks.
If you've paid to see this garbage, you're the part of the problem.
Funny Games
(1997)
All the cinema villains combined look like Bambi when compared to Paul & Peter
22 March 2012
Most of what I have on my heart regarding this movies has been already written in the previous reviews. However I just have to add my two cents, because this movie is truly extraordinary. I can't give 10/10, because this movie is really unpleasant to watch. It's the kind of movie you don't want to see again. Ever. I found myself shivering during certain scenes and at some point I was even nauseous. Haneke did tremendous job by toying with the audience. While the viewer is watching the family being tortured, the pain is literally transfered from the screen onto the viewer. I had a strange feeling that I'm part of the film. This doesn't happen to you when you're watching "normal" movies. Here you're not only the viewer. You're the part of the game. By the way I had to admire the references to Beavis and Butthead or Tom and Jerry, where its entertainment is based on violence and ugliness... in the easy and accepted form of course, but still. Whatever these points questioning violence in entertainment are accurate or not, this movie does one thing that art should and/or must be doing. It will move you. Doesn't matter in what direction, but it will leave a mark in your mind for sure.
Absinthe
(I) (2010)
The best absinthe documentary so far!
30 July 2011
This documentary covers everything you should know about absinthe. It features the key persons in the field of absinthe history and absinthe production today. No mystification, no scams, no absinthe gimmicks. Just pure facts about a drink (and its history) that is still not so well understood today. Every bartender, bar owner, every absinthe wannabe freak should see this one. The historians along with the locals from Val de Travers in the Swiss region of Neuchatel are telling the historical stuff and the producers and distillers are describing what the absinthe really is and how it's (and how it was!) made. It also covers the famous absinthe ritual and finally puts the crappy fire ritual where it belongs.
Highly recommended for everyone who's into absinthe or anybody who ever wondered if absinthe is a poison or a drug.
The truth is out there!
Highly recommended for everyone who's into absinthe or anybody who ever wondered if absinthe is a poison or a drug.
The truth is out there!
Day on Fire
(2006)
It's poetic, not meant to be full of action.
4 February 2011
I saw this movie twice. On the first take I made it to first 20 minutes and thought it was great. It was a late night broadcast and especially two things got me; poetic storytelling, which doesn't need too much action, or people describing what's-going-on. Second thing was the music performed by Judy Kuhn and John Medeski; so calm and pleasing and yet very strongly supporting the movie. So I bought the DVD, since I had no chance to see this at our local cinema. I really enjoyed watching those people with their fates. Even if it wouldn't go anywhere, I'd still like it. And it DID go somewhere, which is the worse thing on this piece. Not that it's predictable (well... is it? ;), but after the 1st half we'll get some corny and some cliché. First half 10/10, second 5/10. All and all 7/10.
And now I NEED to get that soundtrack. ;)
And now I NEED to get that soundtrack. ;)
Inception
(2010)
Nolan returned, thank god!
23 July 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I was so very disappointed when I saw the previous stuff from Nolan (Dark Knight), I thought Nolan lost it. So I went to see Inception with a slight doubt. But it turned out to be much better than Nolans last attempt. Yeah, the flaws mentioned in the negative reviews are right. The characters are empty, non-developing, the viewer might find himself even with the characters. However one premise of the movie has been completely fulfilled; Entertainment. Inception is VERY entertaining. It's the kind of movies where you don't know what's going to happen in few next minutes... well kind of. ;) Especially when the main mission has been launched, from that point, my breath just stopped and I enjoined every single minute almost until the end. I could pass the few last minutes in the end. The happy ending with glorious music in the background, corny anyone? But as I wrote, it's entertaining. Nolan went back to his roots and chose to play with the viewers mind again (yep, Memento). You'll walk from the theater and you'll THINK! No, it's not just a boring visual effects blockbuster, however on the other hand, there's no big message behind it either, so I'm going to write it once more, "it's smartly entertaining".
8/10.
8/10.
Avatar
(2009)
Eye candy, NOTHING MORE
23 July 2010
Warning: Spoilers
PREAMBLE: This review has been deleted. It was done so based on another user suggestion. I'm not sure why, so I deleted some dirty words that might offend some "users". I'm reposting it now with slight changes and some notes in brackets {}.
I'm not going to try call the art 'where are thee?' because Avatar isn't trying pretend to be deep anyway. However I'm very concerned about the amount of the 10/10 reviews here at IMDb. It probably shows something. People don't think anymore, they want candy. So they got it. But you can't feed on candy only, you know. At the time when I'm writing this review, Avatar sits on the 24th position of the TOP250, between 25th Silence of the Lambs and 23th Once Upon a Time in the West.
OK, so what's wrong? Story - Main character, Jake, infiltrates a tribe of aliens on some planet. This tribe resides on the source of some highly expensive mineral. The tribe must be wiped out because of it. Jake starts to like his new friends, because they seem to be cool and in harmony with their nature. He also fell in love with female alien, Nscho-tschi, er... Neytiri. Battle between humans and aliens. The end. -- Well, not only has been this around thousand times over and over again, but it (go figure!) might have taken some bits from the history as well. Dances with Wolves have been mentioned in some reviews and I can think of even more accurate example - Enemy Mine (1985). Wiping the native Americans was a damn shame from any angle, but please, we all have got the point that it was wrong, OK? Get over it and don't breed the hate among the... {offensive words removed}. If you need some movie history lesson from this area, go see the Little Big Man (1970), the plot is exactly the same, only you won't need the 3D goggles.
Script - None. The pattern could have been written by anybody, who has seen the standard action flicks. First few minutes, we get the direct explanation about what, where, who and why. And you know this type of explanation, right? Actors talking to each other and explaining the situation, like they never met before. The lecture from Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi) given to Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver, why?) in their first dialog raised my palm to my face. The intellect of the audience has been lowered down again. Then standard romantic part with a twist in second part, the main character is obviously the chosen one, because some force says so and of course we have a baddie from the army and the stupid leader who just wants money too. The aliens win the final battle and the lead character becomes one of them. Duh.
Actors and setting - Who the hell need actors when we've got CGI? I was in the theater with my brother, who plays computer games a lot. After we came out of the building, he named me several things, which have been taken out straight from several PC games, like Command and Conquer, Heroes of Might and Magic, Warcraft and so on. So another rip-off.
Visual effects - You've got this right. But wait another 20 years. It's like silicon breast. Now it looks good on your 20 years old body, but wait another 20. I still can't believe the score on IMDb is based solely on visual effects. It's so wrong! I have a theory about the whole thing. I think Cameron has been paid a fortune to do this. Why? Let's say the movie entertainment industry has a problem, that people don't go to theaters anymore, because they can watch movies from home, especially when they can get it on piratebay, right? So the industry needs a new type of movies. Movies with lame story, lame script, lame everything, but top CGI, 3D, IMAX, ultra-mega-realistic screening, so the movie downloaded from the internet is, in fact, useless. I've got nothing against this strategy. I don't give a damn about these mindless flicks, but they just don't belong among the TOP250, that's why I went to see Avatar. Out of curiosity. And my jaw did drop. From a shame where the intellect of the majority is going. I'm also ashamed that I went there and paid the money to see it. It's utterly trash. {section with "dirty" movies has been removed}
0/10.
I'm not going to try call the art 'where are thee?' because Avatar isn't trying pretend to be deep anyway. However I'm very concerned about the amount of the 10/10 reviews here at IMDb. It probably shows something. People don't think anymore, they want candy. So they got it. But you can't feed on candy only, you know. At the time when I'm writing this review, Avatar sits on the 24th position of the TOP250, between 25th Silence of the Lambs and 23th Once Upon a Time in the West.
OK, so what's wrong? Story - Main character, Jake, infiltrates a tribe of aliens on some planet. This tribe resides on the source of some highly expensive mineral. The tribe must be wiped out because of it. Jake starts to like his new friends, because they seem to be cool and in harmony with their nature. He also fell in love with female alien, Nscho-tschi, er... Neytiri. Battle between humans and aliens. The end. -- Well, not only has been this around thousand times over and over again, but it (go figure!) might have taken some bits from the history as well. Dances with Wolves have been mentioned in some reviews and I can think of even more accurate example - Enemy Mine (1985). Wiping the native Americans was a damn shame from any angle, but please, we all have got the point that it was wrong, OK? Get over it and don't breed the hate among the... {offensive words removed}. If you need some movie history lesson from this area, go see the Little Big Man (1970), the plot is exactly the same, only you won't need the 3D goggles.
Script - None. The pattern could have been written by anybody, who has seen the standard action flicks. First few minutes, we get the direct explanation about what, where, who and why. And you know this type of explanation, right? Actors talking to each other and explaining the situation, like they never met before. The lecture from Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi) given to Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver, why?) in their first dialog raised my palm to my face. The intellect of the audience has been lowered down again. Then standard romantic part with a twist in second part, the main character is obviously the chosen one, because some force says so and of course we have a baddie from the army and the stupid leader who just wants money too. The aliens win the final battle and the lead character becomes one of them. Duh.
Actors and setting - Who the hell need actors when we've got CGI? I was in the theater with my brother, who plays computer games a lot. After we came out of the building, he named me several things, which have been taken out straight from several PC games, like Command and Conquer, Heroes of Might and Magic, Warcraft and so on. So another rip-off.
Visual effects - You've got this right. But wait another 20 years. It's like silicon breast. Now it looks good on your 20 years old body, but wait another 20. I still can't believe the score on IMDb is based solely on visual effects. It's so wrong! I have a theory about the whole thing. I think Cameron has been paid a fortune to do this. Why? Let's say the movie entertainment industry has a problem, that people don't go to theaters anymore, because they can watch movies from home, especially when they can get it on piratebay, right? So the industry needs a new type of movies. Movies with lame story, lame script, lame everything, but top CGI, 3D, IMAX, ultra-mega-realistic screening, so the movie downloaded from the internet is, in fact, useless. I've got nothing against this strategy. I don't give a damn about these mindless flicks, but they just don't belong among the TOP250, that's why I went to see Avatar. Out of curiosity. And my jaw did drop. From a shame where the intellect of the majority is going. I'm also ashamed that I went there and paid the money to see it. It's utterly trash. {section with "dirty" movies has been removed}
0/10.
I wonder why they wanted to film this one.
28 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This is bad. This is really bad. I never wanted to see this one, but it just popped up during a night channel switching on HBO. Now I know I shouldn't have stayed on that channel. If I should compare the Crystal Skull to the other other Indy movies, it would receive 1/10 and that 1 would be for Harrison Ford being Indy. I rate this movie as a stand alone flick. It's still entertaining, but in the modern way, where you have to turn your brain off. Totally. I mean, Indy survives the nuclear bomb test in the fridge, action scenes seems to be taken out of some lame computer game, Indy and the gang survives three Niagara falls look-alike in one sitting and so on. Plot? Yeah, there is some kind of a plot to fill the high tense action scenes. And everything is fast fast fast, like all those new flicks. In a way, before I saw it, I wanted to believe they did this movie for a nostalgia, so the focus would be set on the film, not on the dumb audience. It wasn't.
Sunshine
(2007)
Very nice movie experience
14 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Do you remember The Core? Where bunch of people went down to earth core to "fix" it? Well, after few years I saw that flick, there were these rumours about another movie about a bunch of people, who fly to ('ahem') SUN to "fix" it. Starring Chris Evans. My reaction to all this info was like "get the hell outta here!" Until this year, I didn't know anything more about this movie, since my friend recommended it's soundtrack. So looked up this "Sunshine" title and... whoa, Danny Boyle? OK... And what a nice surprise it was! I gave it 9/10, it just needed one point down for some similarities with Event Horizon, 2010 and maybe other sci-fi space movies. But still, very moving. And even though the idea of blowing a bomb in the sun (to "fix" it:) sounds so improbable and corny, this movie makes the case look like possible mission. And Dr. Brian Cox from CERN as a science adviser for this movie is a solid confirmation for that. Recommended.
Control
(2003)
This movie has everything a movie should have!
6 February 2009
It has humor, romance, tension, depth, and even horror! It's all there. I recorded it one night from a local TV channel, didn't know what to expect. I had only a small flashback of somebody's mention of a something like "it was pretty good". Well, it wasn't just pretty good. It's brilliant! This is the kind of movie when you have an urge to watch it one more time right after the ending credits. It starts out as an artistic mystery or horror piece, followed by bitter and somewhat even nihilistic humor, which falls into a true comedy with a sign of romance, that spins back to mystery and tension. And the best thing is (at least the first half of the movie) you don't know what comes next. Although the whole movie is set in the subways, so there is a constant pessimistic underground feeling, the ending is exactly what an optimist would welcome. And that's not a spoiler, since the ending is not important in this film at all.
Go get it!
Go get it!
The Dark Knight
(2008)
People, get back on the ground, will ya?
21 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This is what happens when a good movie appears in the mainstream. People who are used to Hollywood junk stand in awe now and praise this movie as a masterpiece. Well, it is a good movie, but it has nothing to do in the TOP 10! I don't care much about that non-realistic stuff, it's a comics already, however there some flaws which keeps my rating in the middle. Joker steals the show. No doubt about that. I found myself bored between the scenes without this villain. And the second thing which lowered the score was that pathetic would-be moralistic message. People wouldn't kill others to save themselves? Am I supposed to believe in a all-of-a-sudden-kind prisoner who will make the decision (on a boat full of prisoners!) not to blow the other ship (full of of oh-so-innocent people) in the air? And vice versa? I said I didn't mind the unrealistic bits, but this was just laughable. But all in all, it was quite entertaining even though the story was somehow flat.
Tell Your Friends