Change Your Image
Credo_Quia_Absurdum
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Jiong nan hai (2008)
Brought me to hyper space!
Adults are very tall. They are so tall that their sight tends to loose itself to the distance because almost nothing is higher than them. Children, however, are smaller and thus they do not see as far as the adults do. But they see what is near them. Adults see large, gigantic things ahead of them. Children see the smallest things. Children live in the present tense. Adults look towards the future. Children see the world differently. And this is what Orz Boyz is all about. Seeing things differently. Through the eyes of the children we once were. These kids, through the little things they care for, do not see this overwhelming world full of poverty and misery they live in.
Through brilliant acting by the kids and supporting adult actors, through its greatly polished cinematography ( like most movies from China ) and inspiring music, Orz Boyz is able to capture the essence of childhood friendship. Sometimes it is very realistic and in the next scene it jumps to surrealism and it even has some animation here and there as well. This creates a wonderful film that reminds me of the magic behind other children related stories such as St-Exupéry's "The Little Prince". Very entertaining, charming and surprising movie. It breaks the barriers of language in so many ways. This is a must see for anyone who is looking towards discovering a part of China that is rarely seen in the medias - its highly artistic side, that is.
Solaris (2002)
Beyond usual sci-fi
The first time I saw this movie, I hated it. I initially gave it a 4/10 in here on IMDb. The fact that I had read Stanislaw Lem's novel prior to viewing Steven's cinematographic version led me to be quite "enraged" at the various modifications made in the overall story. I must say that I was expecting a "typical" sci-fi movie and that I wasn't aiming for a love story in the first place.
The second time, I enjoyed it. I changed my note to 6/10. After reading the book again in between both viewings of the film, I realized that this movie had been made this way willingly and not by mistake. I also realized that although it was different from the book in many ways ( including Solaris's appearance ), it was digging deeper into the psychological aspect of the characters than I had previously thought. Even Lem had not been able to do that in such a way.
The third time, I simply loved it. I finally gave it 8/10 ( which is outstanding to me ). Like many people in here, I must have been distracted by the fact that George Clooney is in it, since he is a very famous actor and sometimes acted in horrible movies ( Batman ). I came to realize that Clooney truly outdid himself in Solaris and that all the other actors are putting an amazing performance as well. The cinematography is so beautifully done that no one can truly enjoy it through a single viewing. The soundtrack is perhaps the thing I've missed the most while I first saw this great piece of filmatography. The music is an actor itself - it remains the same, yet it changes its shape, color and tone, following the emotions represented by the images it accompanies. There is something in Soderbergh's vision of Solaris that is more otherworldly than all the sci-fi movies. Even Stanislaw Lem's original Solaris sometimes fails to describe, even with words, something similar to Steven's Solaris. Because of this, I believe Solaris not only is different - it stands alone from both the older adaptation and the book itself. It's something else.
Clooney's performance which I initially saw as empty and lacking true emotion for a "sci-fi romance" turned out to be exactly what I just said - but in a good way. Kelvin, the character played by Clooney, is an empty shell. He has no reason to enjoy life. All that is dear to him is lost. He has no beliefs, no dreams, no hope. He comes to Solaris not as an explorer about to discover another planet with an open mind ready to plunge into the unknown with intellectual avidity, but as a professional doing his work as a psychologist, not even caring about Solaris. His love for what he believes is his loved one is not true love for it died with him on Earth. All that he cares about is the physical presence of his girlfriend and not her as a whole. In this perspective, he is indeed acting as an empty man with no real emotions and thus, he accomplishes something very few actors can actually do.
This movie will always have its detractors for a reason that is also a paradox: it's the complexity of the movie that makes it simple looking to most. Many people fall in love without asking themselves what love truly is. They can live this way for a lifetime and enjoy life without problems. Solaris, however, explores love in a deeper, darker way and those who are not able to see complexity and imperfection through love will not understand the many scenes in this movie involving Kelvin and Rheya. What is love? Is it being one through sexual contact? Is it sharing thoughts, emotions and words with our mate? Or is it something else, something we have yet to discover? Most people disliked this movie because of its lack of usual science fiction elements - aliens, for example. The funny thing is that they are making the same mistake Kelvin does while not figuring out what Solaris truly is. It's all there. We, the human beings, are the aliens, for we do not even know who we truly are and what we are capable of. Kelvin cannot see Solaris in a way other than as a planet just like many people cannot see this film as something that is other than a sci-fi movie.
With this in mind, I encourage you to view Solaris at least twice in a lifetime. Who knows, perhaps will you see this movie in a new light next time you see it - a purple and pink light, that is. ;)
Chronos (1985)
Chronos vs Time
Space, time and matter. While the first might have started at the birth of the universe and the later is created and destroyed everyday, time stands alone. It cannot be undone and if there is anything that can resist time, it is time itself. In this sense time is the most mysterious. Is it even real? Is it only a creation of mankind to explain the beginnings and the ends? In Greek Mythology, Chronos is known to be the god of time. In this sense, Ron Fricke is trying to unite both conceptions of time through vast, open spaces and closed, personal areas. In his film, he tried to put the matter and space in perspective, showing that time had a greater influence.
When it came out, Chronos was considered as a very advanced, an "ahead of its time" kind of movie. The ground breaking Koyaanisqatsi was nearly 5 years old. The technical attributes of the movie were far greater than what could be found in popular, conventional cinema. The synthesized music was relatively new to the world and Michael Stearns was already establishing himself as both a leader and a pioneer in the ambient music department, even creating a particular instrument for the film. And of course, when Chronos came out back then, similar movies were hard to find.
Needless to say: Chronos relied heavily on the overall technology of 80's.
Nowadays, the technical attributes found in Chronos have been beaten by other movies. Music can now be created with complex, yet easy to use programs by using extremely effective computers which can produce an almost infinite number of sounds, effects, etc.. And finally, there are many similar movies nowadays, and we can find time lapse captures everywhere from typical Hollywood movies to televised advertisements.
This now leads people to believe that this movie is unoriginal, lacking depth and that the music is not good. As ironic as it sounds, Chronos is slowly being killed by time itself, whether it be real or not. But that does not mean that the movie is now bad today. Of course, there are obstacles that the viewer must surpass in order to view the movie and to think " Let's compare it to other movies in the 80's ".
When criticizing this movie, many people will compare it to Baraka ( which was made many years later, must I add ) and automatically point out the obvious: It's always the same areas, the music is always the same, the overall "message" is lacking.
Fricke didn't have the budget he had for Baraka. Stearn's music was innovative and fresh at the moment and yes, there is a "message" in Chronos, you just didn't take the "time" to see it.
In Baraka, the message concerning spirituality and humanity is easier to understand for a simple reason: Ron Fricke did it on purpose. The most important religions and areas of the world are shown. The whole movie is made in a way to connect with the entire world. In this sense, Baraka is a movie about the Earth and its inhabitants and what is around and beyond it. You will notice that in Baraka there are things you can easily understand and point out while there are others more obscure themes that you might not even notice.
Chronos is far more complicated for the viewer. While Baraka is still an experimental film, it is not an abstract film. Chronos is both an experimental and abstract film. In this sense, it is way harder for the viewer to acknowledge Chronos to actually have a meaning and to make something out of it.
This shows how Ron Fricke truly is a mastermind when it comes to giving other people the opportunity to come out with their own interpretations of his movies. A short comparison with Geoffrey Reggio ( Fricke's partner ) can be made. While Reggio builds his movies on a specific message which make the viewer think after watching the films, Fricke chooses to make the viewer think while he his still watching. Most viewers will often try to find a meaning to Chronos after watching it or they will try to associate a specific series of scenes.
Of course, Chronos is not as good as Baraka. I believe everyone can agree on this. But everyone should all agree that Chronos was some sort of cinematic homework for Fricke. Not only was it his first own film, but he was also stepping on a different kind of path than Reggio's. He actually found his own path, his own style, a cinematic trademark. And for this originality and advance in film, Chronos deserves to be considered as a good movie. Not the best, but one of the good.
Genghis Khan (2005)
When will it turn to a movie?
I have been a " Genghis Khan amateur " for a couple of years now and I have seen this documentary on Discovery Channel some days ago.
This documentary stands out from the other war docs. It has good acting by totally unknown actors ( my bet would be that they are experienced Mongol actors ), they speak their mother tongue ( although it is both narrated or subtitled ) and the costumes are great. There are some great scenes involving Genghis and Jamuqua. The bad point with this documentary is the fact that they seemed to put too much money on it at first and lacked the budget after the part where Genghis attacks China. Then, it skips right to the later years of his life and then he practically dies ten minutes later. There seems to be a miscalculation of spending of money here by the crew and director, in my own opinion.
What everyone needs to know is that there is a book written by Mongolian historians titled " The Secret History " which is mainly used in this documentary. However, this book was written way after Genghis Khan died, by Kublaï Khan's people at the height of the Mongolian occupation. Very little is true in this book for it was mixed with romanticism and imaginary tales to " impress " those who did not live at Genghis Khan's time. Truly, if the whole point of this documentary was to teach what was Genghis Khan's life, then it failed miserably. Being historically accurate is extremely difficult with Genghis Khan's life, especially his childhood, because he did not have much historians with him until his later years. I believe they did a great job although they should have made some more research to see what was true or wasn't ( there are 2 or 3 other main books by renown historians which seemed to be ignored there ).
I believe the story of Genghis Khan is yet to be discovered by many - especially where I live, in north America. I truly believe there is an incredible potential for a big budget movie about him. What this documentary has tried was to do this very movie, but it lacked the funds and the whole thing suffered from it.
Stardust (2007)
A future cult movie?
Sometimes there is a movie that goes unheard of, ignored by most, sometimes pounded by negative critics and suddenly, some years later, it turns into a classic for some reason. Fantasy movies are usually on top of that list. Think of Labyrinth or The Dark Crystal. Stardust will probably find itself along with those titles in the upcoming years for many reasons.
First of, the movie, overall, is not taken seriously in many different ways. The actors all seem to be having fun and an aura of global simplicity surrounds the movie from beginning to end. There's a lot of cheezy stuff in Stardust, but just enough so it can't be considered as a boring parody. It involves old fairy tales with contemporary humor, pretty much like Shrek did with brilliance. Although it is not funny as in laughable, the movie makes us smile not because of some joke or the facial expressions of some actor, but because we find each and every character charmingly naive and totally focused on one single idea. The fact that their personality is so simple makes them likable very soon after we encounter them for the first time.
The most intriguing part is, without a doubt, Robert De Niro's role as cross dressing pirate. His part is played with great acting and he is seen just enough so his character doesn't turn into a cliché. He is an enlightenment to the movie and almost makes us forget about some boring scenes. The brothers killing each other for the throne also fill up some good moments. The main actor ( Charlie Cox ) playing the hero is doing his best but the whole scenario was too much of a " loser turning into a winner ", he is still not experienced enough to play a leading role. He was mostly overshadowed by the other characters ( especially Lamia ( Pfeiffer ), Septimus ( Mark Strong ) and Captain Shakespeare ( De Niro )). Claire Danes was okay. I wished Jason Flemyng would've played a bigger part as Primus. I liked his over-the-top prince charming looks and personality compared to the Severus Snape/Aragorn look-a-like in Septimus who was not enough of a villain. Wearing black does not really make you evil. Michelle Pfeiffer was all right but I think her character also was built on "evil looks" and she is not that terrifying although the "inn scene" was great.
These kind of movies must not be expected to be as gigantic and dramatic as The Lord of The Rings which is the prime example. It is not a work of art, just an enjoyable family friendly film. It has to be taken lightly. There is nothing out of the ordinary in Stardust but, sometimes, if we focus on the ordinary things we usually ignore, we find beauty in them and that is what can be found in this very movie.
Das Blut der Templer (2004)
Lacks originality
In the first minutes of the movie you can already know what the whole movie is about: swordfighting, techno music, regenerating humans and, of course, bad acting. I can easily describe it by saying: Da Vinci Code meets Highlander. And it is as horrible as it seems. Actions scenes are okay. Sometimes the scenes end and you're asking yourself why it took so long ( example: the main characters leave the screen and you get to see people walking on the background for way too long giving the scene some kind of funny feeling ). The main actor is okay ( I'm being nice here ) but most of the cast is horrible. You can smell every intrigue coming from a thousand mile away. No originality whatsoever. I recommend it for anyone who likes to laugh at movies not made to be funny.