The only real problem with this movie is that it is a sequel and not an original story. The artistry placed n ever shot is absolutely amazing, where every one else in the industry uses CG this movie uses make up and sculptures. Except for the fast paced action sequences which I can forgive. Everything looks like moving art and Del Torro it seems is single handedly reviving the old art of movie makeup. Everything seems and feels real which i haven't seen in a movie since the early 90's. Very few shots will give you the feeling 'that's CG'. The movie itself is a campy action movie with incredible visual style and a good sense of humor. The story is far more layered than I had ever imagined it would be. It actually provided some depth however subtle it was. Del Torro has proved himself to be a director worth watching and I look forward to another original project like pan's labyrinth because if he was able to make a cheap action sequel into an artistic movie he can do real magic with a real script.
Reviews
6 Reviews
Ben-Hur
(1959)
Not so great as we're led to believe.
10 July 2008
To start Charlton Heston isn't that great of an actor. He is just like the Arnold of his time without one liners. His acting is just not convincing he feels and looks insincere the whole time. The only movie where i felt anything from him was 'a touch of evil'. For the other actors well, few others are featured enough to make much of a difference and the script's shallowness except for a few lines leave the whole experience really empty of empathy from the audience. Now in terms of the actual movie it has aged terribly where other films from the era have shined. The shots are bland and require the background to hold the audience's attention. There was no directorial imagination in the picture. One of the biggest problems with this movie is that it just wasn't edited. Nearly all the scenes drag and drag which is probably one reason that the acting feels forced because people are holding this faces forever. Even the famous chariot race takes forever to get to and it even drags. Another area where it has aged is the costumes which look tacky and fake along with indoor sets that look like sets. really the only real great scene is the chariot race which deserves the title epic while the rest deserves the title biography. and one of the few interesting this is the way Jesus is portrayed, but it was so back grounded and unfocused from the central story that it was almost no worth putting in. The entire Christ bit even felt tacked on and wasn't at all backed up by Heston.
All Ladies Do It
(1992)
Go rent a playboy video
11 April 2008
I heard Tinto Brass did eroticism, fine. I heard he was a real artist using his film like a painting, fine. I can go on about the good things I've heard, now didn't I see s*** in this. A stylish porn? No, a boring porn that isn't really a porn more like odd voyeurism. The eroticism was so over bored it was more annoying and I'd say that it detracted from the plot, but there wasn't one. Had I wanted to watch a porno I'd'ave rented one. I expected a real movie with some nudity and sex not the other way around. Because there was so little and what there was was just so inane I'm just going to pretend like there weren't even characters. Now the cinematography, it was a bad spaghetti western quality. N ow I thought that Brass was supposed to be better than the spaghetti western directors, well he's actually worse. The shots were all bland and migraine worthy. I could go on. Then to really just make you hate the movie more the girl as the most irritating giggle I've ever heard (beside the fact it is a total sound bit)seriously after the first time I heard it I already wanted to punch her. I'll say this maybe his earlier stuff is better, but after this I really would have to doubt it.
Silent Running
(1972)
Its OK not great, but it isn't a complete failure
28 February 2008
This movie was really just a "cute" little piece. It has heart and some nice modeling. The music and sets help add to a proper atmosphere for the title.
But even with this this film falls short on a lot of things the acting is very mediocre, Dern as done things with other movies, but in this he really didn't try or the script was just too restricting. On that the script is very poor, having a few good parts lines and social/political commentary there really is no substance to the movie. Not much really happens through the movie, the inly way it doesn't kill the movie altogether is that the movie keeps a decent pacing and "2001" like musical scenes.
really the movie is just good fodder for references and some good jokes, there are a lot of things to be made fun of like the pool machine. The commentary in nature is nice, but really doesn't go any where so that can't be a bonus. Its not a waste of time it really just is another scifi movie.
I do have to say the director managed to keep it alive a lot of the time, really the pacing aspect.
But even with this this film falls short on a lot of things the acting is very mediocre, Dern as done things with other movies, but in this he really didn't try or the script was just too restricting. On that the script is very poor, having a few good parts lines and social/political commentary there really is no substance to the movie. Not much really happens through the movie, the inly way it doesn't kill the movie altogether is that the movie keeps a decent pacing and "2001" like musical scenes.
really the movie is just good fodder for references and some good jokes, there are a lot of things to be made fun of like the pool machine. The commentary in nature is nice, but really doesn't go any where so that can't be a bonus. Its not a waste of time it really just is another scifi movie.
I do have to say the director managed to keep it alive a lot of the time, really the pacing aspect.
Born in Flames
(1983)
Okay equality all around, but....
12 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This movie or whatever you can call it, is bad. There is only a cheap generic ten minute plot and then random scenes and "interviews" from some television network. The whole plot of the movie is pointless, why is there a socialist revolution? The whole idea of a revolution makes the women revoloution in this movie seems pointless and the government doesn't seem to be different overall than it is now. Overall the "revolution" is pointless to this movie's overall goal. When women are arguing with one another over starting up the women's army, a few women point out that change comes slowly and that the government was already set up to change things. The Women's Army people just sort of wave this argument off without an answer. If the government was socialist every one would be paid regardless, just laying that one out there... The movie is too random and unclear for any point to come out clearly. The militancy that shows up really has no real foundation if the society is Socialist. The movie argues against problems of the current government. The good things that come out of it are the problems that women faced in the before, like the rape scene. It is a powerful scene and the only one in which the issue is clearly marked, but it just leads to male bashing not directed towards the rapists, but towards others. As a movie it is an interesting look at Feminist movement, but is too dated to be taken seriously now. If anything what I got out of this movie is that feminists are just jackasses, and there are women in the movie that I'd think would agree with me.
Red Dawn
(1984)
Misunderstood and Under-rated
6 February 2007
What I took at first to be a self righteous Pro-America Anti-Soviet 80s action film actually turned out to be something else entirely. Though the film is dated and has sub-par acting, the movie plays off the story more than anything else. The story us unique and does not make America out to be the bad ass super country. On top of that it plays both side and makes both, to a certain level out to be human. One of the most interesting parts of the movie is its dialogue on insurgency which is very important today considering Iraq. I think his movie is important for viewers today to watch so as to understand current events though it is not of the same quality it is interesting as the Battle of Algiers in its perspective on insurgency and terrorism. I ask viewers to look at the movie from this sort of perspective when they watch instead of judging it before hand and ignore Swayze and Sheen.
Tell Your Friends