Reviews

4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Arrival (II) (2016)
2/10
Overwhelming boredom
16 April 2019
I do love science and science fiction. But i had to stop the movie after 40 minutes. Usually I always say: you need to finish watching the movie to be able to judge it. But not this time. This time, it was just so boring I couldn't find any reason to finish watching it. Unoriginal story. Illogical dialogues (the starting dialogue when the main protagonist is hired is one example, already mentioned by many other reviewers here). Ugly special effects. The "spaceship" has the typical minimalistic, unimaginative design used when there is no budget nor thought gone to its design. It doesn't make sense, like many other things of this movie. I imagine the conversation that the writers had when they came up with its design: "how do we design the spacecraft? Nahh, the typical flying saucer is so cliche, let's make it look like a huge egg or bean instead. We can draw it with a quick 1$ graphics design job, doesn't need to look realistic. Doesn't need to show any mechanical parts, just a flat surface." Same thing goes to the aliens design. Oh, and I do always love when the scenes cut just before some cool thing is going to happen. Really shows how much the movie has to offer. The color palette, is so dark and depressing. Colors are cold and washed out. I was wondering if my screen brightness had turned down for some reason. Turning screen brightness up doesn't help - the film brightness is just too dark, that you can barely distinguish characters from background in most of the scenes shot in dark areas.

Overall, a boring movie, made even worse by its depressing palette.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Thing (I) (2011)
8/10
Worthwhile prequel
16 May 2014
When I found out that the prequel of one of my favourite movies came out, I was excited and worried at the same time due to the mixed reviews. But I'll tell you, actually this movie pleasantly satisfied me. While it has its flaws, it's actually a coherent and well tied prequel, which temporally ends exactly when the original movie starts.

The scientific aspects of "The Thing" are developed more deeply, and we learn how this creature actually lives and replicates. Science geeks like me will find this quite interesting and realistic: The Thing hasn't got a "real" shape, but it actually is a cellular-based organism capable of cloning host cells, and trigger mutations when necessary (such as when it needs to attack and assimilate someone).

The Norvegian Base camp is recreated in the smallest details, and I appreciated the fact that we also get to see inside the spaceship. I mean, after watching the original film I was perplexed that we've got both a spaceship with its door open, and a team of scientists, and nobody seems to care about entering inside the spaceship and analyze it?

Flaws of this movie include some weak acting and no character development, and the helicopter scene CGI effects (who has seen the movie will remember it) which I found ridiculous, but fortunately in most of the other scenes we get well made CGI and practical effects, both kinda impressive. Also I didn't like the director's choice near the end (I bet almost anybody would have preferred the Alien Pilot version!! Instead of that shitty pixelated cover which felt nonsense and cheap).

I suggest you not to listen to the people whining on any cult-classic remake which comes out, first because this is a prequel and NOT a remake, second because it seems that aforementioned people can't distinguish between a good or bad prequel/sequel/remake when it comes after a lot of time (30 years in this case), they should understand that a change of style after such a timespan is normal. Nevertheless this movie is much similar to the original (a team of scientists isolated in an Antarctica base camp, paranoia derived from inability to trust anyone, flamethrowers which will ignite entire buildings, tests to determine if someone is infected or not etc.) and should satisfy enough anyone who doesn't whine on any new cult-classic remake.

So, nothing groundbreaking and we pretty much know already what to expect from this movie at the beginning; but at the end I was pleased to discover that all my expectations were met.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Tunnel (I) (2011)
4/10
Low budget, low thrills movie
20 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Nothing new here in the horror genre. Actors are good, but the story is predictable and contains elements of a lot of previous horror POV shaky-camera films, so there's nothing new and exciting if you are familiar with the genre.

A movie made with such a low budget is excusable for some cheap stuff it's got, like always recurring to darkness to not allowing people to see what's happening, but why attempting at CGI with poor results rather then use a real actor with make-up?

Also, it is extremely predictable. You can understand who will manage to get out alive from the beginning, since it starts with an interview to the survivors. Want to talk about the main character? A yelling woman who does nothing but attracting the monster for the entire film with her moans.

My suggestion: see it just if you are bored and in the mood for a low-budget horror movie. Otherwise, watch some better alternative (The Descent, The Blair Witch Project, Rec, Cloverfield etc. etc. etc.).
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
[Rec]² (2009)
5/10
Ruined the atmosphere for the 1st film
23 July 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I watched yesterday Rec 1, a masterpiece. This evening, Rec 2.

This is not an awful film after all, but several points below the first one (I voted the first 8/10).

Rec 1 transmitted to me a sense of confusion, mystery, it really makes you feel like you are one of the people trapped in that apartment, who doesn't really know well what is going on, both inside and outside the building. But the first film is realistic: deals about science, a virus, zombies (although they are faster and more intelligent then the standard), physical infection.

Rec 2 changes this to a demoniac possession which reminds the Exorcist. First film was science, second film is religion. I preferred science. In this second film Satan talks through the infected/possessed people, and like in The Exorcist is able to change the voice of its victim. I found that quite ridiculous, kind of a thing that would be never happened in 1st film, where the villains were infected and not possessed! So now why this stupid change?! It is just a bad mismatch if you pair it with the realistic horror masterpiece that was Rec 1.

Also, the characters were better in the first. They were just common people, their reactions were understandable, but why in the sequel a police team that should be quite prepared acts stupid more than once? They should know when to shoot, and react less hysterically even if the situation was tragic.

Even the camera was better in the first movie. You feel that the camera is really inside the movie, but here seems more "external". The cameraman never does anything except filming, like if in a situation were you are in a high risk of death your first thought is keep the camera in position. Then one of the policemen says, "how could we make the people outside believe what is happening here? Nobody is going to believe us!". Now, think about it, you took a member of your team that does nothing except filming all the time and you have no proof?! Bah.

So my final suggestion: watch Rec 1, that is very well made, realistic, full of suspense, does his horror movie job very well. Rec 2? Not so bad, but more than 1 stupid storyline decision that ruined this sequel, like the introduction of Satan and supernatural elements, and lack of characterization.
58 out of 83 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed