Reviews

Incredible bad script, not making sense more than half the time. People with confidential secret information that can get them killed simply make them public and it goes away. Also CIA doesn't provoke gunfights like that, makes zero sense.

Also, except Ryan Gosling and Billy Bob Thornton, super bad acting. The main guy is a Freddy Mercury wannabe, terrible kid mustache and feminine ankles showing as he wears no socks, zero acting skill. Also script makes him to things immediately disqualifying him for working with anyone else, ever again.

Script has the feeling of being written by recent graduate with no life experience.

This is insultingly bad from a physics and logic point of view. That system cannot exist. The physics explanation is hard(er) but the logical one is easy. Let's even ignore you'd have to input every atom and particle with precise characteristics at Planck precision at the same time. Suppose you could. Still an easy defeat: make a machine that makes world-altering decisions (market trades, company promotions etc.) based on the brightness of an oscillating star. Can the system predict it, as "deterministic" as it may be, without even having the input data? (i.e. every molecule of that star's system) (please note there is no spoiler here - no twist revealed, nothing on characters etc.)

This lack of logic translates further into the show, in the characters' decisions etc. but I'll let you find that out on your own.

It's an interesting documentary in that it makes Knox look guilty as hell even though it's apparently produced by some ardent Knox supporters, an important detail that I only found out later. We see her laughter grimaces the sociopaths make when they lie all over the movie - really bad way to try to make someone appear innocent. Gotta love the Italian lawyer's comments when asked about the US: in 1308 we had our first law school in Italy; in 1308 in America they were drawing bisons in caves. Much as I appreciate the USA, there's nothing like mocking an adolescent nation at the right time.

Let me exemplify with a joke - which does not accurately depict the scenario - so no spoilers here: "A guy walks into a wedding shoots all 40 guests, leaving only the bride. He then asks: What is a nice girl like you doing in a place like this?"

This is a reasonably good joke. It takes less than 15 seconds to tell and another 10 to laugh - that is, if you're in a really good mood. It would be no good if it took 9 hours to tell.

This series is a sad attempt at horror made worse by an even sadder attempt at a scenario. People armed with loaded shotguns getting killed by a guy with a knife because they can't wait for him to get close and they shoot from far away and miss. People getting separated in the presence of the bad guy, for no reason other than to die conveniently. People armed with loaded weapons leaving others unarmed behind to fight with the bad guy and "keep him busy" while they escape. Dramatic killings with BIG blades, impossible to conceal, almost impossible to carry and with reflective edged - if you want to take someone out at night, use a black blade please - size doesn't matter as much as sharpness. All the above happen repeatedly - too much of an insult.

The poor bad guy should have been chased for about half the movie, hunted down like a poor cat that he was.

Try telling a joke which should last 15 seconds and make it last 32400 seconds - you'll know how it feels.

In order to keep away from spoilers, let's start this way: it is a zombie movie - no surprise here, easy to guess.

So, when things are happening, you know where they're heading... to some zombie, right? Right... But the WAY it happens is utterly, plainly, obviously stupid, forced, illogical, unrealistic, idiotic... did I mention stupid?

So do yourself a favor and be prepared to watch an insulting piece of cinematography. I deliberately avoided saying "zombie crap" because the theme in itself has the potential for a good action movie - had I thought otherwise I would not have watched it in the first place.

Almost every turn in the movie is questionable and happens with no logic and only one purpose - to advance the story to where it NEEDS to go. Bad, bad piece of cinema. And stupid, did I mention stupid?

So, what do we have here? QT making Kill Bill certainly has had me wondering if he totally lost it or if he only partially lost it. It was the latter.

Although IMO this movie is not a great one (as far as QT goes), it does signal a most welcome comeback of my favorite director. To be more precise about the positive: 1. the music is well picked and QT's way of blending excellent, forgotten music with scenes shines throughout the movie 2. the action is in the realm of... reality (i.e. no slashing of 100 ninjas in 1 scene) 3. the dialog is recognizably QT's

But, there is a but. The dialog, although QT's, is not backed by substance. There is no background, no reason, just the action. There is no second plot. Things are looking cool but there is nothing behind. In Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs, characters had reasons to act like they did. Here, they just do. Without the responsibility of providing reasons for characters, things do not look realistic.

For a reason which escapes me, Kubrick (an extraordinary director) agreed to direct 2 movies of Kirk Douglas, which I am sure actually did all the work and, well, the movies are bad. These movies were both produced by Kirk's production company, and he of course was the great star. Kubrick even disowned one of these movies as not his own - and yes, Kirk's influence is THAT bad.

Looking on the Spartacus page, I quote from the currently displayed comment: "As most are undoubtedly aware, this is the film that the director virtually expunged from his repertoire. But why did Stanley Kubrick really disown SPARTACUS(1960)? The answer can be summed up in two words: absolute control. [...] But you will notice that Bryna Productions not only financed SPARTACUS but also an earlier film directed by Kubrick, PATHS OF GLORY(1958). Bryna was Kirk Douglas' film company, and, as most filmgoers know, he was the star of both films. Besides having all the money to make the films, Douglas had artistic vision as well."

This is very nicely said so I guess I need to add no more.

Luckily, these two never made another movie together, and Kubrick made history by following up with Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, 2001, A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut. In the meantime, Kirk made no history but instead did 58 more movies, of... shall we say... very sad quality.

Overall, Spartacus is even more laughable than Paths of Glory because poor Kirk is a small guy and not even 2 of him would make up for the physique of a gladiator (yet he is Spartacus). But Paths of Glory is certainly more annoying as the sweet perfection, flawless intentions and pure soul of Kirk's character makes you want to puke - they are almost not human, let alone not possible for an army colonel whose job is - ultimately - to kill.

What struck me in the very beginning of the movie was that it looked like an absolute Full Metal Jacket ripoff. It is not such a thing, because as we progress to the end the movie distances itself a lot from that. I do believe that it's interesting because it portrays the state of the US army: a bunch of young, confused kids who know very little about what they're fighting for and who their enemy is, and are enraged against their enemy and driven to hate him, even without knowing him. Trained as to kill for fun, but not used to killing & seeing death, and breaking down nervously really fast. Unexperienced in most aspects of life - including personal - most seemed to have picked girlfriends which dumped them in the first 2 months after they left. Why, then, does the US win wars? Easy, because they don't fight wars, not real ones. They pick on some poorly trained poorly equipped nations and slaughter both themselves and the enemy in the process of war. That's it, a sad story.

This is a semi-serious flick, but it's not a movie. Why would I say that? Because the protagonists go around killing some guys in totally unprofessional manners - and I do mean totally unprofessional. Those guys you see on Discovery during "murder nights" are true geniuses compared to these guys. I find it hard to believe that Mosad was really that crazy and incompetent at the time - I think they used better people and smarter methods. So there. Except for one point, when the movie compares the killings of this small Jew group with the killings of all the Palestinian movement (in an attempt to... what? show us who the bad guys are?), the movie is pretty balanced from a propaganda point of view. Final conclusion: the facts portrayed are so childish and UNprofessional, that I can't take this as a serious movie, but rather as a flick.

This movie can be explored in many ways: the relationship between human life and technology is the first which comes to mind. Then maybe this fits into a larger theme of industrialization. Still, there are several ways of interpreting each scene and at times I had the feeling that they try to show - or to produce a metaphor for - human emotions, such as cheating, sorrow, the will not to die alone. "And we can rust the whole world and scatter it into the dust of universe" You will certainly make what you want of this movie. You may understand that technology is evil, that industrialization takes our souls away, or that even in our worst moments we crave for closeness and we don't want to be alone. This is a special movie - so beware - it is not accessible to most people. There's a chance that you won't be able to think for yourself and that you'll expect some quick & nice Hollywood conclusions which you're not going to get - in which case, this movie will be a waste of your time.

BAD: This movie leads nowhere and is a complete waste of time. It has some of the elements of a good movie, but too many of them are missing. It can't help falling into (Hollywood) clichés. It tries to be philosophical without proper introduction and logic, and sounds rather naive and shallow. I mean, the bullshit about the war, oh, the pain, the pain... give us a break. UNREALISTIC: The characters do not act according to logic or even common sense - I won't go into details because I'd spoil your "fun". Some things happen in a very unreal manner. Without revealing too much, let's just say that at times our hero can't get rid of a mosquito while at other times he is faster than a cheetah. POINTLESS: the movie ultimately tells a bad story and does a bad job making the audience think or at least meditate. The only good thing about it is that at least it's not trying to convince you of anything, it just goes along, irrespective of what you think. So there, enjoy.

Certainly this makes it too much, quite unwatchable or unbearable, for a lot of people. Which is OK, as one should try to please everyone. Eraserhead is one of a pretty short list of movies that are very hard to swallow (I don't pretend to know all such movies, but judging from what I've seen, from a statistical point of view, this seems to be the case). There are several reasons for this, and I guess it all starts with the intentional lack of human touch and positive emotion. This alone gives it a sour, metallic taste. Add to this a mix of darkness, visceral and venereal horror, and that's it - if you think you're going to see a regular movie, you've got another thing coming. This movie has a very vague resemblance with Cronenberg's Videodrome (and Crash, why not). Lynch's movies refuse to explain themselves and leave one with the pleasure - or burden - to do so. I reckon Hollywood fans will be pretty mad because no one tells them what happened and how to feel about it.

This was the first Woody Allen movie I have ever seen. I pictured Woody Allen as a guy who is small and stupid.

Well, I was wrong. This movie is absolutely brilliant and has a strangely wise humor. It achieves true style simply by being soooo laid back and relaxed: "It hurts me when I do like this" "Then don't do it". Not all characters are played well, but I would happily trade appearance for meaning.

Some reviews, including some from film critics, say this film is misogynistic - just because the women in it are not acting like they should?? This is a very shallow thought, it's like saying that a movie where black people are behaving badly is racist. Grow up and see this movie as it is. Great satire. Great comedy. Original and insightful humour. Open your eyes. This is a great movie.

It's not hard to see what this movie is about. It holds no surprises. And the performance of the people involved is under-average. Let's explain these statements. If we were to compare this movie to Se7en, its name should be Myst1c R1ver. But we won't go there, because no comparison between the two is actually possible. There is a murder, and not a very complicated one. Oh, the mystery... Then whoever bothered to make this movie tries to fool us (like we were some kids) into believing the killer is someone else... Then, in an awfully predictable manner, we are presented with the wonderful conclusion that the killer is not who we thought (no, we didn't) he was, but instead, the killer is someone who couldn't have possibly done this (can't say why, but it's stupid, just watch the movie and you'll see). Bad acting (almost obscene), especially on the part of Sean Penn, who almost made me laugh when trying to simulate pain, brings the overall quality of this flick down to zero. Don't watch this.

Reproducing some parts of a book doesn't make a movie just like that. The book is very good, even if the premises (that a society would be able to survive without books) are wrong. It's simply well written. I've even read the notes of the author after I finished the book... The movie tries to represent some parts of the book but stops short of giving birth to art, to something new. The acting is not bright and the atmosphere doesn't excel either. Compared to Brazil, another film with a dark view of the future, Fahrenheit 451 is less bold and takes fewer chances to makes mistakes, but is too plain. Brazil succeeds in creating an atmosphere where you get a bit close to the feeling of living in a totalitary state. The movie is not exactly bad, but it's not good either. To take only the movie into consideration, I'd say watch it, but because there's the book, I say don't. Read the real thing instead.

Perfection is not possible in reality, but Pulp Fiction is perfect. Perhaps it's due to the word "fiction" in the title that such a logically inept statement hasn't made you stop reading yet. I didn't know how to better express my feelings for this movie. It would be futile to say "this is the greatest movie ever". There are movies, and there is Pulp Fiction. An unbelievable stroke of genius that might as well never shine upon any other man has struck Quentin Tarantino... Pulp Fiction is both refreshing and intriguing, and its style makes it an unbelievable piece of art. Oh, the style. There is nothing too common here, but then again, nothing to make you jump from your seat and say "this is bullshit", or "this cannot happen". QT just makes it happen with ease, in an unbelievably believable manner. A must must must see. By the way, when I first posted this comment, it was only at #18 in the top 250, and now it is at #8. Refreshing to see that it is getting closer to its deserved position...