Change Your Image
Sillypooh
Reviews
Pan Am (2011)
How could they screw this up?
We watched the pilot last night. What the hell was that? I was hoping for a classy, laid out show (a la Mad Men), but instead we get this mishmash of stories that you REALLY don't care about.
What happened to taking the time to tell a story? Did they really have to squeeze so much information in that pilot time? You could feel the actors were rushed and had to read their lines quickly. Overall it was pretty good acting from their part but how can you build care for characters when each scene is cut short every time. I blame the producers and their editing. - Editing 1/10 -
And the story. There isn't anything compelling in here. Intrigue that we really couldn't care less about, even if they had taken the time to tell it well. There are no stand-out characters here. I even told my friend near the end of the show "Where is Christina Ricci?" as I thought she was the leading character and she had totally disappeared! Character development is not just about telling the back stories, it's about, from the careful weaving of dialog, you explain how somebody thinks, acts and reacts. That's character development. Here, there was absolutely none. - Story 3/10 -
Even the image was sub-par. How can you screw something like that?! Reproducing something like the 50s, 60s, it's about atmosphere, costumes (ex: hats, scarves, glasses), habits (ex: smoking, drinking), props, accessories, and much more. You have to SHOW these things on screen, not just mention them in the dialog! Also the coloring of the show has maxed contrast when they should have instead subdued it. I think it's a very big deal. I did like the Pan Am branding throughout tho. - Photography 5/10 -
I'm upset because this had so much potential. The Pan Am part of history is a great story to tell, even if novelized. I had great hopes for that. I don't think I'll continue watching.
Pirates of Silicon Valley (1999)
often awkward, wildly inaccurate
it's a good effort. Even Steve Jobs himself gave nods at the movie. But if you're looking for accuracy, look elsewhere. in the early days of personal computers, nothing was black or white, and this movie dabs itself in simplicity, while history was anything but.
why does this movie feel as though there was a deliberate hand keeping the tone, acting and storyline to a goofy/low budget level? this is a great story, not to mention an important story too, with almost universal appeal. Did the producers think this could only appeal to geeks/nerds?
is it worth watching? absolutely. but you can't but wish they had been a little more serious doing this film.
Murder on the Orient Express (1974)
high expectations
The all star cast enticed me to watch this film. But what a disappointment! There's so little about this movie that gets it right.
Some people have complained about the movie devoting too much time to showing this remarkable train. I disagree. Perhaps the film would have greatly benefited by showing the train in more detail, the life on board, the compartments, the activity in this little traveling city. Such shots sprinkled throughout would have made wonders. If only this was the one wrong thing with this film...
Albert Finney is no Hercule Poirot. No class, no finesse. Ustinov will later on be far more likable and ring true. Finney's rendition of Poirot is anything but convincing, with his fake accent, not to mention the mistakes he makes when speaking french. Sean Connery is brilliant as always. Michael York also does a decent job while not saying much. The gem of this movie has to be Martin Balsam (Pelham 123). The female cast does a much worse job.
We've come to expect better cinematography from Sidney Lumet. And there's little character development so we really couldn't care less about what goes on.
All in all, there's a significant lack lack of charm and class throughout. Too bad, this could have been a classic.
Inception (2010)
What's with all the noise?
I mean that figuratively and literally. First because this film doesn't deserve being that much praised (#3 best movie??!! - Matrix was way better, for example), second because, just as the unwatchable The Dark Knight, Nolan loves to have his movie filled with irritatingly loud rumbling noise throughout, even in romantic/dramatic scenes! Why? Is that to cover up the lack of real cinematic value and sustain the artificial climax? Over such a long movie, you wanna kill yourself!
Wait for the DVD/BluRay if only for the CG effects. Cause there's little else than that really.
Probably the last time I go out to the movies.
Sin City (2005)
God awful, astoundingly boring
I have rarely spent such a boring time at the movie theater, as there is so little substance to this film past the color special effects. Five minutes into the movie, you find yourself mentally screaming at the screen: "WE GET IT! You wanted to replicate the printed version verbatim!". And this film solely relies on this trick to entertain.
There is really little more to this film than the color gimmick. Unfortunately, the writers/director did not want to put one second of thought into how to adapt the printed version for the screen. A comic is not the same thing as a movie. You need to put some depth into the characters, the situations, the story, mostly because films have this ability to carry a enormous amount of information, details, imagery, and audiences expect it as such. Here, the people in charge simply chose to transpose everything as is, hence the enormous void of story, detail, content, and why the whole thing moves at a murderously slow pace.
And such a waste of so many good actors. A bunch of nobodies could have done the trick just as well. Somehow you can see how they have no real idea what to do, where to go, what their purpose is, and just in for the paycheck.
This film could have been a glory of style over content, if only the style didn't bore beyond the first 5 minutes.
Babylon A.D. (2008)
Uneven and sad - FOX, lighting, music, choice of Thierry at fault
I'm rating this an 8 as a support vote, but really this should be a 6.
First, the production OBVIOUSLY killed the story in the editing room. So many plot holes!
Second, the photography was barely OK to my taste. This is the type of 'life changing' movie that you would expect to be darker in tone. You can feel the production is giving the minimum in terms of effects, color, lighting. Matrix, Blade Runner, Brazil come to mind. And Russian part looked really 'normal', not much futuristic.
Third, the music is such types of movies is crucial to the mood, plot progress etc. Not here. It should be a character of its own, not blend in.
Fourth, Thierry. Granted she's cute and all, but she's way too ordinary and such a weak actress. She barely has two different expressions at her disposal! In my opinion, an Asian or African actress would have been better. Her character has been stereotyped.
You cannot not like the effort, but the end result is a disappointment. There was so much potential there!
Lost in Translation (2003)
Good subject, good acting, but empty, slow and bland throughout
Nobody can't deny that the two actors are trying their best at it. And that Japan and its people have this undeniable charm.
BUT COME ON! It's simply a very sluggish and boring movie! You watch and watch, constantly expecting some clever twist that will never come.
As so many people have already put it, had that movie been shot by an unknown director, nobody would have ever heard of it. Clearly, this movie and her director don't deserve all the awards and praises they got. It only further revealed Hollywood's own bigotry. Not to mention the occasional silly preconception about Japanese people.
Sophomoric.