Ricardo-36 Reviews

Lucio Flavio (1977)

Uneven, prototypical movie from Babenco

[6/10 · 14 December 2023]

"Lúcio Flávio" is a relic of its time, specific to its place and time, and due to that it is very difficult to evaluate it subjectively. The real story of the infamous criminal that defied order in Brazil in the late 60s and early 70s, it is understandably like nothing that was produced in Brazil up until that time, but pails horribly in comparison to what was achieved in movie making in later years - it even pails in comparison to Babenco's "Pixote", released a mere 3 years afterwards. Uneven and fragmented, no character is developed any further beyond what they are first shown. Lucio's decision to turn against police corruption comes a bit too drastically, his demise is rushed, and some of the characters behavior makes me scratch my head in confusion, particularly "132", who seems to be made an easy (and pathetic) target at one moment, and defies Lucio bravely in the next. The ending quote, stating the corrupt policemen were punished, is laughable and remote to the drastic era of the Hays code in America - but it's easy to deduce it was an imposition from that era's military government censorship. It's difficult to recommend this film apart from being a borderline morbid curiosity about that particular time in Brazil's history, seen from a very thin (and repetitive) point of view.

PAW Patrol: The Movie (2021)

The Citizen Kane for toddlers!

[8/10 · 28 September 2021]

We took or autistic 4 year old to see this, and amazingly enough, he sat still through it and loved it. It was his first theater experience. The film's producers managed to have all pieces fit perfectly for small children: perfect pacing, attractive visuals, nothing too scary or threatening, safe humor, and a dose of cuteness and fun. It seems to be the perfect film to take your pre schooler toddler to his first theater experience, specially if you feel he might be bored or annoyed. Sure, it's paw patrol. It is NOT a family film, it is a CHILDREN'S film. Parents should only focus on your small child's smiles. It was truly cute and harmless. Well done. I want a sequel!

The Machinist (2004)

A gimmick pointless film - barely a film!

[4/10 · 21 September 2020]

While Christian Bale's transformation for the role is truly astounding (and dangerous, to say the least), and his efforts into fitting himself into that role are what elevated this movie above the rest, the film itself cannot guarantee this element of quality and success. When I read the screenwriter called it "the movie Hitchcock didn't get to make", I knew how much of a self indulgent clap trap of a movie this was, confirming my opinion when I saw it.

Another reviewer here has hit the nail on the head - it's a puzzle question, not a movie. From the FIRST frame, it's "guess the plot twist and you win a prize!", with no substance or message. Scenes go by with the protagonist leading us into obscure references into the "mind" misce en scene that seems so desperate at a shock at the end that boils down to the offensive. This film simply offends one's intelligence with it's juvenile attempt of an unreliable narrator/imaginary character/all in the protagonist mind's shenanigan.

Oh well. I fail to see why Christian Bale put so much effort on a physical performance of a character that is later revealed to have done a hit and run on a child and feels so guilty his mind became a M Night Shyamalan nightmare.

The performances are solid, the cinematography is nice, the Route 666 scene is quite amusing and scary, the soundtrack screams Bernard Hermann in a BAD way but it's refreshing to hear a melodic soundtrack on a movie made in the 2000s. All in all, a waste of time.

Peppermint Park (1987– )

A complete failure

[1/10 · 2 July 2020]

I watched two volumes of this Kafkaesque nightmare turned into "children entertainment" in complete and utter disbelief. There is a reason Jim Henson was a genius and his work and his crew lauded as the best in the industry: it takes a lot of work and talent to do it right. Peppermint Park is what we get when the mediocre or the insane attempt a puppet show: failure, pain, awkwardness and discomfort.

This abomination package of anti-joy has no redeeming values. As an educational piece it's pedantic, condescending at best and criminally irresponsible at worse. As entertainment, it's equivalent to a good children's show as vomit is equivalent to food. The incompetence seems to pile up as "puppets" are overloaded with misery and creepiness, puppet manipulation done with extreme ineptitude, acting is abismal and the general quality horrendous.

This cannot be called art as it fails on every aspect of the term. A bizarre curiosity for those who want to laugh at it, but nothing more. Sadly it exists.

Iron Fists and Kung Fu Kicks (2019)

All over the place - no consistent tone

[5/10 · 3 December 2019]

While rich in material, footage and commentary, this documentary about the classic wushia action films from Hong Kong is so badly connected, a narrative that goes everywhere and nowhere, thus making it inaccessible for general audiences unfamiliar with the genre. It starts very abruptly, talking about Shaw Bros without a proper context of what was the scenario and how these movies came out to be - it starts in the middle, then it goes back briefly, then it goes forward again. It doesn't get too deep into the production, it goes back and forth in the timeline, misses some key moments and mostly sticks with the american perspective, particularly of sleazy movie theaters in uptown NYC in the 70s. That is all fine, but, how about a little international perspective? Or from the HK/Chinese market?

I give it 5 stars for the subject matter, the footage and some of the interviews; I give it 0 stars for the HORRIBLE editing and directing.

Toy Story 4 (2019)

Sequel-hungry Disney once again forces Pixar to produce mediocrity

[6/10 · 30 June 2019]

Unnecessary. Forced. Repetitive. Redundant. Mediocre. All words I could easily use to describe Toy Story 4, without fear of being unfair. While not as bad as other previous Pixar misfires, this sequel sadly does a disservice to a perfectly crafted trilogy that had its sunset... but now is reborn out of necessity and not quite as well-shaped as its predecessors.

I had to see Toy Story 4 because I believed the producers would not allow their prized movie series to be tainted by Disney's requests for cash-grab sequels. Surely they had something in mind that could surpass the third installment. What could it be? I had to see it. Sadly, it was nothing worth it.

The movie repeats the previous movie's general plot (lost toy tries to go back to it's kid), but not as cleverly. It's tiring and repetitive, with the same rescue scenes again and again, making the whole thing seem tiresome and badly paced. There was nothing new that was brought by this film that wasn't already covered or portrait in previous films, but they just had to do it. It sticks out as a bad outlier, as an anticlimactic finale.

While not necessarily bad, it pales in comparison, suffers from pace issues, has a terribly unmemorable antagonist and taints the third film's ending and purpose.

Like Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I say, stick with the trilogy and forget about this one.

Captain Marvel (2019)

Captain Mary Sue

[2/10 · 17 March 2019]

As usual with Marvel movies, this is yet another chapter of self indulgent pseudo-entertainment focused at Millennial man-childs (or, should I say in this case, "woman-childs"). A pointless story about nothing, just goobidy gook tech mumbo-jumbo and aliens flying around, running around, making jokes. This flat, pointless piece of ego-massage self insertion has Captain Mary Sue, played by who cares, facing the obvious true villain (Jude Law, who surprisingly still gets roles).

Obviously any remarks about the quality of this piece are pointless, as it's audience has already decided it will swallow anything their favorite brand throws at the silver screen.

Avoid it.

Stranger Things (2016–2025)

Reproduction of the past - mostly succeeds

[6/10 · 25 July 2016]

"Stranger Things" is quite an anomaly in today's overly saturated market of media crap and thin drama - and a good one. The 80s are for children what the early 60s were for young men, the "decade du jour" of all things good and valuable: friendship, character building, fantasy, adventure, learning the facts and pains of life without overprotective parents and eyes constantly gazing at iPhones. It was also the high point of the second golden age of cinema, when George Lucas and Spielberg were kings and the highly emotional rollercoasters fun films were the norm - and special effects were meant to dazzle and tell a fantastic story, and not distract us.

It's a particular sentiment of comprehensible nostalgia that has been attempted to be "captured" and "reproduced" before by J.J. Abrahams: "Super 8" comes to mind again and again when seeing "Stranger Things". It's like watching a craftsman building a vintage car from scratch: it's the same thing, and at the same time, it is most certainly not. All of the elements are there, complete with slowly fading credits with film scratch marks, but it's impossible to avoid seeing the modern touches of editing, lightning, CGI, and the eventual winks to the audience that this is a period piece (which is particularly painful for those, including myself, who have lived in that era).

"Stranger Things" borrows from it all: apart from the obvious "Super 8", there's bits and pieces of "ET", "The Thing", "The Goonies", "Fire Starter", "Akira", and even some nuances of "Neon Genesis Evangelion's" Rei Ayanami on Eleven's speech and behavior. Sometimes it fails, being a "paint by the numbers" replication of those formulas, leaving plot holes and thin characterizations behind like a trail of bread crumbs leading you to what media produces today for the millennial audience unaccustomed with plot and emotion. On some times, it succeeds going beyond that level and portraying an engaging story that invites you to look beyond the clichés and enjoy this series for what it is.

All in all, "Stranger Things" can be truly recommended, is a guilt pleasure of the most extraordinary kind, and rarely you will find a moment where, albeit flaws, you are not enjoying it.

Captain America: Civil War (2016)

The idiocracy dictated by movie tickets

[3/10 · 3 May 2016]

This latest chapter in the never-ending "Disney Secure IP Investment" saga has the usual cartoon characters (such as Captain Return of Investment, Iron Rehab Man and Sony-Deal-Man) quickly moving and jumping through the screen to amuse millennials who are bored with their current smart phone for 150 minutes. This "film" adds up a new lineup of heartbreaking sell outs such as Martin Freeman, Daniel Bruhl and William Hurt, all whose their threshold between dignity and bank account have finally been crossed, joining previous familiar sell outs such as Paul Bettany, Scarlett Johansson and, inexplicably, Don Cheadle.

The nonsensical, incomprehensible plot follows Formula 1 pilot Niki Lauda (Daniel Bruhl, reprising his role from "Rush") arranging an elaborate, over-the-top revenge scheme against the cartoon characters, forcing them to fight for our enjoyment, like a 21st century Mandingo fight for children, a plan only vaguely possible due to uncontrollable and unforseable events such as the United Nations resolution. Under a man-child prism of the world's politics, the script takes the cartoon characters to move between exposition scenes and action storyboards, all in the very awkward dichotomy of juvenile writing and over-expensive "film making".

Any little enjoyment that can come from this movie requires accepting the dooming idiocracy that controls our world, economy, politics and fate; embrace your inner idiot and laugh at a giant cartoon character holding a small, tin-man character.

How many insightful, meaningful and intelligent films we could have produced, under the realms of real talents, with this "film's" budget? How many excellent pieces of cinema, inspiring and motivating, touching and thought-provoking, could have been made if the masses preferred content over shiny objects? Ten? Twenty? Fifty? We may never know; we may only cry for the lost art that will never be.

Watch it in the unnecessary headache-inducing half-assed-converted 3D.

Terror in Resonance (2014)

Rushed and not well developed

[6/10 · 26 January 2016]

ZnT is a well produced and generally well written series, with an interesting idea for a plot that borrows elements from real day politics, science fiction and Nolan films sense of doom and escalation (specially The Dark Knight). However, it needed time for character development, mood setting, and time for the story to proper develop and the secrets to be revealed. If they had the budget for 26 episodes, this would have been absolutely genius. However, the characters have so much to do and so little time, they rush to the conclusions and the character arcs feel sloppy (like Five being a thrown away villain, Twelve's relationship with Lisa, her own personal life details, the detective's relationship with his daughter, and the whole school setting, which is inexplicably introduced and abandoned after one scene). Some questions are left unanswered or vague (do the children experiments make them live only a couple of decades?). The soundtrack is competent, but far from Yoko Kanno's best days. The animation is mostly top notch and those familiar with Tokyo will recognize the city's landscape, streets, buildings and atmosphere (down to every inch of detail), with a few cell shaded CG being a bit distracting.

All in all, a good attempt, but a wasted one. One can only dream of a 26 episode epic saga this series could have been.

The Intern (I) (2015)

Good premise, flawed execution

[5/10 · 1 October 2015]

The Intern is what I call a "paint by the numbers" film. It hits all the necessary notes for this sort of comedy but misses the point of what a movie is supposed to be, like a paint by the numbers painting misses the point of art. It's like a robot has got the premise, seen a lot of comedy/drama-ish feel good films like Driving Miss Daisy, Devil Wears Prada, etc, and decided to spit out a screenplay. It doesn't work, and what does work, is sustained by the actors performances.

The main problem with the film is the lack of structure. The main protagonist is Ben, at least, that's what the audience is supposed to be led to believe. His life starts the film, he is the one that leads the audience to the situation, but he has no flaws. He has no dilemma. He has absolutely no character arc. He is a widower with too much free time and sort of has a void to be filled, I guess? He doesn't seem to be suffering, and all of his problems are solved at the first 5 minutes. Done. What is his change after that? Nothing. He is a perfect gentleman who does not learn anything in particular, does not grow, has no epiphany or real change. He is a mentor figure, he is not a protagonist.

Jules is the protagonist, but I guess the director did not know that fact. She sort of has a character arc, but it goes by so awkwardly it's just confusing. She has problems with her marriage, which are sort of represented by her husband sleeping when she wants to have sex. She seems to have trouble managing the company, but characters SAY she is having trouble, we don't see it. We have no sense of urgency, no crisis, characters SAY she has trouble managing it all. First rule of film media is: SHOW, don't tell.

Then there's the whole husband cheating subplot that was sort of created to add tension and drama, but falls so flat it's unbelievable. First, the audience learns about the cheating first, and then the protagonist states she already knows about it. Well thanks for letting us know, you gave us NO indication that was a problem. Second, it is resolved as a Deus Ex Machina, he just begs for her forgiveness and for some weird reason, she's just OK with it. I don't buy it.

Then there are the annoying minor characters that have almost no development, and the most annoying writing decision in the film: adding a scene where they break into the mother's home to delete an e-mail, JUST for the sake of adding a frantic, fast paced highly comical scene where one was needed. It goes absolutely against character! Ben offered to break into the house? What? WHY? He was supposed to be a down to earth, calm, wise man who would know better that Jules talking to her mother and explaining her feelings would be better than doing an illegal break in a mother's home.

Rene Russo's character is a waste, added for two reasons: clichéd, juvenile comedy (oh, he is aroused by that older woman, how hilarious! oh, the fat guy interrupted that massage and could NOT get out of the room silently, so funny!), and to just make the audience accept Ben was seeing someone else and would not, under any circumstances, fall for Anne Hathaway's character (so the hotel room scene is not as awkward as it must he felt while writing it).

Characters just do the most bizarre things just for the sake of hitting the points the movie wants to hit, and it goes absolutely nowhere. Does Ben get the CEO job he so OBVIOUSLY deserved? Nope. He just does Tai Chi and that's it.

There is no turn to a second or third act. The whole thing is muddled, confusing, paced so awkwardly you'd assume there is a real plot cut from the movie. Maybe it was a murder mystery, I don't know. The whole thing is lacking a proper movie structure.

Now, the only reason this deserves a 5/10 and not a 1/10, is the acting chops of Anne Hathaway and Robert DeNiro, who does NOT fake in an acting job as he has done for the past years. He keeps it consistent, keeps it believable, hits the tone and sells of that character. I mean, imagine Bill Murray in that same role. It would not work, because we would not see past the actor when the character is so low-key. DeNiro can do it because he is one of the best, he knows how to pull it off, and he does.

I am saddened by the lost potential. I really like the premise, someone older getting into a modern workplace, learning and teaching. If we got this movie's screenplay and asked for, let's say, Lawrence Kasdan to do one additional rewrite, it would be an instant classic. Oh well. Better luck next time.

Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie (2014)

Not that bad, but maybe unwatchable if you are not an old fan

[6/10 · 13 September 2014]

Being familiar with the internet video review series, it is hard to review this movie and be objective about it as a movie. But I will try my best to focus on the key aspects of what works and what doesn't, and I'll try to explain why I feel that way within the limited space I have here on IMDb.

First of all, it is not that bad. "Cute" is the word I can use to define the movie. It is a giant, expensive wink to the internet fans and as a over-the-top game review, it sort of works - to the most part. I found myself giggling of some of the jokes, even some that were clearly unintended. I was not bored, the production value was somewhat consistent (with a few exceptions), and the acting (except from James, who is not a professional actor and is excused) is competent and even better than I first expected - if you consider the material they have.

What doesn't work is based on two major flaws:

1- The script. It is juvenile, convoluted, and misses some of the most important aspects of storytelling and screen writing: character development and the three act structure. The Nerd character is portrayed as a messianic, flawless unidimensional character we have no reason to root for or to sympathize with except for knowing him from outside the movie - and this does NOT work for general audiences. The Nerd comes across as a VERY self indulgent puzzling messiah, that can bring fans to the desert just to moronically grim at his mildly amusing comments for no reason. The three-way conflict between Cooper and... whatever she was called was poorly done - was Cooper supposed to be jealous of the Nerd and the girl? When did a romantic tension grow between the two to motivate the final kiss? Why did they go for the "false betrayal" cliché if they KNEW she was there to promote the game on her FIRST SCENE? They sort of knew what they wanted on the film, but they did not quite know how to make it work...

It also does not help when there is NO plot point motivation from act 1 to act 2 (he merely goes to the desert to do what again? does he hate the games? does he not? WHY he doesn't believe the stories?), and the character revelation (search for the "truth"? what? why? that is NOT a character arc!) that leads into act 3 happens in the middle of the movie. It makes the pacing suffer, makes the film feel too long, we as an audience expect the third act to take no more than a quarter of the movie's running time. Here, it takes the whole second half!

The ending is a convoluted mess that was obviously foreshadowed by Coopers unexplainable faith that SCREAMED of "Chekov's gun / MacGuffin". You KNEW they would go for it eventually.

It is basically inconsistent. Clichés and EXTREMELY FORCED expositions meet creativity, and the result doesn't work all of the time. The whole plot for what the carts are is indeed genius, but they fell in love with the premise and forced their way through it - it doesn't work like this.

2- The direction. It is incompetent to say the least, and limited at best. They were clearly missing some pickup shots they could not afford to shoot later, and that makes whole scenes confusing or kills any comedic timing that was supposed to happen. Jokes fall flat not only due to the juvenile amateurish writing, but due to incompetent direction and poor sense of what the movie should be like. Take for instance the "grab the gun" joke, we get it from a character that is supposed to be an over the top joke and that sequence loses itself in bad editing and timing. 75% of the jokes are good on paper, lost due to bad editing and timing.

The soundtrack score was impressive (quite good in fact!), but the audio mixing was really bad. Several shots needed looping, and it was obvious they could not afford paying the actors post production looping and had to work with what they had.

Special effects were inconsistent and took away the whole effect. They went from very good (CG-related, some matting), to unnecessarily incompetent (the missile, the tank falling in FULL speed showing off its scale, the alien prop). Shot quality varied and some night shots were in a desperate need of a re shoot...

Anyway, as a AVGN fan I give it 6/10. If I never saw AVGN maybe I'd have given it a 2 or 3. It has its moments, its charming cameos, its hits and misses, the story is creative and charming in its way, acting is good, some of it works. For the internet audience, it is passable and even somewhat enjoyable. It is unwatchable if you consider the general movie going market. Maybe with some major re writes and re shots it could be an actual MOVIE movie.

Gravity (2013)

Gravity's charm is in it's bare simplicity, but it brings along flaws

[7/10 · 6 November 2013]

This is how I would explain Gravity to someone who has not seen the movie, without spoilers, but explaining exactly what they will see:

First, take a regular, Michal Bay-ish screenplay about a space disaster. Got it? OK, so now, you take the first 20 pages off (usually the first act), and throw them out. Now, rip off the last 10 pages (the conclusion of act 3), and also throw them out. Now, you get a black marker pen and cross out every single reference or dialog involving:

* Any character except George Clooney's or Sandra Bullock's. * Any scenes set in Houston or at other space stations. * Any references to explosions, any references to how things should sound.

Now, you get what is left and rewrite it to make it 3 times simpler, but keeping any actions scenes you had.

OK? Now, it's time to shoot this baby. So first, you gotta have Cuaron (the director) watch 4 movies over and over again in order to get the feel and the references:

1- Pixar's WALL-E. 2- Alfred Hitchcock's Rope 3- Any space walk scene from Brian de Palma's Mission 2 Mars 4- His own Children of Men one shot car sequence

OK, now, make sure you get the best technical crew in Hollywood - because this movie needs to look GREAT.

When it's time to mix the audio, all the audio channels with noise, mute them. If the audio guys complain, threat to fire them.

Jokes aside...

This is exactly how this movie feels. A bare basic second act of a great action film. Yeah, there are technical inconsistencies and plot holes. Yeah, George Clooney is playing himself again... But the charm of this movie is how Cuaron kept the good parts, and only the good parts, and made it work. It's half of an action script with scenes that reminded me of (the awful) Mission 2 Mars, but done in a good way. However, it's simplicity and stripped elements bring the feel that "something is missing". Movies have a structure that takes decades to change, and although I am all in favor to change, this is a bit too much in a single direction. As for the long shots, it feels gimmicky sometimes.

All in all, a great theater experience, but not something generally amusing to see on a TV or, heaven's forbid, your cell phone. Go watch it.

Midnight in Paris (2011)

Brilliant plot idea, superb acting, incredible art design - but lacks humanity

[8/10 · 1 March 2012]

Midnight in Paris is a movie that really deserves all awards it could possibly get, including best picture of 2011, and yet, I feel it's a movie that does not quite deserve the Best Screenplay award (unless, of course, the competition is too weak).

I don't need to go on about the movie itself, as other reviewers already done so. It is technically perfect, the casting is spot on, and the art direction has an unusually high standard, at least for Woody Allen films.

However, I feel this movie could be so much more. Why doesn't Gil research a bit more about Adriana apart from randomly finding a diary? Why doesn't he seem torn apart his fiancé and his love from the past? Why does Paul simply vanishes from the movie at the point he is supposed to be flirting with Gil's fiancé (thus bringing the audience more reason to have him follow Adriana, and his decision not to be much more painful)?

It feels like one draft away of a perfect movie - and it feels much of the original emotional punches and the character arcs were left in the cutting room floor. Pity. It is very good, but could have been MUCH better.

Black Swan (2010)

It's "Eraserhead" for stupid 16 year old girls

[6/10 · 4 February 2011]

This review has massive spoilers.

This movie can be split in two, kinda like the white and black swan analogy. About 15% of it deals with the world of Ballet, in a crude, sort of realistic manner. This part of the film demanded acting, which the whole female cast delivered. It demanded some major dancing, which Portman delivered in a way no other actress has - she really did her homework and delivered an awesome rendition. Wynona Ryder disappears in a great supporting role as well. These 15% alone grant this movie a 6 out of 10, it's that good.

The rest... Well, 5% of it are unnecessary masturbation scenes. The other 80% are a stupid mess, mixing the clichéd "unreliable narrator who is hallucinating and things will show up as they are in the end" with uncomfortable, awkward scenes and a weird "pseudo-horror" vibe. Like Jack Nance in Eraserhead, Nina goes from one awkward and disturbing moment to the other. All the way through the whole film. It's over the top, it's self indulgent and, aims for an ending that looks like it came from M Night Shyamalan's rejected ideas bin. It's so confusing, we are absolutely lost in the character's madness in a way that takes away the joy of the movie. We are treated to unnecessary injury shots, and the whole Kafkaesque hallucinated metamorphosis too literal (and bizarre) to be taken seriously.

And how the hell did she manage to dance with a fatal wound for half of a presentation? How convenient she managed to bleed only at the end.

Al in all, it's not that bad of a movie, it's watchable, but don't give it too much credit.

Inception (2010)

An excellent and effective movie, but not absolutely perfect

[9/10 · 6 August 2010]

Inception is a movie based on an Excellent idea that, if put on the wrong hands - that is, anyone but Nolan and maybe Pixar - would be ruined. This is not the case here: a brilliant, well constructed thriller that, although being quite simple, is of a VERY complex nature. Nolan could have spent more time explaining the structure of this universe, but he leaves the story to explain it - only using a couple of scenes between DiCaprio and Ellen Page to explain what could not be explained outside the movie's plot. Truly a movie that will be kept in your mind for a long time, and praised as one of the best ever conceived - a mix between the intelligence of Memento, the tension of men-on-the-job thrillers like Ronin or Munich, and the dreamlike environment of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

This movie, however, it's not without flaws. Ellen Page, as ever, "sinks" the movie with her sub par acting and her "teenage" acting stance, in a role that should require something better or more mature.

(Di Caprio is competent enough, Cotillard plays it safe, Cillian Murphy was brilliantly cast, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt FINALLY delivers something good enough to take him serious as an adult and serious actor).

Also, some of the mechanics and rules of the whole dream world gets lost with the fast pace of the movie. Filming dreams is always a problem due to the nature of dreams, they are too abstract for movies - and unless you pull a Felinni and do one hell of a misce en scene, you are bound to fail, as people won't buy it. I couldn't quite buy the whole thing, but Nolan keeps the whole suspension of disbelief going on pretty well so the movie isn't ruined, or not even scratched.

But... while far from perfect, it was possibly along with Toy Story 3 the best movie this year, and one of Nolan's best effort, up there with Memento and The Dark Knight. Surely a movie you SHOULD NOT miss. It has its critics - just see the user reviews on IMDb - but that is the final stroke of genius on this film: you gotta be intelligent to appreciate it. Sheep-like-minded limited individuals will HATE it. And all I can do is smile as I see confused faces come out of the movie theater - poor, poor minds...

Synecdoche, New York (2008)

One weird and incredibly depressive ride; but a failed one

[5/10 · 26 October 2009]

Well, first, I've got to say, for his first job as director, Charlie Kaufman handled it pretty well, although I'd say he still lacks the ability to know when the pacing is not working. He got some pretty good performances on this film, and handled the whole technical aspects of film pretty well.

Sadly, the job should've gone to Spike Jonze, as he would be able to filter out the madness and stick to what a film is supposed to be.

Charlie Kaufman seems to be stuck into filming "meta-fiction", into adding little bits of witty, nonsensical humorous dialog, surrealism and recursive references (this guy playing this guy who plays this guy, or this guy inside this guy). So this time it's a play inside of a play, going on almost on real time with no purpose. Oh I get it. Clever.

But Charlie Kaufman gets lost in it. He leaves the whole "Adaptation"/"Eternal Sunshine" reality to go to David Lynch territory here. Now don't get me wrong, I love "Eraserhead" and I'm fine with him going a bit surreal or non sensical, but he just throws the absurd on screen for no purpose. He messes with time, with reality, with the main character's disabilities, for no purpose, only to have it there. What was the point of Philip Seymour Hofman not controlling his tears or the way he takes soup? It was there for the kick of it. Because it is "weird". There was no clear connection to the whole point, and people are not going to be able to read Mr. Kaufman's mind, and we are not stupid if we cannot "see it". The whole film is a justification for the plot and ideas he wants to represent, not the contrary. He forces the whole surreal state into the audience and begs us to buy it, or to try to understand it. It doesn't work that way! Lynch knows it. Kaufman doesn't. Kaufman seems to throw his audience into confusion on purpose. A film should not require two or three viewings to "get it", no matter who wrote it or what his purpose was - unless he wanted us to buy more tickets. Or the DVD.

But, all in all, the whole idea of what Kaufman meant to do was neat in a way, and buried in a gigantic mess of a film there are a few good messages, good scenes, a solid acting, and some 2 hours of entertainment. I wouldn't say I lost 2 hours of my life seeing this, because it pretty much served its purpose as a film, even though it was sad and depressing as hell - kudos on the whole "pathos" thing. But he could do better. I hope he does, when his next movie comes out, maybe 10 years from now, considering how fast he works, or how much work he is in need now to pay his bills.

The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)

Avoid it.

[2/10 · 2 August 2009]

Oh boy, where to begin on this one... I won't go into the plot or story, because it's non-existent. It's a 100 train wreck that sometimes tries to be a sci-fi film, but attempts to insert some action and CGI money shots. It fails miserably, being a Michael-Bay-esquire version of what a sch fi movie is supposed to be.

Keanu's acting speaks for himself, he is pretty much playing the same character as he did over the past 15 years (post-Speed Keanu). Kathy Bates is wasted on this one, and she FEELS she's on the wrong place, you can see it right through her acting. John Cleese appears on the cameo that shows how DEAD his career is. From Python to this, it's so SAD to witness his scenes...

Of course, we have Jaden Smith, at yet another ANNOYING scenery chewing piece of child performance, that makes you roll your eyes in disbelief. You can just FEEL his dad right next to the camera, paying off the director to keep him in this film.

Filled with plot holes and an anti-climatic Deus Ex Machina, the classic 1951 film is murdered on this 2008 travesty, a sign of how awful Hollywood has turned. I cannot stress this too much: avoid.

The Simpsons Movie (2007)

Good Stuff

[8/10 · 23 August 2007]

Since I heard about the movie being released, I knew it would be pure gold. The writers can still deliver good material, even though the quality has decreased since season 11 or so, and the series is know almost vitually unwatchable.

This is season 9 material here, folks, I kid you not. It had that good feeling and comedy we get from the best episodes. Albert Brooks as a main character is a treat, he's the best voice guest and deserves to be there.

The animation is top notch, but gets a bit distracting some times (CGI cell shading scenes a la Futurama).

Sure, there are a few problems: the movie feels a bit too short, few characters get screen time (Ralph got way too many scenes, and a lot of beloved characters did not even appear), and some subplots feel rushed and go nowhere (kinda like the TV series I guess). The DVD will have LOTS of cut material, so that might get fixed on a subsequent viewing.

If you are a fan of the Simpsons, specially the 8-10 seasons, THIS is the movie to see this year.

The Man Who Copied (2003)

What a mess

[7/10 · 6 July 2006]

Wow, what can I say? What a mess of a film. The movie starts in a fast pace, with little dialogue and lots of narration, which is a way of getting the movie to feel more dynamic and smart than it really is. Some details are thrown with no real need, like the fact that he popped a school colleague eye's out with a bottle after he laughed of his missing father - added merely to the value of shock, in an animated segment to make it look "cool".

And then the whole plot starts to move in a farcical, absurd way. There is no way to produce believable copies of money that way, even if they don't look at the bill it's easy to feel it's not real. The whole bank robbery scheme is WAY opposite to the main character's way of thinking, it's too unbelievable. The whole thing with his girlfriend's father and the drug dealer who sells the weapon, flattened character that, on a mere sign of posing any danger to the plot, are killed in absurd and unbelievable ways.

The acting is OK. Lázaro Ramos seems lost and with an amateurish feel. Leandra Leal did a good job, but not brilliant. Pedro Cardoso gets this film into a whole new level and is perfect for his role, what felt like a mere "cameo" by him turned into the best character in the film. Luava Piovani seems to be a cameo-based character that got WAY too many lines.

This movie feels like "Ilha das Flores" meets "Small Time Crooks". If this movies have flaws, you can blame it on the writer adding too many cliché elements, and the editor - intercuting a tense scene between the main character and his girlfriend's father and a scene featuring Pedro Cardoso comically sleeping with Luava Piovani makes anyone scream "NO, NO, BAD! BAD EDITOR!".

It's entertaining in some points, and sooort of well directed and filled with good performances. I wouldn't have it on a priority list of films to see, but if you eventually catch on the TV, give it a chance.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

Eternal Sunhine of the... uh... what was it called again

[10/10 · 14 December 2004]

**** WARNING - SPOILERS ****** Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind IS the best movie in 2004. What could you expect when you have a movie written by Charlie Kaufman? OK I admit at first I wasn't so sure about it, being a movie written by C. Kaufman and not being directed by Spike Jonze, by now I'm glad he didn't, it wouldn't be the same I suppose...

I won't go into details about the movie, I don't have to. I just have something to say for those who didn't like the movie: you're simply not intelligent people. Simple as that. I hate romantic comedies, I hate Kate and dislike Carrey, I avoid watching anything related to Elijah Wood, so this movie had everything to make me want to hate it. But I didn't, I loved it and it's my 4th favorite movie of all time now. And you know why? Because I like movies that make me think. I enjoy movies made for smart people, by people smarter than me. OK perhaps you guys prefer a more linear, straight forwarded, non-surprising "american gladiators" kind of plot. Well good for you, as 95% of films is made for people like you. But if you didn't like this movie, please... try to think a little harder.

PS: I really think the ending should feature our main characters in the car, talking (before she puts on the tape), and things start to disappear from the car and their faces disappear, and you know they eventually got together and did it again.

Devlin (1974–1976)

Not that bad

[10 April 2004]

Well, of course the animation isn't perfect, this is a 1974 TV cartoon, and we know all the tricks used to make it cheap enough to be profitable, I mean, that's what the technology of the time allowed. The bike jumping the cars animation is used in almost every episode, and it seems bad by today standarts, the bike flies over the cars at 10 mph. But all we can do is to think "ok, it's 1974, we forgive you".

The plot for the episodes is actually good, but it does get corny and silly sometimes. All in all, it's quite entertaining, and yes, it's watchable.

If they remade "Devlin" with the proper animation, and working harder on the episode plots, it could be a hit.

Os Trapalhões (1995– )

It was quite horrible, by today standarts

[11 January 2004]

As a kid in the 80's, I got to see the final years of the original Trapalhoes series on TV. Ok, I kinda enjoyed it sometimes, specially when Renato Aragão (Didi) breaked character and began asking why the props didn't work - but it was mostly crap, actually. The jokes are sometimes too naive even for small children, and most of them just fall flat (sometimes it takes 10+ minutes for the punchline to appear at a sketch). If you were a kid ages 5-10 during the 70's and 80's, you would probably enjoy it, but it seems dated and unfunny now.

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

Why? What happened?

[3/10 · 9 November 2003]

I enjoyed the first Matrix movie. It had a few characters, the plot was not all that complicated, and it was based on a very cool concept (humans traped into a virtual reality program). It was an action movie that made you think about life and its meaning.

On Matrix Reloaded, it got complicated. A lot of characters. Zion. Meetings between characters I didn't know the name. Programs and more programs (Keymaker, Merovingian). Smith got loose, somehow. Complicated and obscure plot. The Architect (what the...). BUT... it was a great action movie. For me, the amazing action scenes compensated the confusing, obscure plot.

I saw Matrix Revolutions yesterday. Well, how can I say it... It sucked. The plot is even more obscure. Every questions from Reloaded kept unanswered (like Persephone's kiss). The action sequences were clichéd, and boring. Even the fight between Neo and Smith (which was supposed to be the final combat between good and evil, the most amazing fight in all 3 movies) wasn't so good at all, it felt like a bad, bad, bad DragonBall episode. All in all, it was... disappointing. Just disappointing. No genius plot twist. No amazing action sequence. The characters were flat, the dialog was terrible (sometimes I felt Keanu was reading from cue cards, and I felt like Fishburne appeared in about 10 minutes in the whole movie).

Will the Wachowski brothers ever release any good (and by good, I mean profitable) movies ever? Will they ever recover from the Matrix? will they ever give an interview again? I belive not.

Mindwalk (1990)

Interesting in some ways

[14 October 2003]

It's not easy watching "Mindwalk". Not because of the topics discussed by the three leading actors, but because it doesn't feel like it's an actual conversation. That's what happens when you try to get the dialog in a movie too complex, or too deep: sometimes you could "see" the screenplay that was spoke by the actors. I mean, c'mon, no one talks like that all the time! And God FORBID having them talk about football, or TV shows. All they cared about was atoms, and trees, and torture chambers...

Sometimes it's interesting, sometimes it's quite boring. Feels like a mix between "My Dinner with Andre" and "Waking Life" (which I found to be much, much better, and easier to watch). Perhaps if they rotoscope-animated "Mindwalk", and re-released it with the title "Waking Life 2", it would be a better movie.