Vir Das talks and laughs about topics which are universal, while adding a unique Indian twist. You don't need to be Indian to understand, relate and laugh when he talks about the human condition, politics, religion, love. Those into standup will recognise his influences, but these are subtle - he doesn't steal jokes, just takes similar approach to easily recognisable western comedians. When it comes to more local jokes it helps if you know a bit about the history and the culture of India, but he also helps out by providing hilarious explanations for non-Indians. Overall a great set, funny and moving. 9/10
Reviews
53 Reviews
The Lion King
(2019)
No more live action remakes for this family
21 July 2019
Up to a point I was happy enough to give my hard earned cash to Disney for entertaining my kids. Not after this one.
This was a soulless dud, ruined by a lack of emotion, ridiculously poor voice acting and almost complete absence of humour. I ended up walking out and having a coffee while the kids finished watching the movie. And what was their reaction at the end? Both have seen the original one many times, and both thought the new one was boring, and the jokes weren't even funny. Think about it. Lion King - BORING. Thanks Disney, and thanks Jon Favreau.
So, going forward, this family won't be spending a cent on any live action remakes by Disney. And I suggest neither does yours.
This was a soulless dud, ruined by a lack of emotion, ridiculously poor voice acting and almost complete absence of humour. I ended up walking out and having a coffee while the kids finished watching the movie. And what was their reaction at the end? Both have seen the original one many times, and both thought the new one was boring, and the jokes weren't even funny. Think about it. Lion King - BORING. Thanks Disney, and thanks Jon Favreau.
So, going forward, this family won't be spending a cent on any live action remakes by Disney. And I suggest neither does yours.
Raising the Bar
(2016)
Laughable, man!
20 August 2017
There's a fantastic scene in The Big Lebowski, where the enraged Jesus Quintana (John Turturro) screams "Laughable, man!" That's the only thing I could think of when watching this "movie". I surely didn't have high expectations, but I didn't expect anything as bad as what I saw.
Cheap production is all fine, not every movie needs to be a Hollywood blockbuster. But there's a minimum to expect from an indie film. Like... a half decent script. A story line that isn't so unnecessarily convoluted you give up after 20 minutes. Actors who can actually act. Dialogues that don't make you cringe every time someone on screen opens their mouth. Music that doesn't sounds like something out of a pilot for a TV series from the 1980's. But even with all that absent, this is a gymnastics movie. So surely you can show us some great gymnastics routines. Unfortunately, since the actresses aren't gymnasts, the camera has to resort to the most weird angles to obscure the lack of technique, and where stunt doubles are used - to obscure the faces. So not even that.
A laughable effort. 2/10
Cheap production is all fine, not every movie needs to be a Hollywood blockbuster. But there's a minimum to expect from an indie film. Like... a half decent script. A story line that isn't so unnecessarily convoluted you give up after 20 minutes. Actors who can actually act. Dialogues that don't make you cringe every time someone on screen opens their mouth. Music that doesn't sounds like something out of a pilot for a TV series from the 1980's. But even with all that absent, this is a gymnastics movie. So surely you can show us some great gymnastics routines. Unfortunately, since the actresses aren't gymnasts, the camera has to resort to the most weird angles to obscure the lack of technique, and where stunt doubles are used - to obscure the faces. So not even that.
A laughable effort. 2/10
Hasan Minhaj: Homecoming King
(2017 TV Special)
Absolutely loved it
12 June 2017
You don't have to be a Muslim Indian immigrant to get Hasan Minhaj's Homecoming King. But you do have to be an immigrant.
I've laughed my head off to Bill Burr and Jim Jeffries, nodded in agreement to Bill Maher, George Carlin and Bill Hicks, scratched my head and thought "damn, that's clever" to Mitch Hedberg, smiled and thought "that's funny" to Daniel Tosh and Louis CK.
But never before was I able to relate to the comedian's narrative on such a personal deep emotional level, as I did to Hasan Minhaj. He is deep and insightful, able to focus on the little things that go unnoticed but that do matter so much. The flow of the show is impeccable, he goes from being emotional and almost philosophical to being funny just at the right moments, and he keeps you in the constant state of anticipation and curiosity. You don't feel like it's a comedy special you're watching. No, it feels like a good friend is telling you an amazingly interesting story, sometimes funny, sometimes sad, but always leaving you wanting more. And, most importantly, even though I don't agree with some of the stuff he says, I could relate to the things he was talking about. This lifted this show to a level much higher than a comedy special. It was a unique experience.
10/10
I've laughed my head off to Bill Burr and Jim Jeffries, nodded in agreement to Bill Maher, George Carlin and Bill Hicks, scratched my head and thought "damn, that's clever" to Mitch Hedberg, smiled and thought "that's funny" to Daniel Tosh and Louis CK.
But never before was I able to relate to the comedian's narrative on such a personal deep emotional level, as I did to Hasan Minhaj. He is deep and insightful, able to focus on the little things that go unnoticed but that do matter so much. The flow of the show is impeccable, he goes from being emotional and almost philosophical to being funny just at the right moments, and he keeps you in the constant state of anticipation and curiosity. You don't feel like it's a comedy special you're watching. No, it feels like a good friend is telling you an amazingly interesting story, sometimes funny, sometimes sad, but always leaving you wanting more. And, most importantly, even though I don't agree with some of the stuff he says, I could relate to the things he was talking about. This lifted this show to a level much higher than a comedy special. It was a unique experience.
10/10
Sing
(2016)
Not fun or funny, not original, not inspirational. Rock bottom.
24 December 2016
Family of four - 2 adults, one 7 year old, one 4 year old. Not one of us enjoyed it. Never mind the 4 year old. Never before have I seen my 7 year old being so bored by a movie that she wanted to walk out.
If you've seen the trailers you've seen the best bits of the movie. That's it. There's nothing else to see there. I know you aren't going to believe me, but try and trust me. THIS is all there is. The exposition is boring. The story is too complicated and adult-themed for kids to understand, and too plain stupid for adults to relate to. The jokes are either too try hard (including fart jokes that even the kids didn't laugh at), or just plain misses. Racial stereotypes that wouldn't have looked out of place for a Dirty Harry movie. And for a supposedly musically themed movie, the music is pretty much absent for most of it.
Here's my guess how this terrible mess happened. Imagine a Mitch Hedberg-like "Club sandwich" dialogue:
Bottom line. Skip it. Just skip it. Go see Moana, or Trolls, or don't go to movies at all, because this is probably as bad as it gets and it will ruin your Christmas.
If you've seen the trailers you've seen the best bits of the movie. That's it. There's nothing else to see there. I know you aren't going to believe me, but try and trust me. THIS is all there is. The exposition is boring. The story is too complicated and adult-themed for kids to understand, and too plain stupid for adults to relate to. The jokes are either too try hard (including fart jokes that even the kids didn't laugh at), or just plain misses. Racial stereotypes that wouldn't have looked out of place for a Dirty Harry movie. And for a supposedly musically themed movie, the music is pretty much absent for most of it.
Here's my guess how this terrible mess happened. Imagine a Mitch Hedberg-like "Club sandwich" dialogue:
- I have an idea for a movie! A modern take on "Fame", but we replace the school with American Idol!
- Yeah, sounds good. But we've got to make it funny!
- OK. Funny... I know! How do you feel about talking animals?
- I'm for them!
- This movie is a go then! Let's release it in Christmas.
- Christmas... Then it needs to be animated.
- OK. Let's give to Illumination. They can polish anything.
- That's a deal!
Bottom line. Skip it. Just skip it. Go see Moana, or Trolls, or don't go to movies at all, because this is probably as bad as it gets and it will ruin your Christmas.
Mr. Robot
(2015–2019)
Pretentious rubbish
6 November 2016
The initial setup was nice. The first 3-4 episodes - perfectly watchable. But by episode 7 it dawned on me that this show was going nowhere.
The writing is pretentious and overexposed. Elliott's inner monologues are a frustrating mambo jumbo of some new age truisms. The characters - annoying. There isn't a single character in this show to identify with or feel for. It doesn't help that characters don't get any development. They simply come and go, and why they went and whether they're going to be back - I don't care.
So episode 7 was the last episode for me. I'm guessing I'm within the primary target audience for this show, but the truth is - it just couldn't make me care enough. An opportunity squandered.
The writing is pretentious and overexposed. Elliott's inner monologues are a frustrating mambo jumbo of some new age truisms. The characters - annoying. There isn't a single character in this show to identify with or feel for. It doesn't help that characters don't get any development. They simply come and go, and why they went and whether they're going to be back - I don't care.
So episode 7 was the last episode for me. I'm guessing I'm within the primary target audience for this show, but the truth is - it just couldn't make me care enough. An opportunity squandered.
Bridget Jones's Baby
(2016)
Funny, but too long and very hard to relate to
14 October 2016
I am not sure what to make of Bridget Jones's Baby.
On the one hand, it has undeniably funny moments. On the other hand, many of the gags fall flat. This didn't stop many others in the theater from laughing their heads of, but it did leave me wondering what I was missing that made it so funny.
And considering that I'm almost in the right demographic for this film (almost, because I'm male), I found the characters very hard to relate to. I'd say both the characters and the portrayals are to blame. Zellweger does a good job, but that's easy. Colin Firth is the quintessential Mr.Darcy, but this is also the problem, because by now his Mark is boring to death. We know what Mark is like, and it would be great to see him do something, anything, besides being Mr.Darcy. But he never does. Patrick Dempsey's portrayal of Jack was simply lackluster. It was a role that someone like George Clooney would've probably nailed, but Dempsey was really struggling to look and act the part. At times he looked like he really really didn't want to be there. Sloppy script doesn't help either - at times I really struggled to understand why his character would be there at all. On the bright side, Emma Thompson is a standout - she manages the steal every scene she's in, and adds the wit and the sarcasm that BJB is so desperately lacking.
Finally, the movie is too long. The gags are overdrawn, punchlines are spoon-fed, and the story just drags on and on. Time and time again I almost found myself screaming at the screen "fine, I get it, move on!"
Anyway, 6/10 for the laughs. And please don't make another one.
On the one hand, it has undeniably funny moments. On the other hand, many of the gags fall flat. This didn't stop many others in the theater from laughing their heads of, but it did leave me wondering what I was missing that made it so funny.
And considering that I'm almost in the right demographic for this film (almost, because I'm male), I found the characters very hard to relate to. I'd say both the characters and the portrayals are to blame. Zellweger does a good job, but that's easy. Colin Firth is the quintessential Mr.Darcy, but this is also the problem, because by now his Mark is boring to death. We know what Mark is like, and it would be great to see him do something, anything, besides being Mr.Darcy. But he never does. Patrick Dempsey's portrayal of Jack was simply lackluster. It was a role that someone like George Clooney would've probably nailed, but Dempsey was really struggling to look and act the part. At times he looked like he really really didn't want to be there. Sloppy script doesn't help either - at times I really struggled to understand why his character would be there at all. On the bright side, Emma Thompson is a standout - she manages the steal every scene she's in, and adds the wit and the sarcasm that BJB is so desperately lacking.
Finally, the movie is too long. The gags are overdrawn, punchlines are spoon-fed, and the story just drags on and on. Time and time again I almost found myself screaming at the screen "fine, I get it, move on!"
Anyway, 6/10 for the laughs. And please don't make another one.
The BFG
(2016)
Should've never attempted it
10 July 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Let's start with the obvious. The BFG is a major disappointment on all fronts. The story doesn't hold interest and doesn't flow. The actors lack chemistry, and Ruby Barnhill is unfortunately a very poor casting choice. John Williams' score is bland, uninspiring and at times so obvious and overpowering that you just wish the music wasn't there at all. The CGI is occasionally brilliant, but mostly - mediocre. Not once did I see Sophie being carried in BFG's palm where it looked natural.
So the less obvious question is - why and where did it go so wrong. The answer is that the treatment is all wrong. The brilliance of Dahl's BFG is that it's a multi-layered, complex novel, hiding behind the facade of a children's book. It's full of subtleties and innuendos and satire. But most importantly, it juxtaposes good and evil, beautiful and ugly, horror and amazement. The good balances the bad. Without them both, the incredible concoction that is The BFG is just some bland chicken soup. Which is exactly what the movie is. Disney and Spielberg have stripped the evil from the story, leaving us with a meaningless and sentimental journey to nowhere. Here is one example of the impact of this treatment. In the book, the characters of maid Mary and the butler Mr. Tibbs serve as the comic relief. Sure, there is some class criticism and satire in their characters, but mostly they are there to add some long needed laughter after some frightening and tense moments. In the film these two are straight characters (romantically involved), with only a hint of comedy. And this makes sense, because in absence of the evil and the frightening, there is no need for a comic relief in the movie.
And so, we know the answer. The treatment of The BFG was totally wrong. It should have never been a Disney film. Nor a kids' film for that matter. The BFG is and should be treated as young adults literature, and the movie needs to reflect that. Otherwise, it's just some lukewarm snozzcumber soup.
5/10
So the less obvious question is - why and where did it go so wrong. The answer is that the treatment is all wrong. The brilliance of Dahl's BFG is that it's a multi-layered, complex novel, hiding behind the facade of a children's book. It's full of subtleties and innuendos and satire. But most importantly, it juxtaposes good and evil, beautiful and ugly, horror and amazement. The good balances the bad. Without them both, the incredible concoction that is The BFG is just some bland chicken soup. Which is exactly what the movie is. Disney and Spielberg have stripped the evil from the story, leaving us with a meaningless and sentimental journey to nowhere. Here is one example of the impact of this treatment. In the book, the characters of maid Mary and the butler Mr. Tibbs serve as the comic relief. Sure, there is some class criticism and satire in their characters, but mostly they are there to add some long needed laughter after some frightening and tense moments. In the film these two are straight characters (romantically involved), with only a hint of comedy. And this makes sense, because in absence of the evil and the frightening, there is no need for a comic relief in the movie.
And so, we know the answer. The treatment of The BFG was totally wrong. It should have never been a Disney film. Nor a kids' film for that matter. The BFG is and should be treated as young adults literature, and the movie needs to reflect that. Otherwise, it's just some lukewarm snozzcumber soup.
5/10
Tinker Bell and the Legend of the NeverBeast
(2014 Video)
Fantastic
24 April 2016
OK, I'm an old cynic and I don't really like these long running franchise films. But I must admit that everything about NeverBeast exceeded expectations. Voice acting is excellent, the animation is superb, music is brilliant, and the story is top notch. My 6 year old daughter cried her eyes out, and for a Disney movie this kind of emotion was completely unexpected. It's a shame this turned out to be the last of the Tinker Bell films, because the franchise was definitely on the right track with this one.
And yes, I loved it much more than some of the recent mega productions like (ahem) Frozen.
And yes, I loved it much more than some of the recent mega productions like (ahem) Frozen.
Bridge of Spies
(2015)
Disappointingly shallow and poorly acted out
22 October 2015
Hanks, Alda, Spielberg, the Coen brothers. What can go wrong? Apparently, quite a lot.
Strengths first: the meticulous recreation of the 60's across two countries is breathtaking. The streets look 60's, the people look and talk 60's, the atmosphere is 60's. It's immersing and awe-inspiring.
Now the weaknesses: 1) Lots and lots of exposition. I understand that the millenials are expected to not know the history from 50 years ago, but come on - if someone doesn't know/love history they aren't going to see this movie in the first place. Stop wasting our time with exposition. 2) Poor acting. This must be the weakest performance from Tom Hanks I've seen in years. The guy is sleep-walking through the role, and everyone else is wooden and not worth mentioning, except for Alan Alda who steals every scene he's in. Amy Ryan is just awful I'm sorry to say. 3) Too long. Way too long. Should've ended with the exchange taking place. We don't need the "happy end" through vindication - it's completely implausible too. 4) Not focused. The pilot's story is completely surplus to requirements and insignificant - it doesn't add anything to the narrative. We don't really need to see the pilot until his first scene in captivity. Instead, the time should be spent on character development of which there is absolutely none. 5) Predictable. Yes, the story is well known and we all know how it ends, but this means that the unpredictability needs to be in the nuances. The little things that aren't part of the written history. But everything is predictable, nothing is captivating. 6) The treatment of the story. The script is by the Coen brothers but it has John Le Carre written all over it. It's a classic Le Carre-like spy thriller (thriller, not action). There have been fantastic film adaptations of Le Carre, so we know it can be done. Sadly, on this occasion Spielberg fails to deliver.
4/10
Strengths first: the meticulous recreation of the 60's across two countries is breathtaking. The streets look 60's, the people look and talk 60's, the atmosphere is 60's. It's immersing and awe-inspiring.
Now the weaknesses: 1) Lots and lots of exposition. I understand that the millenials are expected to not know the history from 50 years ago, but come on - if someone doesn't know/love history they aren't going to see this movie in the first place. Stop wasting our time with exposition. 2) Poor acting. This must be the weakest performance from Tom Hanks I've seen in years. The guy is sleep-walking through the role, and everyone else is wooden and not worth mentioning, except for Alan Alda who steals every scene he's in. Amy Ryan is just awful I'm sorry to say. 3) Too long. Way too long. Should've ended with the exchange taking place. We don't need the "happy end" through vindication - it's completely implausible too. 4) Not focused. The pilot's story is completely surplus to requirements and insignificant - it doesn't add anything to the narrative. We don't really need to see the pilot until his first scene in captivity. Instead, the time should be spent on character development of which there is absolutely none. 5) Predictable. Yes, the story is well known and we all know how it ends, but this means that the unpredictability needs to be in the nuances. The little things that aren't part of the written history. But everything is predictable, nothing is captivating. 6) The treatment of the story. The script is by the Coen brothers but it has John Le Carre written all over it. It's a classic Le Carre-like spy thriller (thriller, not action). There have been fantastic film adaptations of Le Carre, so we know it can be done. Sadly, on this occasion Spielberg fails to deliver.
4/10
Fifty Shades of Grey
(2015)
How bad could it be? Well, now I know.
4 July 2015
I thought I've seen some bad movies in my time. But this does take the cake. And the cigar. And the cherry on top. This thing (I'm reluctant to call it a movie) is so ridiculously, incredibly bad that I'm genuinely feeling sorry for myself for having wasted 2.5 hours of my precious life on this. And even the fact that my wife now appreciates the effort that I've made by watching this with her can't make me feel any better.
This film fails on every level. The nonsensical script feels like something that was written by a 15 year old who'd been watching too many music videos. We all know the source wasn't great literature to start with, but the script apparently stays close enough to the novel, making it just as bad if not worse.
The acting is depressingly irritating. Jamie Dornan's character is supposed to be a charismatic dominant. Instead he is a robot with a single voice tonality. Dakota Johnson is trying her best not to laugh, and I can't blame her really, but unfortunately it does nothing for her acting. And since most of the screen time is shared between those two their lack of chemistry is too obvious.
The soundtrack is nauseatingly predictable. Not a single courageous choice there, nothing memorable or emotionally involving.
Lastly, I think this movie completely outdid itself by making sex scenes not sexy. Arguably BDSM isn't everyone's cup of tea, but not every sex scene here is BDSM. And yet this surely was the first movie I've ever watched where I found myself falling asleep during almost every scene involving some kind of intimacy. In fact, I felt compelled to skip forward a few times because I just couldn't be bothered with watching those two make sex look unappealing.
And now I know that I'll probably have to spend another 5 hours watching the second and third installments of this thing, and it's enough to make want to hit the bottle.
No redeeming qualities.
1/10 (way too generous)
This film fails on every level. The nonsensical script feels like something that was written by a 15 year old who'd been watching too many music videos. We all know the source wasn't great literature to start with, but the script apparently stays close enough to the novel, making it just as bad if not worse.
The acting is depressingly irritating. Jamie Dornan's character is supposed to be a charismatic dominant. Instead he is a robot with a single voice tonality. Dakota Johnson is trying her best not to laugh, and I can't blame her really, but unfortunately it does nothing for her acting. And since most of the screen time is shared between those two their lack of chemistry is too obvious.
The soundtrack is nauseatingly predictable. Not a single courageous choice there, nothing memorable or emotionally involving.
Lastly, I think this movie completely outdid itself by making sex scenes not sexy. Arguably BDSM isn't everyone's cup of tea, but not every sex scene here is BDSM. And yet this surely was the first movie I've ever watched where I found myself falling asleep during almost every scene involving some kind of intimacy. In fact, I felt compelled to skip forward a few times because I just couldn't be bothered with watching those two make sex look unappealing.
And now I know that I'll probably have to spend another 5 hours watching the second and third installments of this thing, and it's enough to make want to hit the bottle.
No redeeming qualities.
1/10 (way too generous)
Frozen
(I) (2013)
Overrated, boring, clichéd, full of awful music and out of tune singing
10 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Ah, the greater the expectations, the greater the disappointment. This movie honestly left me wondering if many of the reviewers paid a visit to the glorious state of Colorado before watching this movie.
Yes, the graphics were fantastic. But the animation was terrible. I'm sorry, but the facial expressions were simply badly drawn. It was a major step back compared to Tangled. Voice acting was... not. No, really, it wasn't acting. It was just reading the script off the sheet. Plain, emotionless, boring.
Don't get me started on the music. This was the first Disney movie ever where I couldn't hear the music from the cacophony of instruments. Tune? What tune? It was also the first Disney movie ever where my daughter didn't get off the couch and dance to the music. Pretty much every musical number in it evoked just one emotion - impatience. When is this awful music going to end?
Don't get me started on the voices. If you thought Pierce Brosnan sounded out of tune in "Mamma Mia", you haven't heard the singing in Frozen. At least in Brosnan's case his singing was a bit of an in-joke, a bit of self-irony, and in general terms - wasn't too bad. In case of a Disney movie built around singing, it was very bad. These actors can't sing. Please don't force them to, or don't hire them.
The celebrated "Let it go" sounds like something that came out of the Taylor Swift sweatshop of pop clichés. If the singing wasn't so bad I'd have sworn it was her. So if you aren't into pop country music, you'll have trouble enjoying it. I know I did.
Then comes the movie's redeeming factor - apparently, an act of true love isn't limited to "boy kiss girl"; in fact, it can be love between siblings too. And to get to this groundbreaking revelation from Disney I had to sit through an hour and a half of torture. I'm sorry, but if someone truly believes this is a sign of the new Disney Renaissance, they need to have their head checked. This movie is on par with the direct to video releases like the Barbie films. Barbie Thumbelina comes to mind, at least thankfully it had no singing in it. 4/10 and I'm being generous here.
Yes, the graphics were fantastic. But the animation was terrible. I'm sorry, but the facial expressions were simply badly drawn. It was a major step back compared to Tangled. Voice acting was... not. No, really, it wasn't acting. It was just reading the script off the sheet. Plain, emotionless, boring.
Don't get me started on the music. This was the first Disney movie ever where I couldn't hear the music from the cacophony of instruments. Tune? What tune? It was also the first Disney movie ever where my daughter didn't get off the couch and dance to the music. Pretty much every musical number in it evoked just one emotion - impatience. When is this awful music going to end?
Don't get me started on the voices. If you thought Pierce Brosnan sounded out of tune in "Mamma Mia", you haven't heard the singing in Frozen. At least in Brosnan's case his singing was a bit of an in-joke, a bit of self-irony, and in general terms - wasn't too bad. In case of a Disney movie built around singing, it was very bad. These actors can't sing. Please don't force them to, or don't hire them.
The celebrated "Let it go" sounds like something that came out of the Taylor Swift sweatshop of pop clichés. If the singing wasn't so bad I'd have sworn it was her. So if you aren't into pop country music, you'll have trouble enjoying it. I know I did.
Then comes the movie's redeeming factor - apparently, an act of true love isn't limited to "boy kiss girl"; in fact, it can be love between siblings too. And to get to this groundbreaking revelation from Disney I had to sit through an hour and a half of torture. I'm sorry, but if someone truly believes this is a sign of the new Disney Renaissance, they need to have their head checked. This movie is on par with the direct to video releases like the Barbie films. Barbie Thumbelina comes to mind, at least thankfully it had no singing in it. 4/10 and I'm being generous here.
Skyfall
(2012)
Why turn a good Bond into a mediocre Batman?
23 December 2012
There is no denying Skyfall tries really hard to take Bond back to its roots. The problem is it lacks the talent that made the Bonds of old possible. The problems start with the title song which sounds like a mash up of previous forgettable Bond songs, with Adele singing at times embarrassingly off-key. Daniel Craig looks like he is really really tired of the character. It doesn't look just like Bond being tired of being Bond, it actually looks like Daniel Craig is tired of being Bond. He is simply going through the motions. He is not alone, by the way. Judy Dench looks like she can't wait to get it over with. I appreciate she is having difficulty acting with failing eyesight (there is a very nice pun about it in the movie), but it's still no excuse. Naomi Harris is just terrible and is simply miscast. I don't understand all the fuss about Javier Bardem's performance either. His first meeting with Bond is poorly scripted and fails to deliver to the potential it holds. From that point on it just gets worse. Lastly, why turn Bond into Batman? Family castle, a butler (kind of), the car (a nice blast from the past but also a Batman touch) and so on, and of course - the scene which was part of the trailer, with Bond looking over London from a rooftop. Bottom line - it was kind of fun, but doesn't live up to the hype. 6/10
Looper
(2012)
Mediocre, over-hyped, and an insult to science-fiction fans
4 October 2012
The last movie I saw in a theatre was District 9. That was a long time ago, so when reviewers called Looper "an instant science fiction classic" I knew I had to see it.
Well, let's start by saying that Azimov, Bradbury and Heinlein must be turning in their graves because "sci-fi classic" it is not. Sci-fi rip-off - maybe. I find it hard to remember the last time I saw a movie with such mediocre wooden acting, boring plot (let's not talk about plot holes, shall we), artificial direction, such blunt plot devices (Bruce Willis character:"let's not talk about time travel because it will give us headache" - REALLY?!), such clichéd execution, and such a huge pretense. But if I try really hard then there is indeed a movie from a completely different genre that fits this description - (500) Days of Summer. Ah yes, the Joseph Gordon-Levitt link. So what do we have here? A rip-off of X-Men, Terminator and Blade, directed by someone who tries very hard to be Christopher Nolan but ends up being McG. I could carry on insulting this film, but the final insult that I'll share with you is that it failed the pee-break test. A science fiction thriller based around the concept of time travel is not a movie that should tolerate a pee-break. And yet I walked out, and returned to my seat 5 minutes later and I didn't miss a thing.
2/10 - no redeeming qualities except for tolerable special effects.
Well, let's start by saying that Azimov, Bradbury and Heinlein must be turning in their graves because "sci-fi classic" it is not. Sci-fi rip-off - maybe. I find it hard to remember the last time I saw a movie with such mediocre wooden acting, boring plot (let's not talk about plot holes, shall we), artificial direction, such blunt plot devices (Bruce Willis character:"let's not talk about time travel because it will give us headache" - REALLY?!), such clichéd execution, and such a huge pretense. But if I try really hard then there is indeed a movie from a completely different genre that fits this description - (500) Days of Summer. Ah yes, the Joseph Gordon-Levitt link. So what do we have here? A rip-off of X-Men, Terminator and Blade, directed by someone who tries very hard to be Christopher Nolan but ends up being McG. I could carry on insulting this film, but the final insult that I'll share with you is that it failed the pee-break test. A science fiction thriller based around the concept of time travel is not a movie that should tolerate a pee-break. And yet I walked out, and returned to my seat 5 minutes later and I didn't miss a thing.
2/10 - no redeeming qualities except for tolerable special effects.
The Adjustment Bureau
(2011)
It's been a while since I've seen such a disappointing film
10 August 2011
In short - give me my 2 hours back! There were countless books written and movies shot about destiny and our ability to control it, but never before have I seen such a simplistic, idiot-proof, insulting to the intelligence, take on this topic.
Damon delivers one of his most bland performances to date, and is not helped by a lackluster script and a boring, linear storyline. This half-hearted effort couldn't have made it as an episode of the twilight zone, let alone a feature length movie.
A movie can be intelligent, interesting, involving, fun, entertaining, actually it can be almost anything... Problem is, this movie is nothing. Just a waste of digital space and 2 hours of my life. (Or may be the bureau wanted me to see it in the first place.)
2/10. If it was any worse, I'd have walked out.
Damon delivers one of his most bland performances to date, and is not helped by a lackluster script and a boring, linear storyline. This half-hearted effort couldn't have made it as an episode of the twilight zone, let alone a feature length movie.
A movie can be intelligent, interesting, involving, fun, entertaining, actually it can be almost anything... Problem is, this movie is nothing. Just a waste of digital space and 2 hours of my life. (Or may be the bureau wanted me to see it in the first place.)
2/10. If it was any worse, I'd have walked out.
Probably doesn't get worse than this... I hope so, anyway
4 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Thank god for the Tivo, because I didn't have to suffer the cringe-worthiness of this episode in its entirety. The episode was so bad I don't know even where to start. The story was so ridiculous it made me wonder if there is a writers' strike in place and the studio had to hire a bunch of 12 year old kids to write a script. There was enough melodrama in this one episode to suffice for 10 episodes of Dynasty. The dialog was worthy of the Bold and the Beautiful, and the acting was not worthy of anything at all, really - it was just plain terrible. After a couple of impressive episodes, Stone's attempt at a melodrama made me feel sick. Isabelle Huppert didn't make it any better with her performance better suited for a French art-house film than a police procedural. If that wasn't bad enough, all of a sudden we were watching a procedural without the procedure. Rules and regulations were ignored as if they didn't exist. Let's have a closer look.
Spoilers ahead. A suspect isn't assigned a lawyer, and when she is suspected of being psychotic, police officers attempt to cure her to gain a confession! Like that is going to stack up in court. Stabler and Benson are going to take down a Green Beret (covert ops specialist) who is supposedly holding a kidnapped child. Of course, why shouldn't they. The appearance of the cop with the distraught dad in the morgue "because he wanted to come here" is so silly it left me speechless. Sophie then grabbed the cop's gun (by the way, when the cop reports it to Stabler he says "she's got my piece". REALLY, that's how a police officer reports that his sidearm was taken by a criminal?!). Anyway, she holds the gun against Marlowe's head, but she never loaded it. As far as I know, police don't carry around pistols with a bullet in the chamber. What's stopping Benson at this stage from shooting her is not very clear to me. Then we had Stabler doing a bit of John McClane in the ventilation ducts which just made me shake my head in disbelief.
But the twist and the final scene definitely take the cake. First, we had a twist that made no sense. The dad organized for the kid to be kidnapped so that mum won't take the kid away to China. What was he planning to do next, once the kid was taken? Obviously, the accident was not part of the plan, so what exactly was the plan then? Did the authors actually think it through? And then we got the grand finale with Stone holding the kid's body in her arms saying "Sophie, Nicholas needs you". Ladies and gentlemen, that scene was so embarrassingly bad I just laughed out loud.
My take on it is that with Law and Order being canceled, the spin-offs are heading that way too. And based on this particular episode - the sooner the better.
Spoilers ahead. A suspect isn't assigned a lawyer, and when she is suspected of being psychotic, police officers attempt to cure her to gain a confession! Like that is going to stack up in court. Stabler and Benson are going to take down a Green Beret (covert ops specialist) who is supposedly holding a kidnapped child. Of course, why shouldn't they. The appearance of the cop with the distraught dad in the morgue "because he wanted to come here" is so silly it left me speechless. Sophie then grabbed the cop's gun (by the way, when the cop reports it to Stabler he says "she's got my piece". REALLY, that's how a police officer reports that his sidearm was taken by a criminal?!). Anyway, she holds the gun against Marlowe's head, but she never loaded it. As far as I know, police don't carry around pistols with a bullet in the chamber. What's stopping Benson at this stage from shooting her is not very clear to me. Then we had Stabler doing a bit of John McClane in the ventilation ducts which just made me shake my head in disbelief.
But the twist and the final scene definitely take the cake. First, we had a twist that made no sense. The dad organized for the kid to be kidnapped so that mum won't take the kid away to China. What was he planning to do next, once the kid was taken? Obviously, the accident was not part of the plan, so what exactly was the plan then? Did the authors actually think it through? And then we got the grand finale with Stone holding the kid's body in her arms saying "Sophie, Nicholas needs you". Ladies and gentlemen, that scene was so embarrassingly bad I just laughed out loud.
My take on it is that with Law and Order being canceled, the spin-offs are heading that way too. And based on this particular episode - the sooner the better.
I do hope this was a hallucination
15 June 2010
A great episode, no question about it. We see the emotional evolution and then devolution of House. He is facing a reality where being "House" is not acceptable anymore, and where logic and knowledge do not rule the world. His fragile emotional world collapsing, he can't even resort to the world of medical challenges where he believe he has the ultimate control, because that control is just imaginary and the harsh reality is setting in. And then, just as he is about to descend back into being House of seasons 3-4, we get the most surreal and ridiculous ending. House's life is an ongoing struggle within himself, it's a cyclical lifeline. And over the last few episodes we watched him descend into one of the deepest recesses on that graph. The ending of this episode either meant that we just witnessed House reach the bottom, or that a magic hand pulled him up by his hair onto the surface. I do hope it was the former - I (and I think the majority of House audience) am not a great believer in the magic hand. So for now, it's a 9/10. But should it turn out to be the magic hand, 5/10 would be more like it.
Loved it!
20 April 2010
I've never commented on episodes of series (any series) before, but House 5 to 9 was absolutely fantastic. It was refreshing, it gave us a different point of view, it demonstrated Lisa Edelstein's acting abilities, and it pushed House into a support role for a change. And by the way - this episode demonstrated to me that the series could easily survive without House, or with House as a secondary character. Cuddy M.D. could become the spin off. No, seriously. Now, I realise that as a parent to a 4-months old I found it easier to relate to some of the problems that Cuddy had to face, even if we put that aside - it was a thoroughly enjoyable episode, different, and much more entertaining than most of the episodes so far this season. 10/10
A Touch of Frost
(1992–2010)
For Coronation Street fans only.
16 January 2010
I watched an episode of Frost last night for the first time after a long long break, and for the life of me I could not figure out why I liked it so much 10 years ago. The plot was almost laughable, the acting is terrible - at times too understated, at times just over the top, the premise for the stories is ridiculous, the dialogues seem to be written by a 12 year old, and the music is taken straight out of 1980's porn movies. And then it hit me - A Touch of Frost is really a British soap opera disguised as crime/mystery drama. All of its deficiencies that I listed above, plus the seemingly low budget, are what soap fans love about Coronation Street. It's no surprise, therefore, that I found Frost to be not the very least entertaining - I can't stand Coro street either. At that stage I also realised why I was struggling to understand the connection between the name of the episode I watched and the its plot. In fact, there was no connection between the two, because rather than relating to the specific episode, its name was actually describing the state of the series of a whole. A Dead End indeed.
Cutthroat Island
(1995)
an absolute mess of a movie
14 November 2009
I watched it tonight for the first time - I've listened to Debeny's score before, and in my book a good score usually meant a good movie. So I thought I'd take out the DVD and watch the movie. Here where I knew that my book would have to be rewritten. I can definitely see why this sank the Carolco ship.
1) Everyone is miscast. I have never seen a movie with worse casting than this - Davis doesn't look/sound/act like a pirate. The scene where she climbs over the rock after the jump is fantastic for obvious reasons, but she still doesn't cut it as a pirate. The question of believability is not that of "can a woman be a pirate captain" but rather "how can this woman be a pirate captain?" And there could have been many answers "she is like a mother to them" or "they are all in love with her" or "she is a b-tch from hell and they are scared of her", or a combination of the above. Unfortunately, the movie gives us no credible answer, and neither does Davis' performance. Modine is trying to be what Matthew McConaughey would have become a few years later. Problem is - he is no McConaughey, although he is trying really hard. Langella doesn't look or act like a pirate - he seems to be more of an army major at a boot camp. At some stage I almost expected him to check his wrist for a watch and shout "You have 40 seconds, now move it soldiers!" Stan Shaw's role is probably supposed to be comic relief. Otherwise, I can't understand the idea with the ridiculous Jamaican accent. Unfortunately, there is nothing funny about his role or his delivery, so the joke becomes on him. Even the extras are miscast! During a flyover scene of the ship you can clearly see the actors struggling to climb down the Jacob's ladders - was it really that hard to find actors who could manage it a bit better?
2) The dialogue and realism. This is a PIRATE movie. They are supposed to use naval terms. Their speech is supposed to be peppered with swearing. It doesn't have to be R-rated, because there are ways to stylise speech without degrading it with F-words, but the dialogue in CTI was not stylised at all - it just sounded like a bunch of people talking on a morning train on the way to work. This, however, is a minor problem, compared to the overall level of dialogue, interactions and humour in this film. From the balls jokes to "wash your mouth" to the final "I want to see you in my quarters", it was just cringe-worthy.
3) Action sequences. Could someone in this crew do a bit of research? What canon balls were used for battles, how enemy ships were boarded, what a sailing ship looks like in battle, for heaven's sake? Why is a ship intact after a broadside-to=broadside battle? Why are the masts still standing? Honestly, I am not a navy historian, but for anyone who read C.S.Forrester as a child these scenes are mind boggling. And don't get me started with the "Why's?" on the final duel - that scene is just below criticism. Then there is the lack of blood. For some reason the director decided that it's OK to have blood and injuries that the protagonists suffer, but there should be no blood in battles. That's fine, but then the battles should be choreographed in a way that doesn't require blood. Instead, we see close-ups of people getting stabbed through with sabers, only to see a perfect clean blade when it is pulled out. In some instances the movie doesn't even try to make the impression - you see people getting "killed" by getting slapped on their backs with sabers. Production values, anyone?
Finally, I feel sorry for John Debney. He composed a wonderful score for a movie bad beyond salvation. If only this score would have been used for Pirates of the Caribbean instead of that awful stuff by Trevor Rabin it would have been so much more fitting a good score and a good movie. And I wouldn't have had to rewrite the rules in my book.
Bottom line - 3/10. 1 for the score, 1 for the Geena Davis scene after the jump and 1 for the monkey.
1) Everyone is miscast. I have never seen a movie with worse casting than this - Davis doesn't look/sound/act like a pirate. The scene where she climbs over the rock after the jump is fantastic for obvious reasons, but she still doesn't cut it as a pirate. The question of believability is not that of "can a woman be a pirate captain" but rather "how can this woman be a pirate captain?" And there could have been many answers "she is like a mother to them" or "they are all in love with her" or "she is a b-tch from hell and they are scared of her", or a combination of the above. Unfortunately, the movie gives us no credible answer, and neither does Davis' performance. Modine is trying to be what Matthew McConaughey would have become a few years later. Problem is - he is no McConaughey, although he is trying really hard. Langella doesn't look or act like a pirate - he seems to be more of an army major at a boot camp. At some stage I almost expected him to check his wrist for a watch and shout "You have 40 seconds, now move it soldiers!" Stan Shaw's role is probably supposed to be comic relief. Otherwise, I can't understand the idea with the ridiculous Jamaican accent. Unfortunately, there is nothing funny about his role or his delivery, so the joke becomes on him. Even the extras are miscast! During a flyover scene of the ship you can clearly see the actors struggling to climb down the Jacob's ladders - was it really that hard to find actors who could manage it a bit better?
2) The dialogue and realism. This is a PIRATE movie. They are supposed to use naval terms. Their speech is supposed to be peppered with swearing. It doesn't have to be R-rated, because there are ways to stylise speech without degrading it with F-words, but the dialogue in CTI was not stylised at all - it just sounded like a bunch of people talking on a morning train on the way to work. This, however, is a minor problem, compared to the overall level of dialogue, interactions and humour in this film. From the balls jokes to "wash your mouth" to the final "I want to see you in my quarters", it was just cringe-worthy.
3) Action sequences. Could someone in this crew do a bit of research? What canon balls were used for battles, how enemy ships were boarded, what a sailing ship looks like in battle, for heaven's sake? Why is a ship intact after a broadside-to=broadside battle? Why are the masts still standing? Honestly, I am not a navy historian, but for anyone who read C.S.Forrester as a child these scenes are mind boggling. And don't get me started with the "Why's?" on the final duel - that scene is just below criticism. Then there is the lack of blood. For some reason the director decided that it's OK to have blood and injuries that the protagonists suffer, but there should be no blood in battles. That's fine, but then the battles should be choreographed in a way that doesn't require blood. Instead, we see close-ups of people getting stabbed through with sabers, only to see a perfect clean blade when it is pulled out. In some instances the movie doesn't even try to make the impression - you see people getting "killed" by getting slapped on their backs with sabers. Production values, anyone?
Finally, I feel sorry for John Debney. He composed a wonderful score for a movie bad beyond salvation. If only this score would have been used for Pirates of the Caribbean instead of that awful stuff by Trevor Rabin it would have been so much more fitting a good score and a good movie. And I wouldn't have had to rewrite the rules in my book.
Bottom line - 3/10. 1 for the score, 1 for the Geena Davis scene after the jump and 1 for the monkey.
Separation City
(2009)
An interesting perspective, let down by lazy directing
22 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
One of the few romance/comedy-dramas where I could empathise with the protagonist, Separation City delivers an interesting and surprisingly realistic view on love, romance and life in general. That's not to say that I haven't heard it all before, however it was delivered in a frank yet not "in your face" manner, making this movie stand out from dozens of other films on this subject. Having said that, the movie really suffers from lazy directing. It also doesn't help that being a New Zealand movie they had to cast at least one New Zealand lead, and with all due respect to Danielle Cormack, she was out of her depth here, particularly when surrounded by the ever brilliant Thomas Kretschmann, as well as Rhona Mitra and Joel Edgerton. The scene at the beach towards the end of the film really exposes her weakness as an actress, although part of the blame lies with the surprisingly weak dialogue in that scene, which was not characteristic of this movie, I must add.
3 comments about this movie can help me illustrate my frustration with it:
1) The narration. Overly elaborate, at pains to explain every little nuance, every feeling, it felt as if the director didn't trust the actors to deliver the message through their acting. I wonder if they ever tried screening it without the narration just to see if the movie holds up on its own, because I'd bet it would.
2) Lazy directing. (here be spoilers). An example of this is Klaus painting a pohutakawa tree back in his apartment in Berlin, with Katrien's voice-over telling us that he is painting landscapes of the distant shores. Wouldn't it be better to embed a flourishing pohutakawa somewhere in the movie so that once back in Berlin and painting it, the viewer would recognise it and understand Klaus is painting a New Zealand landscape? (spoilers END)
3) Why was Mike Minogue (Errol the Fireman) in this film and what did his character contribute is beyond me.
Overall not a bad effort, I definitely agree with the message it conveys, but I do hope they release a director's cut version with no narration or at least significantly reduce the amount of it.
7/10
3 comments about this movie can help me illustrate my frustration with it:
1) The narration. Overly elaborate, at pains to explain every little nuance, every feeling, it felt as if the director didn't trust the actors to deliver the message through their acting. I wonder if they ever tried screening it without the narration just to see if the movie holds up on its own, because I'd bet it would.
2) Lazy directing. (here be spoilers). An example of this is Klaus painting a pohutakawa tree back in his apartment in Berlin, with Katrien's voice-over telling us that he is painting landscapes of the distant shores. Wouldn't it be better to embed a flourishing pohutakawa somewhere in the movie so that once back in Berlin and painting it, the viewer would recognise it and understand Klaus is painting a New Zealand landscape? (spoilers END)
3) Why was Mike Minogue (Errol the Fireman) in this film and what did his character contribute is beyond me.
Overall not a bad effort, I definitely agree with the message it conveys, but I do hope they release a director's cut version with no narration or at least significantly reduce the amount of it.
7/10
Slumdog Millionaire
(2008)
A win for mediocrity and political correctness...
11 April 2009
I was afraid of that. Coming to watch an hyped film is always a worry, but never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined the level of disappointment this movie brought on me.
I find it hard to explain where this movie fails because it does it spectacularly on many levels.
Storyline. You have seen it all before. Honestly, you did. If you read Charles Dickens as a child (Oliver Twist, Nicholas Nickleby) then you have read the script for this movie. And you probably saw it in the movies too, only this time you have also seen it on the small screen at home, if you ever watched "Who wants to be a millionaire". It's plain, it's boring, and it's been done before.
Acting. B-grade says it all. Honestly, all Dev Patel had to do was act dumb, and he excelled at that. Then of course, there were the kids, but with kids you either get it wrong or right, there is no midway, and this time thankfully Boyle got it right.
Score. I couldn't feel that it contributed to anything. Not a fan of Indian music, but I wouldn't care of the music's origins if it did anything to enhance the experience of watching the movie, and the truth is - it didn't. In fact, if I could turn the music off, I don't believe it would have made any difference at all.
Camera work. OK, this is somewhat the saving grace, although in a visually rich environment of India it is very hard to mess up camera work, which means that the expectations are very high. And yet again, it is plain, unimaginative, and very very "play it safe".
Bottom line. The Oscars it received enshrine the mediocrity through revolting political correctness. What a shame. It's boring. It's unimaginative. If you ever read classical novels, you'd have read it all before. And besides the Indian setting, there is absolutely nothing that makes this movie stand out from thousands more like it, including Hallmark low-budget adaptations. Avoid, if you can get over the hype. Or go see it, just to be able to reply "Yes, I did see it, can we talk about something else now?" to an excited colleague at work.
I find it hard to explain where this movie fails because it does it spectacularly on many levels.
Storyline. You have seen it all before. Honestly, you did. If you read Charles Dickens as a child (Oliver Twist, Nicholas Nickleby) then you have read the script for this movie. And you probably saw it in the movies too, only this time you have also seen it on the small screen at home, if you ever watched "Who wants to be a millionaire". It's plain, it's boring, and it's been done before.
Acting. B-grade says it all. Honestly, all Dev Patel had to do was act dumb, and he excelled at that. Then of course, there were the kids, but with kids you either get it wrong or right, there is no midway, and this time thankfully Boyle got it right.
Score. I couldn't feel that it contributed to anything. Not a fan of Indian music, but I wouldn't care of the music's origins if it did anything to enhance the experience of watching the movie, and the truth is - it didn't. In fact, if I could turn the music off, I don't believe it would have made any difference at all.
Camera work. OK, this is somewhat the saving grace, although in a visually rich environment of India it is very hard to mess up camera work, which means that the expectations are very high. And yet again, it is plain, unimaginative, and very very "play it safe".
Bottom line. The Oscars it received enshrine the mediocrity through revolting political correctness. What a shame. It's boring. It's unimaginative. If you ever read classical novels, you'd have read it all before. And besides the Indian setting, there is absolutely nothing that makes this movie stand out from thousands more like it, including Hallmark low-budget adaptations. Avoid, if you can get over the hype. Or go see it, just to be able to reply "Yes, I did see it, can we talk about something else now?" to an excited colleague at work.
Parenthood
(1989)
Very very annoying with tiny bits of truth to it...
14 February 2009
I really can't say much about this movie. Trying to make a movie of an everyday life is never easy, and let's face it - Ron Howard does a terrible job here. The characters are as annoying as they get, and as unbelievable as they get. This makes for an indigestible concoction - supposedly real life with unreal characters. And to be honest, I can not recall a movie with more annoying characters than this one. Every appearance of either Dianne Wiest or Mary Steenburgen on screen made me shut my eyes and mute the TV. There are three reasons for this though. The first one is the terrible script. The second one is awful directing. And last, but not the least, is the ridiculously pathetic acting. I was never a fan of Steve Martin whose acting abilities to me are as shallow as a puddle, but the rest of the cast make him stand out simply by being even worse. The only exception is, of course, Jason Robards who is in a league of his own here. Actually, in some of his scenes I felt like I was watching a different movie all together, a smart, touching, sometimes funny movie. And then it was back to Steve Martin and his crowd... One last point to make. (Here be spoilers). Could there be a more stereotypical, clichéd and silly ending? The boy catches the ball, the father gets the promotion, the marriages are saved, everybody happily procreates, and the family of morons lives on. God bless America. Wow. What's this supposed to teach us? (Spoilers end).
Conclusion. Avoid it like the plague. The only reason I gave it a 3 out of 10 is Jason Robards. The rest of it gets a 1.
Conclusion. Avoid it like the plague. The only reason I gave it a 3 out of 10 is Jason Robards. The rest of it gets a 1.
Hero
(2002)
How did this pretentious piece of rubbish end up in top 250?!
1 January 2008
Let's start with a disclosure. I am not a martial arts movie fan. In fact, I do not believe that martial arts movies have the right for existence as such. If I want to see pure martial arts I go see a martial arts competition. However, I definitely believe in martial arts as a viable part of a story telling technique.
Now lets get to Hero. I think we all know the formula of success for an Asian movie by now. 1) Take a piece of Chinese history, and an associated legend 2) Make it look like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. If I was as pretentious as the movie itself, I would have said "Make it visually similar to the cinematographic style of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." But I am not as pretentious. 3) Add Tarantino's name to it.
Now, to make it better than CTHD. 1) Use an Asian actor who is better known to the American and European audiences. 2) Have more of the "fly-by-wire" fights, but in more beautiful locations. 3) Use plenty of pseudo symbolics.
Oh, and how could I forget the most important part! Since the average European will have difficulty distinguishing between the various Asian male characters, get them all to have different facial hair styles, just to make them more recognizable.
Now to the main part. Why is this a piece of pretentious rubbish? Well, despite the promising settings in feudal China, the story is very weak. Which leaves us with the cinematography and the battles choreography. Cinematography gives us stunning views, and lot's of colour based scenes. We have a red scene, a green scene, a white scene, a... Now, why we have all these scenes is not clear, but they are supposed to be cinematographically (that's not even a real word to be honest) beautiful. They are. Like a beautiful chandelier. A designer bath tub may be. But they have no substance. No emotion behind the colouring and sets and no feelings. Imagine the difference between spotting a beautiful kitchen set and Aivazovski's "Decuman Wave" (or any other true work of art), and you will know what I am talking about. Talking about the battles. Let's not talk about them. Slow-mo, hang-by-wire and fly around, clip the water surface with your sword because it makes a beautiful shot, and then go for the standard kill are just not worth talking about.
So, to recap - we are talking about pretentious, trying too hard, somewhat beautiful trash.
3/10. Asian cinema is really so much better than this.
Now lets get to Hero. I think we all know the formula of success for an Asian movie by now. 1) Take a piece of Chinese history, and an associated legend 2) Make it look like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. If I was as pretentious as the movie itself, I would have said "Make it visually similar to the cinematographic style of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." But I am not as pretentious. 3) Add Tarantino's name to it.
Now, to make it better than CTHD. 1) Use an Asian actor who is better known to the American and European audiences. 2) Have more of the "fly-by-wire" fights, but in more beautiful locations. 3) Use plenty of pseudo symbolics.
Oh, and how could I forget the most important part! Since the average European will have difficulty distinguishing between the various Asian male characters, get them all to have different facial hair styles, just to make them more recognizable.
Now to the main part. Why is this a piece of pretentious rubbish? Well, despite the promising settings in feudal China, the story is very weak. Which leaves us with the cinematography and the battles choreography. Cinematography gives us stunning views, and lot's of colour based scenes. We have a red scene, a green scene, a white scene, a... Now, why we have all these scenes is not clear, but they are supposed to be cinematographically (that's not even a real word to be honest) beautiful. They are. Like a beautiful chandelier. A designer bath tub may be. But they have no substance. No emotion behind the colouring and sets and no feelings. Imagine the difference between spotting a beautiful kitchen set and Aivazovski's "Decuman Wave" (or any other true work of art), and you will know what I am talking about. Talking about the battles. Let's not talk about them. Slow-mo, hang-by-wire and fly around, clip the water surface with your sword because it makes a beautiful shot, and then go for the standard kill are just not worth talking about.
So, to recap - we are talking about pretentious, trying too hard, somewhat beautiful trash.
3/10. Asian cinema is really so much better than this.
Poseidon
(2006)
I fell asleep
4 June 2006
Let's start with the good points, shall we? There is one - CGI. That's about it.
Bad points.
1) Characters. Let's see - Kurt Russell is an ex-firefighter turned the Mayor of New-York turned billionaire, who is a poker pro... You catch the drift, don't you? The rest of them are just as believable.
2) Technical goofs. There are so many of them. This is a technological disaster movie, couldn't they hire some knowledgeable tech-consultants?.
3) The plot. There is none. No main plot, no subplot, the whole thing feels like a platform-based boring computer game.
4) Acting. The male leads are trying hard, but there is really only so much they can do. The female leads were so annoying, that I got the "Titanic" feeling - please, spare us the misery and drown, and the sooner - the better.
5) Fergie from The Black Eyed Peas can't really sing. They should have done a voice-over.
I tried to keep this comment short and to the point; something the Poseidon fails at achieving. Give it a miss. You owe yourself that much.
Bad points.
1) Characters. Let's see - Kurt Russell is an ex-firefighter turned the Mayor of New-York turned billionaire, who is a poker pro... You catch the drift, don't you? The rest of them are just as believable.
2) Technical goofs. There are so many of them. This is a technological disaster movie, couldn't they hire some knowledgeable tech-consultants?.
3) The plot. There is none. No main plot, no subplot, the whole thing feels like a platform-based boring computer game.
4) Acting. The male leads are trying hard, but there is really only so much they can do. The female leads were so annoying, that I got the "Titanic" feeling - please, spare us the misery and drown, and the sooner - the better.
5) Fergie from The Black Eyed Peas can't really sing. They should have done a voice-over.
I tried to keep this comment short and to the point; something the Poseidon fails at achieving. Give it a miss. You owe yourself that much.
Tell Your Friends