irtsoup Reviews

Captain America: Civil War (2016)

It doesn't take 250 million dollars to write a decent story.

[5/10 · 12 November 2016]

At this point I guess everything has been said and done about this movie, but after watching it, I feel the urge to document my thoughts mainly for (my own) future reference. So pros: First of all, Spiderman. He was witty, fresh and his awkward and childish approach was very refreshing and funny. Second, Antman 'cause come on, it's Paul Rudd, I love this guy. Third, Black Widow's fighting scenes mainly in the first half of the movie. Fourth, it's a movie with superheroes and I'm a sucker for this kind of stuff, so more points added. And that's where all good things stop.

The most obvious con of CW was it's poorly written/delivered script/story. I guess it was supposed to present to us a major plot twist (and it did), but that fact alone isn't enough to support a two and a half hour movie. It's a windmill of not just bad, but idiotic decisions, made by everyone. The Avengers is a group of super-people, not just super-powered, but also super-intelligent, but the whole premise dismisses every single bit of reasonable thinking in the movie. And I know that we're talking about comic/superheroes/scifi genre, which may take place in a parallel universe and I am more than willing to buy every single exaggeration taken for granted, but idiocy is not one of them. I mean the Avengers have been established for years and, still, they haven't figured out how to communicate over basic stuff, like, "how to communicate and get along, because if we don't the world might be torn apart be us". I mean, Antman, who is a genius is convinced by Cap to go on his side, ehm, based on the argument that "we're fighting the bad guys, which actually are our friends, but nevermind we might as well kill them because I don't want to sign a g**damned paper?". And since I'm at it, hasn't the whole spread-disbelief-between-a-group-and-let-it-tear-itself-apart been used as a plot device already in this universe? I don't mean to be rough, but this is a blockbuster that cost millions, shouldn't it have a more compelling story to support it's own reputation?

Wow, that was a one breath sentence up there. Imagine what I would say if I hadn't liked it.

Deadpool (2016)

Funniest movie I've seen in ages

[10/10 · 15 March 2016]

When Deadpool was announced and the first trailer started to roll, I was hugely hyped since there were no other actor other than Ryan Reynolds that I could think of portraying him. I still remember the filthy mouthed guy that struck me in Blade 3 with his "f**k me sideways" line. And the trailer was so promising that I started to have doubts, if the rest of the movie could be as funny and raw as the trailer. These days you watch so many trailers that are better than the whole movie, so I had my concerns.

So, I went to see Deadpool when it premiered and, boy, was I blown away from the first second. This movie brilliantly gets right in the middle of the plot, during the action and flashes back and forth, making the viewing of the movie interesting and does not bore you for a second. I knew that the Merc with the mouth was a filthy, filthy mouthed anti-hero, but the level of profanity and foul language is so high and disgusting that I am amazed that high executives gave the green light for such a blockbuster. I won't go into many details, but the movie is extremely funny and raw, with so many dick jokes as anyone can handle, but at the same time is very sweet and tender. It is actually a love story clothed with explosive action and sick humor. It is very well directed, with the proper pace, it takes the time to let you know about the protagonist, it doesn't take things for granted, nor does it demand that you should have read a million comic books in order to "get it". It provides the back story with a great back and forth movement. It, also, has so many easter eggs that it would probably require another 2-hour movie to analyze everything.

So to wrap it up, this is a hilarious movie, with the best casting decision for a superhero, equally awesome as Robert Downey Jr., who nailed Iron Man and became an immortal god. Now, if you are easily offended, hate the foul language and the occasional butt plugging of Reynolds, then you should probably pass. If you want to see a thought provoking movie go and rent Primer. If you have kids and want to go to see the movie, good for you, you're an awesome parent. But be AWARE, in this movie some things cannot be unseen, so if you fall in the above category of easily offended people, you enter at your own risk.

Children of Men (2006)

Great Film, Awesome Cinematography, so many Rants

[10/10 · 8 December 2011]

I just watched Children of Men on TV, for the fourth or fifth time and I wanted to read the reviews on IMDb just out of curiosity. Most of them are highly praising, but there are a LOT of them burying the movie. Much has been said about the virtues and drawbacks of Children of Men. I think it's easily one of the best films of 2006, at least. I especially loved the grim atmosphere and the fantastic camera work, which gives you the impression of watching a war documentary and not a movie.

On this review, I will stand on the haters, that are focusing on lots of things, like the non plausibility of the story. God, it's science fiction, the story tells you that women are infertile no-matter-what, you take it for granted, end of story. It's not Discovery Channel. Science fiction, is by definition exploring the fiction with a touch of science, it's not science only. Others hate the camera work, but that's just a matter of taste. Camera works well in my eyes and perception, it's a matter of aesthetics. And the documentary-like feeling, fits awesome into the whole atmosphere. Some other guys said: "how can a single baby revert the situation and make women fertile again?". True, but in the movie it's never stated that this child would be the Messiah: it's just a hope, nothing more nothing less.This is why this film is so good, it leaves the viewer wondering about things like: "Will this child be the answer?" or "What if this Human Project is another organization like Fish?" or "Presumably this baby is the solution to infertility, will the world become a better place or is it already too late?". These questions make this film deep: the urge to ask yourself "What if?". Anyway, haters are gonna hate, but I find it greatly unjust for a movie that had a great cast with really humane behaviors like any other regular guy, approached all action scenes entirely different than Hollywood would and provided a simplistic theme-story, so that everyone could relate to, to be ditched that way.

Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief (2010)

nice story, (very) bad film.

[3/10 · 11 March 2010]

This is probably one of the worst films I watched since ever. I just watched Percy last night and although I always have the nicest intention when coming to films, this one really was terrible. And I watch every kind and genre. I always judge a film for what it is and not what should have been compared to any other films. And, honestly, this film is bad.

The pros is that it has an interesting story - I am a real sucker for Greek mythology. As far as the mythology part is concerned, I found it quite precise and true to what Greek mythology is all about. The second positive thing was the Hades scene, which I found very cool. Third, and last positive thing of the movie were the CGI. So, three cons, three stars and that's it, because, trust me, it can't get any better than this.

Now, let's go to the downside. And, man, where to start? Firstly, the acting was at most parts lame, filled with unbearable clichés and lines we all have heard thousands of times before. This, by itself, is not a problem, the problem is that they don't fit in. I didn't know that this is a book adaption, so this is what makes the effort even more horrible; this might be the worst book adaption ever! The characters are very shallow and the director doesn't even try to develop them, doesn't give them the space and time to grow inside the viewer and create a bond. The scene right after Percy's mother supposed death is ridiculous. A kid sees his mother die and the next thing he does, is to hit on a girl. Grandiose.

One other thing that I disliked was the explanation of every reference to the Greek mythology. "You cannot see Medusa in the eyes, you will turn into stone", "If you cut Hydra's head, two will pop out". If you read the book, it is apparent that you know who Medusa is and what she does, if you don't, well this is an excellent food for thought. Open a book, search on the web and find out why you shouldn't look into her eyes. I mean, that the film doesn't leave room for the viewer to think, after the movie is over, the whys and the hows. In Greek we call this "Chewed food".

The final battle between Percy and the other guy(I don't even remember his name) was tragic. No reason to explain this further, if you've watched more than ten films in your life just choose randomly of one, cut the battle scene, paste it to your mind and then say that this is not true.

To close this review I say that this is one of the most shallow, clichéd, and bad directed movies I've seen. I wouldn't suggest this film, even in an 8 year old. As bad as it can get.

Push (2009)

pretty entertaining film

[7/10 · 7 May 2009]

i don't know what people are after when going to see a movie of the kind really, and then yawn about how poor it is or how wasted their time was. this kind of movie demands one certain approach. watch it for what it is and only for that, because if you are about to start comparing it and trying to find clichés, rip-offs, etc, you lose what is most important: to enjoy the film, which has nothing to say actually, but it is fun to watch anyway.

as for the film itself, i must say that i found it pretty entertaining, far from a classic, but quite good. i found the direction was great, Paul mcguigan did a great job, with odd angles and using different types of films during the takes, giving a different point of view in each scene. it gave to me a guyritchie-esquire feeling (in a good way) to be honest.

the acting was decent too. i found Evans, though i haven't watched any of his previous films, really cool. and by cool i mean the whole sense of the word. without doing much, he got me liking him from the start. Camilla belle acted just as she should: a little out of place, a little out of time. that was exactly what she had to be like in my opinion. Dakota fanning. that's an interesting one. can't exactly describe what i think of her acting, she is in a strange acting age, too old to be little, too little to be older. reminded me of Natalie portman in Leon, struggling to look older and more mature than she actually is. but the role was all about this struggle, so she coped with it very well. the villains was a minus, cause they were not so "villains" after all, especially in the beginning were the two brothers were screaming like primadonas, and i was like "what the hell? Evans can move stuff, Dakota can see the future, belle can f*** your mind and the bad guys, what? they're replicas of rob halford? what were the Nazis thinking?? 'we'll come to your house and break all your crystal, so surrender' ". anyway, the Chinese guys weren't so fearful after all, but they were the minor villains and i wonder why they didn't die earlier on the film. at least they did one thing right, they annoyed me, so i was happy they died at the end. hounsou and his blond assistant were good (bad) enough though! so i call it (almost) even.

anyway, i started writing a little comment on the movie and i ended up mumbling. so, to put an end on this all i'm saying is that push is a fun to watch film, with fair enough performances, great direction, nice plot and a nice, although suspected, twist n the end. it won't become your all time favorite, but it will sure entertain you.