Change Your Image
fariska
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Cloud Atlas (2012)
Good visualisation of a great book.
Yesterday I finally got around to see Cloud Atlas. I was with my girlfriend who hadn't read the book.
Visually speaking the cinematographers did a great job: camera, photography, VFX and especially acting is top notch. And discovering which actor is which under such heavy (and finely done) make up in the different stories adds to the enjoyment of the movie.
But unfortunately this isn't enough to make the movie great and enjoyable as the book. The main problem lies in the fact that the stories, in the book, are secondary. The main aspect is the literary virtuosism with which of the story is narrated and written: the plot, the language and the style of each one is what really shines in the book: the birthmark the intertweening stories are just expedients to a refined display of literary power.
The fact that what makes the book inerhently great couldn't be translated as a movie, was my big worry when I heard about a film to be made. The writers and directors had to fall back on the stories as the underlying glue. And the result falls short: the different stories are compressed, and the continuity links between them are sometimes just one unfocused short line of dialogue, likely to be missed (and the fast editing doesn't help if you're trying to follow). The filmmakers, because of the limitations of the medium, have decided to tell and not really show the message of the film, which unfortunately makes it preachy and new-age flavoured.
Given the starting material probably this is the best possible film adaptation of the book, unfortunately it isn't enough to make a great film. My advice is to read the book and watch the movie afterwards so you are able to fill in the (many) blanks while enjoying the great visual side of the film.
Inception (2010)
High Pressure Void.
Finally went to see Inception, since everyone and everything was telling it was a great movie. By the end of the show I was thinking: "woah, great flick" then as the adrenaline wore off, I kept thinking "seriously???" and the more I thought about it the more I hated it:
It has a non-existent storyline: If you ask yourself what this movie is *really* about the answer is absolutely nothing, but that it may be OK, some nice movies are this way (pulp fiction, for example)
But then, it has the shallowest plot I've seen in ages, with flat characters chopped out from wood: not a memorable line of dialogue, not anything that really says anything about some of the characters. Nothing
And finally has such an overly played out underlying philosophy that is embarrassing, already explored 10x better in movies like Exsistenz, Matrix and so forth
So, Mr Nolan having to deal with high pressure nothing, decided that the only way to handle this movie was overcomplicate it, hence the dream inside a dream inside a dream inside a dream, with the open and questioning finale.
Basically a multimillion cinematographic gimmick.
In hindsight, memento is not that much different, just another different gimmick, but at least was fresh enough to be interesting.
Anyway enough negativity, on the good side this movie is a very nice adrenaline ride with a great timing and the usual Nolan's good cinematography, and too many gunfight and will keep you interested enough till the end.
Avatar (2009)
Ferngully meets Independence day
It took a while to find an available seat at the Imax, but finally I've made it and seen the movie.
Let's make things straight: This movie is FernGully (or any random Miyazaki anime) told as it was Independence day. Story, plot are from the former, pathos, acting, directing are form the latter. But, honestly, the movie doesn't pretend to be anything different from that. So this is fair enough.
Obviously what makes a difference are the images. And yes, avatar is simply outstanding, nothing like that has been done before, so kudos to Mr. Cameron for this. The stereoscopic effect is excellent and having depth in the image adds something to the experience considering that the movie shoots its best fireworks in the first half-hour this helps to involve you deeply into the world and the story. On the other hand, after seeing so much magnificence, at a certain point you get used to it and you start concentrating on the story and the plot. As I said it's nothing new or different but the amount of detail perfectly crafted that has been put into Pandora makes it enjoyable even if at some points the plot is pure cheese.
But I reckon you would able to appreciate this in a proper Imax theatre where your field of view is completely surrounded by such things, otherwise it would look like a random Blockbuster flick.
So, finally this movie gets 5 stars for the movie itself and 2 more for the visual experience.
Suchîmubôi (2004)
Animation is what really matters.
OK, a movie is supposed to tell a story, have characters a plot and stuff. This is fair enough, but Steamboy it's not the case:
This movie is simply a vulgar, wonderful and unbelievable display of power. When i started watching it I tried to follow the story but soon I was totally amazed by the incredible detail and perfection of what i was seeing that I stopped following the story to focus on the real subject of this movie: Animation.
It's simply incredible the amount of time and detail that has been put into the realization of this flick: no cycles, no repetitions, perfect blend of 2d and 3d until the end.
So, if you are going to see it, take the story for what REALLY is (a device to display animation) and just concentrate on what you are seeing on the screen.
Manufacturing Dissent (2007)
Interesting points
This film makes some really interesting points about Michael Moore Films.
Is very interesting to know about him before his film maker career and his first movie. As well as is very curious to see how the troupe actually uses against him his very own reporting methodologies.
But said that, this movie doesn't really de-manufacture the points that Moore made on "Bowling for columbine" and Fahrenheit 9/11. Not any single key fact of those movies has been revealed as fictional or erroneous or too edited apart what I personal consider as details (like the Bush speech on Fahrenheit 9/11 or the "Bank with rifles") on the whole narrative and argumentative structure of the movies.
At the end the movie succeeds to present Moore as an hypocrite, pointing out the mistakes and omissions on "Roger and Me" but at the same time forgets to say that the facts on his later films are not questioned.