ALL the movies I've seen in a movie theater EVER in my life!!
This list shows pretty much when I have watched a movie the first time, and what I thought afterwards. Therefore, not listed are the feature movies I have seen on TV (including videos and DVDs).
Not on the list are also the movies that I had to watch as part of my Video Editor job at the Swiss TV channel SF DRS in 1997. But that's ok, because I was paid to watch these movies for technical insufficiencies only, so I was focusing on my instruments more than on the content.
So, you might ask why I have this list here. Good question. Answer: I think by listening to my first reactions to a movie, you will find you A LOT about me, if you care! It's like a very extensive Rohrschach test... :-)
Warning: Spoilers ahead! If you have not seen a movie on this list, and don't want to spoil it, do not read my comments! They are often about the surprising and unexpected parts that you might not want to know before you watch the movie yourself! That should be enough, now enjoy the list...
|
|
| Recently, my favorite way of way of describing movies is distilling out their ancestors, or components. This one's a combination of Tomb Raider, Gone in 60 Seconds, and Matrix. Tomb Raider is obvious, Angelina is the key. Gone in 60 Seconds because the movie is about an illegal and somewhat immoral trade, and glorifying it. Matrix because of the kinds of things people do with bullets, and how they are visualized. Then there is a pinch of Sin City (graphic violence), and Fight Club (the kind of self-destructive and masochistic fighting going on). There, you have it!
|
|
|
|
| There are two things that come to mind when thinking about this movie: (1) It is FAST! I'd love to rewind and watch some scenes again in slomo. There's just too much happening sometime, and I went like Wait, what was that again? (2) In IMAX, it's probably the best non-chemical LSD experience I can think of! Not that I have experience, but I know people who do, and they described the experience in very similar words: the colors are just magnificent, popping out, and creating this hyper-real universe that is so... interesting! :-)
|
|
|
|
| Juno is one of those movies that I heard about, but was not very much interested in, originally. But the more interviews and reviews I heard or read, the more it got clear that there is no way around this movie. I don't want to give away too much, so here is my comment: In its overall tone, this is a very uplifting movie about teen pregnency. On one side, it is very nice to see a movie that is about making the best out of a bad situation. On the other side, one could insist that in the real world, not everybody is as nice as they are portrayed in this movie. Juno simply kicks ass the way she handles the situation, and certainly could be considered a role model (if she were real), but the movie overall is just incredibly optimistic and positive. Although I love that, personally, it may lead younger viewers into taking teen pregnencay (and avoiding it in the first place) waaay too lightly. In any case, I loved the movie. |
|
|
|
| For people who know me, it is as clear as the sun why I watched this movie on the opening night: my dissertation at MIT was totally based on, or rather, influenced by the trilogy His Dark Materials, of which The Golden Compass is the first book. So, basically 3 or 4 years ago I already knew that I would go see this movie on the opening night... And I was not disappointed. I loved the way the book was transformed into a movie, and thought that the daeomons were shown exactly the way I imagined them. For those who still don't understand: what I did as my dissertation, and what I called Autonomous Interactive Intermediaries, is pretty much the technological equivalent of daemons. I don't want to go into details, just read this blurb, and then a summary of the movie, and you will get it... |
|
|
|
| Well, I may have to explain why we went to see this one: I just like the Arrested Development guy (the most intelligent TV show recently; why did they stop it after only three seasons??). The movie started out boring and totally vulgar, but got more interesting (= less predictable) later on. The SNL guy as a cop was good too (well, I like SNL), and the ending was... well, almost sober and (quote on quote) "optimistic"! But on the other hand, it was a Hollywood movie with a kind of "happy" ending, so, nothing new there. I think this one should be watched on DVD, and does not need to be seen in a movie theatre. All the good stuff (or whatever you want to call that) comes through on a TV screen too, and via Netflix it's cheaper (and more convenient) than a movie theater. (Ok, maybe that's because the Century 10 Plaza in South San Francisco is a totally sad, run down provincial movie theatre. There is no reason to watch any movie there, period.) |
|
|
|
| Well, I think I liked the Potter movies better when the kids were really kids, and the magic was really magic. It was just cuter. This one was much more... serious and dark. In fact, the final show-down looked totally like Star Wars! Lots of light effects from the powers that crashed into each other... Just replace the wands with light sabers, and you know what I mean! |
|
|
|
| OK movie; the problem is that there were no surprises. Everything was so predictable, no unexpected plot twists and turns. Maybe I didn't get the subtleties, or maybe it's simply time to let go of the Ocean stories. |
|
|
|
| Good clean fun. Well, almost clean. But it didn't hurt as much as Borat, for sure! Looks like Jon Heder will get really big. I root for him. |
|
|
|
| Wow, that hurt. I mean it hurt because it was so funny, but still, it hurt. Hard to watch, kinda. I have seen his earlier shows from Da Ali G Show, but still, it hurt. |
|
|
|
| Gondry is a famous director, and this one is even autobiographic, somehow. He is a really strange guy... The main actors are cute in their very own way, although definitively in a strange way. |
|
|
|
| Very niiiice! I love Audrey Tautou, super great actrice. Haven't read the book (was I the only one?), so totally liked the ending. |
|
|
|
| Cool things about this movie: the colors (slightly comic stylish, especially the extreme closeups: just amazing), the architecture (awesome, like Odaiba), Milla Jovovich and her fashion (Jennifer Garner goes Aeon Flux and kills Bill), gravity manipulation device, the music. I didn't get the story, though: what's the purpose of the boy, what's Milla's reason to defend him? And Aeon Flux made more sense. But, c'mon, this movie is about the visuals. |
|
|
|
| I liked that it was a bit darker, more "serious", and less cheesy. On the other side, it was weird how the movie makers tried to make the actors look and act like kids, when they clearly were young adults. I think the plot was very simplistic and linear, like stages in a video game: first challenge, next challenge, etc, until you get the final score. I thought non-linear stories are much more interesting, like the Potter movie where Hermione could time travel, and we saw the same scene from different perspectives. That, and the time paradox that comes with it, made it much richer than the last movie, I think. |
|
|
|
| The design of this movie is stunning: a mix between Matrix and 5th Element (both movies I really like). There's also a bit of Tomb Raider and Underworld in there. The architecture and costumes were really interesting: although the storyline is located 400 years from now, the movie shows probably a more realistic future than Star Trek, which is also located around that time, I believe. I still love Star Trek very much. The story line is IMHO realistic: it is the question if random procreation is better than targeted cloning. I think 400 years from now, this will be a realistic option, and a real dilemma. But I didn't go see this movie for the story: it was the visuals of the preview that made me go, and I don't regret it. |
|
|
|
| Wow, that was a long break! Well, a lot happened since we saw the last movie on the East coast. Now we're on the West coast! The movie: Serenity is the 2-hour movie that came out of Firefly, the super cool TV show that got cancelled after one season. Now, I have to say that I don't really care about the story, or about the characters. I liked the TV show because of the hyper realistic dirty space age visuals, and that's it! In this sense, I didn't have a lot of expectations for the feature film, I just wanted to see more of the same CG stuff. And it was worth it! I liked the outcome. Veeery nice visuals. |
|
|
|
| Kinda weird movie. See, I am Swiss, and I have this special relationship with chocolate. It is weird seeing this whole crazy cult about Willy Wonka and his chocolate, and I, as a chocolate expert, have never heard of it/him before! In any way, Johnny Depp must have been inspired by Michael Jackson or something, being so mega eccentric and strange with kids. And the elevator is cute, but VERY similar to the Hitchhiker elevator. Still cool. The songs after each kid disappeared were kinda predictable after two of them, and having only one guy playing all the little guys felt awfully like an eighties video clip. Kinda. |
|
|
|
| This was a really cool movie. The landscapes were absolutely terrific. The villages and architecutre were charming, a mix between New England houses and Swiss mountain villages. The walking and flying machines totally cute, with all these tiny flapping wings. The story interesting: many of the characters actually reminded me of similar characters in His Dark Materials: good and bad witches, kids who become heroes, loyal pets, inanimate things that can talk, etc. However, I didn't get a few things: What was the relationship between Howl and Calcifer? Sometimes I thought Calcifer is Howl's heart. Then I thought Calcifer is a demon who was tricked into being Howl's slave (and it wants to get out of this deal). Another thing I don't get is the Witch of Wastes: at the beginning I thought she is the bad guy. In the end she was Sophie's senile Grandma!? And Sophie seemed to have the tendency of trying to assemble a family of random origin: a little boy became her younger brother or son (who is he, actually? Howl's son?); then she got herself a husband (kinda), a dog (who works for the really bad guy, turns out at the very very end); a butler (well, scarecrow); and a grandma (who I thought was the reason for the whole problem she got into; I would be mad as hell at her if I'd be Sophie). But other than that: cute!! I probably like it even better than Spirited Away. |
|
|
|
| I think I read the book of the original movie, and very clearly remember the original soundtrack, so the story was not so much of a surprise, especially the ending. I liked the special effects, the performance of Dakota Fanning, and (surprisingly) Tom Cruise's performance. The movie was very frustrating, though, but that's just the story. The tripods and aliens were well made, although they look very much like HR Giger creatures: he will be pissed at Spielberg, since this will be yet another ripoff off of his Alien creature. |
|
|
|
| I know neither the comic nor the radio show nor anything else about it, but the movie was very entertaining. I sometimes had a hard time connecting larger segments to each other, but I am sure that if I'd watch it again (and I might) I will get it. There are so many cute things in this movie, or rather, cute ideas, it's really worth watching. It is kinda like 5th Element mixed with Monty Python. The guide itself reminded me of The Diamond Age's Young Lady's Illustrated Primer, just for grown-ups. Or for earthlings who have no clue about the galaxy. Yeah, I guess that's what it is. |
|
|
|
| This movie gave me a headache. Not sure what to think of it. |
|
|
|
| This was a complicated story, and I still am not sure I understand what was going on. But it was funny. Julia Roberts playing Tess playing Julia Roberts, and then Bruce Willis playing himself... I liked it! |
|
|
|
| Much better than the critics said. I actually liked it: the riddles made is less action-only, and the characters were actually funny--all of them. No real bad guys, at least not throughly; and the two sidekicks of Cage were making the whole story less dead serious. |
|
|
|
| I am not sure why we didn't go see any movies during the last two months: usually, during summer time, there are more interesting movies than during the rest of the year, but we must have been kinda busy lately (actually yes, we were very busy).
Anyway, I didn't have a lot of expectations for Sky Captain. The only thing I knew is that it was shot completely with actors in front of a blue screen, and all background is CG. Kinda like TRON... But I was not too impressed with the beginning of the movie: everything dark, gothic, a very retro environment, nothing special. It felt like a cheap mix between Casablanca and King Kong (well, mechanical King Kongs), and the actors were terribly overacting, like in a bad theater play. The costumes were annoying: the reporter's skirt made her walk like an idiot (until she rips it a bit more open on the side, again, completely overacting), and you couldn't see the Sky Captain's face during the first third (or so) of the movie because of the stupid goggles and scarf. Then there was this sepia semi-color, and every bright object on the screen had this glow, which makes everything fuzzy. I get this sometimes when my contact lenses are dirty... I hate that.
Fortunatley, the movie got suddenly much much more interesting when the airplanes started to dive: that was the sign that this retro past actually differs from our real past! Goood. The actors were still overacting, though. Then the movie got even more interesting with the mobile airstrips: they are so cool! It's the same idea as in Castle in the Skies: something huge hovering as an island in the sky! Wow! Although the story stayed on very predictable paths, the visual's got better: the eden like island finally had colors. I liked the emergency exit of Frankie on the bottom of the ocean, and how she returned to the airstrip above, in this combination of scuba diver and jet pilot outfit. And then there was Dr. Totenkopf's huge assembly hall with all the floating robots. That was very impressive, including the floating pick-up truck (kinda). Very cool. Although the robots (and the rocket ship) still looked like a 12 year old's impression of a robot in the 50s, at least they were hovering. So in the end, it was a good movie with a weak beginning. Oh, and I still can't stand the actors behaving like they're in a play, it's annoying. And yes, the final punch line is lame—but you gotta find out for yourself...
|
|
|
|
| Well, this movie is 'suggested' by Asimov, but it's also 'suggested' by 2001 (HAL), Short Circuit (Number 5), Star Trek (Data), Terminator (Skynet), Minority Report, A.I., Tron, Star Wars, and and and. I am fine with that, though. Will Smith plays himself, and this time he is using a hell a lot of four letter words—and the audience with his ethnicity (of which there were a lot, and I am not surprised about that) audibly liked that! I didn't really like the design of the new robots: they look very iMac-ish with their translucent skin. Why do they need translucent skin again? Anyway, I guess the ultimate point of the movie is that robots need the three laws of Asimov, but if they had a soul, they would probably bypass them. So, at least the movie touches on some of the ethical challenges of artificial life a tiny little bit.
But I would like to add something here: although it seems that the three laws of robotics are simple, if implemented, they would have implications and consequences that are not well known. For example, a robot with the three laws cannot become a soldier (which is good), policeman (not sure about that), or security guard (that's probably not good). But these are the functions that robots will most likely perform first, if they ever get to an acceptable performance level! I mean, think of it, robots are simply more suited as security guards because they do not get bored, tired, distracted, or corrupted. So that's a simple reason why the three laws will not get applied in real life, methinks.
Another problem is that robots with the three laws cannot be owned by somebody specific. I couldn't rely on my robot because other people could give it new orders! In addidion, these orders could be violent, illegal, or immoral. Violent ones could be avoided easily, illegal ones probably too, but not anytime soon, but immoral ones are very tricky to detect: it pretty much will require ethically aware robots! (I am working on that, actually, since it is VERY important.)
Having to follow anybody's orders is also bad in a very practical sense. For example, if I buy an android, you can come and tell my android to follow you, and pretty much hijack or steal it from me. That's not good, especially if the android cost me a lot. Or it is actually VERY good, since it seems that nobody can own robots, since they belong to human mankind as a whole! Tricky, but good if one is convinced that they are a higher life form: nobody can own other higher life forms—we don't have slaves anymore. Good.
The laws also don't allow a robot to defend itself, especially against android hating people. Even if we assume that nobody can own a robot (because they serve all human mankind), I still might have a personal emotional relationship with it, and it would hurt me a lot if it was destroyed! Therefore, it should be allowed to defend itself—but that's tricky.
But there are also simple and practical problems with the three laws (and the movie refers to one): sometimes, both a robot's actions and inactions can cause harm to humans, for example when two humans are fighting each other, and an android is trying to stop them. So, these laws are not specific enough.
In the end, I think that the three laws actually get obsolete if the robots had a good dose of common sense and ethical awareness. I know the scientists who are working on the former (which is very hard), but not really on the latter (yet). Except me. I do.
|
|
|
|
| Pardon my French, but that was crap! The actors were bad: both Dunst and Maguire are just not made for their roles. Maguire is just a kid, and whenever Spider Man shows up, he suddenly has twice as much muscle as before! And he still looks like a computer generated thing. Period. And Dunst as scream queen is just bad. Everybody tells me that she was a good actrice when she was young (or as a kid), but I am sorry, these days she is bad, just not believable. And the monster: come on, Inspector Gadget was better than that! And drowing a little sun in a river?? I dunno what to say about that. And then the nemesis story, the son of the guy that Spidy killed in the last movie: it is absolutely baaad! I can't take the actor seriously, nor his motive to kill Spidy. Why would anybody wanna watch such a bad movie? Whatever. |
|
|
|
| I think I have mentioned before that I like Vin Diesel. But there is something wrong with this movie. I can't put my finger on it, but at least in the first third the acting was really aweful (and I am not talking about Vin: I never expected him to act, actually...) Well, the acting got much better in the second half of the movie, especially the bad guys were really well done. But there is something wrong with the timing of the story: sometimes it was too slow (no content, it seemed like; why is this shot in there??, etc), and sometimes too fast (huh, what was that about again? everybody dead already??) Perhaps it is better to watch this movie as DVD, where one can go back and fast forward if necessary. And, yeah, the story is pretty shaky, to say at least. Actually, the story is not bad, but it is told in a shaky way. Sometimes it felt like one of those cheap TV movies on the SciFi channel (which—I admit—I am familiar with only too well...) BUT: Vin Diesel looks good, the special effects are very good, the sets and the costumes are phantastic. Hmm, actually, the costumes are very much Greek inspired, just without the naked butts! But the helmets and the body armor could be from Troy! :-) Anyway, there are lots of reasons to watch this movie, but I wish they had fixed the obvious problems. I am sure this is not going to be a big commercial success for Vin—not because of him, but because somebody else screwed up, somehow. Too bad, this could have become a classic! |
|
|
|
| It was better than I expected. Man, these kids are not kids anymore! I wonder how they will continue. I mean, according to the book, they just got one year older, but they ain't kids anymore already. Other than that: yeah, the werewolf was cartooney, but I guess that's how it was supposed to be, since he is actually not the bad guy. Hmm, the bad guy didn't look too bad either, especially as a rat. Anyway, nothing too fancy, but well done. |
|
|
|
| I think I have read parts of the Illiad, but I actually didn't recognize many characters or events (beside the Trojan horse, of course). But I liked one thing specifically: I liked the way Brad Pitt looks. I mean I know him, I know how he looks normally, so he must have worked out for half a year, and be under a very strict diet to look like he does in the movie. Perhaps he even took steroids? It's also the hair and makeup, and of course all the Spaghetti Western style hyper closeups that make him look fantastic. Well done! Well, for Brad Pitt it was his job to look good, and for the dozens of millions dollars he gets for this role he better prepare well for playing the greatest warrior alive! Now I really wonder how much of the story is fictional, and how much is based on real events. Probably pretty hard to find out 3200 years after the events supposedly happened! |
|
|
|
| Very nice movie. I liked both Hugh Jackman and Kate Beckinsale (I liked her in this movie much much better than in Pearl Harbor). Great special effects, nice monsters and vampires, all very stylish. Really cool movie, very designed.
|
|
|
|
| Yes, this was a good movie. Although it was long, I didn't get bored. BUT. Hmm. There was something mechanic about it. All the segments of the movie made PERFECT sense: in order to get out of the grave, she had to have this special capability, which explained the chinese martial arts segment. In order to kill Bill (is he really dead?), she had to have this special capability, and of course Bill told her about it and even enabled her to learn it, etc. Just everything made perfect sense! All the questions got answered! Yes, she ran away, and he overreacted! And yes, since they are all liers, they used a truth serum. Duh! So, the puzzle was put together, perfectly. That's it? Ok, I am happy that there was not so much violence in the sequel than in the first one. The first one was just gross. Ok, there was a little violence in this one, and there were surprising elements in there, but not a lot. Perhaps it's just me, but I am not a fan of sequels that just explain all the mysteries of the earlier movie. Why didn't Quentin add some more mysteries? That would have been easy! And it would also explain better a third installment (which I heard will come). And since last week, I have this additional serious problem with Quentin: why does he like American Idol so much? He was guest judge, and it really sounded like he was following all shows closely since he knew the history of each participant! Doesn't he have more important things to do that watch American Idol? I am doing this, consistently, but I am not the guy who brought us Pulp Fiction! Quetin being an American Idol fan makes him a normal person, somewhat uncool. Shouldn't he live in a castle in dark rainy Scotland, thinking about his next Oscar winning deeep deeep epic movie trilogy? Anyway, he can watch whatever he wants, but it doesn't make his movies any better. Hmm. Oh, one last gripe: if a heart explodes, I want to see an explosion, ok? Especially if it is the climax of a movie! I EXPECT that from such a movie, even if a
heart can't really explode in realy life (I think), I want to see the explosion! They didn't talk about an implosion, but explosion! He could have done it with a greenish flame or something else funky, but not just omit the whole fun, ok?
|
|
|
|
| Not sure what to write about this one. Ben Stiller was funny, but I think I liked Zoolander better. But I also have not seen one episode of the Starsky and Hutch TV show. Might have made the movie funnier, or perhaps not. I am seeing so few movies these day, this is the first one this year! How come? Are there no cool Sci-Fi or Fantasy movies out there? What's happening, Hollywood??
|
|
|
|
| That's a looong movie, man! I was getting uncomfortable after 2 and a half hours, and Frodo was still hesitating with this friggin' ring! I guess I just don't understand the whole story well enough. I have lots and lots of questions, and I don't feel like reading the books. What happened to the other wizard, one of the major bad guys from the other movies? Why was the steward so bad, wasn't he supposed to be one of the good guys? Why does the Evil Eye need this little ring so bad? Or the other way round: why does the evil empire crash when the ring gets melted? What is it with this ring, why does it make people corrupt? Why did Frodo have to leave at the end? Because he has been wearing the ring? I guess there are answers for all those questions, but I don't really care. Again, as with the first and second movie, the landscapes and the architecture were AMAZING, and the massive battle scenes absolutely impressive. These things by themselves made it worth watching this movie for me. Good movie.
|
|
|
|
| It's a good third movie, I think. Nothing beats all the surprises and firsts (bullet time, pseudo zen philosphy, etc.) in the the first movie, but this one is still a good third movie. The people who know me will be able to predict my favorite thing: the APUs (Armored Personal Units), the exoskeletons that are used by the Zion soldiers to fight. Although I really didn't like the hardcore fighting-to-death scenes (reminded me of Starship Poopers), I liked these cute exoskeletons. They reminded me a lot of the loading robot that Sigourney Weaver was using in Aliens! And the end of the movie: well, I guess it was a good solution. I don't wanna spoil it, but think it was an appropriate ending.
|
|
|
|
| The question is: is it worth watching an excellent movie if this movie is making me feel uncomfortable? What if the actual goal of such an excellent movie is to make me feel uncomfortable, because of its incredible violence? Good questions. I asked myself the same ones when I was watching Pulp Fiction. And I am asking them again after Kill Bill 1. Will I watch the sequel? Probably. Will it be a good movie? Pretty sure. Will I enjoy sitting in the movie theatre? Not sure.
|
|
|
|
| Well, she certainly looked cool in her silver body suit—I mean, hot, of course! :-) No question about that. And some scenes were really nice—like the birdman stuff, and the sunset love scene. But it is no accident that my partner yawned all the time during the movie. There was something wrong with the timing, at least in the first half of the movie: it sorta seemed slow. It became much better in the second half, though. The fact that Til Schweiger had a role in this movie was interesting—but I still liked him better in German TV as a dorky detective: he was really funny there! Anyway, I like James Bond movies, and this one was like a female James Bond—so I liked it! I know I know, I am a simple person...
|
|
|
|
| Although Depp looked somewhat gay (or rather, metrosexual?), he was really funny! I liked his acting, it was really good. Perhaps it's because he put a little bit of Rolling Stones' Keith Richards into the character? Pirates as rock stars... yup, makes sense, sorta! And the girl looks like a mix between Natalie Portman, Winona Ryder, and Kate Winslet. Really! And to all the people who left during the final credits: you guys missed the real end!! :-)
|
|
|
|
| Wow, there are so many movies out there that this one borrows from: first of all, X-Men, of course. Very clearly. Then Hulk—Mr. Hyde is a really bad looking Hulk, and the other guy, later on in the movie, even worse. Nevertheless, the idea of Hulk is identical. Then the Vampiress—can't remember which movie it is, but there is a very similar story. Nemo's car is identical to Batmobile, just white instead of black. And so on, and so forth. Sean Connery is cool, as always—even as a 73 year old ex-Bond. Well, he's probably more of an Indiana Jones, but we already know him in this role, too (well, his father). The people who are part of the League are sorta strange: Tom Sawyer?? Dr. Jekyll?? Mr. Moriarity??? And Nemo as an Indian/Pakistani pirate? Rather exotic, but, well, it keeps it interesting... The technology they have is also cool—Victorian and analog, but cool. And of course I liked the gigantic submarine...The story was ok, and I liked the decor, the settings, and the locations. Rather unusual. I would say it was fun!
|
|
|
|
| Perhaps it is just too long ago, but I am starting to loose track of who sent back whom why. This whole business of messing with the time line very rarely works anyway, and it certainly does not make a lot of sense in this movie. Anyway, the special effects are good, especially the car stunts, the Terminatrix cool, Arnold funny (I liked his first sunglasses—but why does he need sunglasses anyway?), and the ending surprisingly surprising. Oh, yeah, and I liked the cute hoverdrone! From the first two movies, I always thought that these guys must be huge—but then they turn out to be tiny, indoor thingies! Or are they supposed to grow or what? Well, come to think of it, the robots don't really make sense anyway. Why the heck would someone have hundreds of tank like robocop robots stashed away somewhere, just waiting to turn them on? Well, that solves the bootstrap problem: how were the first robots built, etc. Not too bad, this movie, but also not too spectacular, after all the Matrices.
|
|
|
|
| The stunts are really cool. All of them. But the director did something weird with the colors: it's kinda oversaturated, and some scenes look like soft rotoscoping (painted over), especially the motocross stuff. Anyway, interestingly, I don't find neither Drew Barrymore nor Cameron Diaz really attractive in real life, but they look pretty cool in this movie! Demi Moore starts to look old in the face (ONLY in the face!), but that's ok, she is over 40 now. Oh, the story. I had a hard time following what's going on, but that is irrelevant. The scenes are fascinating in themselves, no story needed! ;-) There seem to be a lot of continuity between the first and second movie, I am told, but although I have seen the first one, I hardly remember anything about it. I am sure the same will happen to me with the second one... But that's ok, I had fun anyway!
|
|
|
|
| Is Hulk just a ticked-over Shrek? Actually, in the close-ups, he looks much much better. The facial expressions were pretty good—and of course it helped that Hulk did not have to speak (with one exception). The ending, with his father, might seem a bit over the top. Actually, no, it's good. The very ending however, was a bit cheesy. Why would he do that? Anyway, much better than I expected, but I still look forward to the coming summer blockbusters, Charlie's Angels II, Lara Croft, Johnny English, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and all the others. A footnote: this is the second big movie where Media Lab PhD John Underkoffler had the role of science and technology advisor: that in itself would be a reason to watch the movie!
|
|
|
|
| Better than I expected. Really. I liked The Mask and The Grinch, but this one's actually deeper... No, really. I think this movie is about responsibility—can you handle it? It does not have to be all the way, being Almighty. But even if you, e.g., 'just' plan on becoming a parent: are you ready? Can you handle the responsibility? As I said, deep. Weeeell, perhaps not "deep deep", but still... And no, this movie is neither about Christianity nor God. No, it isn't.
|
|
|
|
| My favorite scene was the two trucks crashing into each other, and how Neo flying low through the city peeled the facades off of the buildings and lifted cars off the street... cool! Story wise, I am not sure if I followed. The first one was easier. I think my interpretation is that, eventually, there will be not just the real world and the matrix, but that the real world itself is another matrix, embedded in another real world, etc—like a stack of matrices on top of each other! Or even more complex: that it is not a hierarchical stack, but a circular one, so that if you unplug yourself often enough, you get to the first matrix again... But I am not complaining: that was a really entertaining movie, and I might go watch it again, possibly in an IMAX theater! :-)
|
|
|
|
| The first of the summer blockbusters—finally! I haven't seen a lot of movies recently, but I hope it is getting better now! I liked X2, with all these 'special' people... However, I am pretty confused about some characters. First, there is William Ryker—sorry William Stryker... (I know this one's not Picard's Number One, but it REALLY sounds similar when Patrick Stewart is pronouncing it...): where does this guy suddenly come from?? And Magneto and Mystique: are they good or bad? Not sure. Perhaps it's like in real, nobody is throughout bad or good, everybody is gray. Either light gray, or dark gray... And another thing: if Wolverine is 'made' as a result of an experiment, he is not really a mutant, is he? Well well, I guess I should read some background literature about that whole stuff—or not, and just enjoy the movie and not think too much. And yeah, Wolverine is cool. And we will see him again—it couldn't be more obvious that there will be an X3, since Magneto and Mystique flew away—with Pyro, who might have switched sides since he got cooled down so bad from Rogue via his ankles during his fire devil presentation...
|
|
|
|
| The plot of this movie is soo far out, I don't even know where to start: driving (sliding? cruising?) with 130MPH through x-thousand degrees farenheit hot lava with a pressure of x-thousand PSI, a few thousand miles down in the earth? What kinda material comes even remotely close to withstand such environments? The movie appears to be situated in our time—and perhaps that's the main problem with it. Would they have situated it in, say, 2050, then a lot of the fancy technology would be more 'explainable'. Anyway, surprisingly, the characters are well drawn, the acting is so far ok, the lines are not too stoopid (except perhaps the hacker archetype—could he be geekier? Don't think so). This movie appears to me like a mix between Matrix (the inside of the ship), Armageddon (the ride, the catastrophies), a bit of Contact (the fancy technology we don't know where it comes from), a cheap Disney underwater movie, and a themepark ride of Tokyo Disney Sea (hard to explain—the ones who have been there will understand). But then again: we have been in space, under water—but never deep inside our planet earth (with a few Disney exceptions, again), so, technically speaking, we have no clue what would expect us there... Before I forget: this movie is worth watching in a theatre with a good sound system—it helps a bit to overcome the thin plot.
|
|
|
|
| So, let's see: What'c cool about this movie? Well, for the girls, there is Ben Affleck, and for the boys, there is Jennifer Garner. Anything else? Not really: there are no gadgets, Daredevil doesn't have any 'real' superpowers—sorta lame. It's like, they started with Superman, then Batman, then Spiderman, then they were running out of cool super heroes. Each of them has less gadgets, and is less astonishing. And the next thing will be Hulk—just a big guy. Sigh. In summary: I expected a bit more. Perhaps I should stay with X-Men, James Bond, and Alias! The funniest scene was when Daredevil and Elektra were fighting in the park—that was cute! P.S.: I liked Bullseye better than Daredevil. P.P.S.: Most important finding: in this movie, Jennifer Garner looks like the sister of Conan the Barbarian!! Really, she does! :-) |
|
|
|
| Yeah, that was fun. It's actually amazing, since I don't like gory battles, and the second half of the movie was almost exclusively about a battle. But I was way to impressed with the animation to be grossed out by the battle. (Actually, I can hardly recall any blood.) The second thing that was impressive was, of course, Gollum. Looks like a new chapter in motion capture technology! I still haven't read any of the books, so I guess I am missing a lot the whole story and background of the main characters, but that doesn't really matter. Cinematographically, there is enough there to make this an entertaining 3-hour movie. |
|
|
|
| I watch Star Trek Next Generation A LOT. And I think I got influenced in my daily life, both professional and personal, a lot. Don't get me started on how and why—it just does. So, whatever the critics say about Star Trek Nemesis, I just love it. It has all the ingredients that are important to me: cool space ship views, nicely organized starship crew, a Captain that is charismatic and can THINK, and at the same time has an ethical consciousness that is worth the technology he commands. I don't think this was the best Star Trek movie, but who cares. It is WAY worth the 9 bucks we paid each. Really. Trust me. |
|
|
|
| Well, OK, I have mentioned many times already that I like James Bond movies. And I indeed like this one, too. There were a few things that were distracting, though: I don't like the fact that Bond is tortured for an extended amount of time. That is not very James Bond. He couldn't escape for 14 months? Come on! And then, I don't like that his employers gave up on him. That's so not James Bond! And some of the gadgets were not really cool, like the mirror in space, and the invisible car. Just not very fancy, I think. And why the heck had the bad guy on the frozen lake suddenly a car with the same features as Bond, like rockets, or missiles, or whatever? What I liked, however, is that Halle Berry had such an extended role. That gave the movie a nice balance. Actually, she was almost better than Brosnan! So I am not surprised to hear that her character will be spun off into a movie of its own. Cool! |
|
|
|
| So the new Harry Potter is the first a of bunch of cool movies this November and December. And like a year ago, I didn't get all the details, partially because I have a hard time with British English (I wondery why, since I was taught it during my first years), part because I have not read any of the books. I would guess that would help. Anyway, like last year, I like all the floating and flying things, but that's just me. In general: that's just a neat movie! For a movie maker, having the possibility to make wizardry the center of action is soo cool: everything can happen (rubber arms...), but everything is fixable (petrification)!! I like it. |
|
|
|
| Wow, that is the first movie in almost two months!! The summer was crazy, EVERY weekend a new block buster—and then from August on, nothing. I am looking forward to Harry Potter, The Matrix, Lord of the Rings, etc. Oh right, the movie. It was nice. What else was there? Not as fancy as Muriel's Wedding, but also about a wedding (duh!). Nothing spectacular, but entertaining. I wonder if all these Greek stereotypes are made up or true. Oh, and I didn't know that Fatone (the Fat One of Insync) is Greek. NOT! |
|
|
|
| So, I like Vin Diesel. As I mentioned earlier, he looks like a young Adriano Celentano (in case you don't know: the most famous Italian comedian). Is that the reason why his female partner looks like a young Gianna Nannini (in case you don't know: the most famous Italian rock star)? I know that many people like Asia Argento, but I think there are many much more beautiful Italian actresses, like for example Monica Bellucci. Perhaps the director liked Asia's beautifully wasted Euro kid look—just not my taste. And man, I like stunts, but some of the ones in Triple X are just over the top. Sometimes they are just plain silly, like the the extreme motorcyle jumps, or the heatseeking missile to take out a cigarette smoking guy. I really like stunts, but they have to make sense a little, please. I don't think Vin is a good actor (although dimensions better than Arnold Schwarzenegger)—I just can't take the things seriously he says and does. Another thing I don't get is that the guys from Anarchy 99 are his enemies, then his friends, and then his enemies again. The fact that most of them behave super silly doesn't make it better. BTW, in case you have the habit of walking out of the movie right when the final credits start: don't, because the animation underneath the final credits are really cool! Perhaps I couldn't really enjoy the movie because I knew about the death of Harry O'Connor III, a stuntman who died during shooting the key para-sailing scene at the very end. Such knowledge certainly prohibits enjoying guilty (but cheap) pleasure like Triple X.
|
|
|
|
| Ok, this movie is not about signs, and it is not about crop circles. Perhaps you can say that it is about an alien invasion, but it is actually more about the main character's struggle to believe (or not) in God. Now that we have this out of the way, let’s move on to the fun stuff. The thing I really liked about this movie is that it is a Hollywood movie with an alien invasion, but there are absolutely no star fighters, no cool looking spaceships (except a few dim lights), no weapons (not even guns or rifles), there is no army or secret agents saving us—in fact, there is no technology at all in this movie! (Except a common Baby Monitor, which is an interesting issue in itself.) Impressive—I really mean it! On the other hand, the knowledge that the little boy had about aliens and alien invasion scenarios is up to date, amazingly realistic, and couldn't be further away from a Star Wars or even Star Trek perspective of aliens (although I like both of them much better than the "realistic" view of aliens.) Although you will get to see aliens (which are pretty scary looking monsters, I must admit), the movie as a whole was not as scary as I thought. (Note: I can't watch scary movies, in general. I had no problems as a teenager, but I am probably getting more and more sensitive... Bummer!) Still, what scared me most were all the people screaming right behind my seat!! They behaved as if they would expect to be scared ANY SECOND, which probably made them jumpy, and then the SCREAMED into my ears at the slightest occasion—even if it was not really scary... I guess that's why we go to the movies, right? Anyway, I also like the actors, umm, in fact the only important thing in this movie. They were good, IMHO, especially the children. The only actor who was not very convincing was the director—just be writer and director, that's ok, and leave the acting to the pros! I don't really care about the ending of the movie, as many other people do, and seem to be disappointed
with it. I was not disappointed. I think it is a somewhat possible ending, over all. Of course I KNOW that if aliens, against all odds, have the capabilities to visit us from outer space, they would also foresee the problems they could encounter, and be prepared for it. But then again, our whole knowledge of why aliens would want to visit us in the first place, what technology has to be available to do interstellar travel, etc, is not very water proof... |
|
|
|
| What a cool movie, yeah baby yeah! It's difficult to say exactly why without placing spoilers all over, but I certainly liked the opening scenes a lot, with all the cameos. How much did all these actors get for their short appearances? I think Goldmember is a good example for the third movie of a trilogy where the last movie doesn't suck compared to the other two ones: I actually think it is at least on the same level as the other ones. But then again, I like James Bond movies and comedies, so Austin Powers is the perfect combination for me. I am still surprised though how Mike Myers can get away with insulting so many different countries and minorities: I think this must be a borderline case for a US movie—it certainly would not be too extreme for a British comedy, so I personally have no problem with it. But how about the Dutch, the Scottish, the Belgians, the vertically challenged people, and the fat bastards? Anyway, I liked it. |
|
|
|
| I guess I just expected too much. The story was nothing more than the original MIB, the effects were not better than the original MIB, and the original MIB had more surprises. Although I WANT to like this movie, it seems flat to me, somehow. But I can't explain exactly why. |
|
|
|
There are two things about this movie: (1) Technology, (2) Content. The technology Spielberg shows us is great—I like it! I like the cars, climbing up the house walls; I like the spiders that have swarm intelligence (and are a way less intrusive way to identify people than arresting them); I like the rocket belts, the helicopters, even the annoyingly animated cereal box! But I ESPECIALLY like the computer user interface: manipulating data streams like a conductor! Of course we will all have to learn all these gestures etc, but that looks like fun. To the second point, content. That's not so simple. There are many things I have problems with—and I don't mean things like precognition, something which IMHO is very unlikely to exist in the way it is described. I mean that this society is keeping specially gifted humans like in prison to serve the community—the precogs are human, aren't they? But the main problem with the content of this movie is that I think there are better ways to influence the course of present action if you know the future. Why does somebody have to be accused of a crime if you simply can prevent it? Why do these cops just inform the wife that if she continues to cheat on her husband, she might get killed? Won't that change the course of things enough so that the murder will not happen in the first place? Ok, there are some die-hard criminals who just can't help killing, but that is not the majority of all crimes. And why are all the accused sent to this strange prison where they are put in a state of life suspension? Isn't that a bit harsh as a punishment for a crime that never happened? In any case, I believe that we always have a choice, so if we knew about the future, we could change it. And that's enough to doubt a system like Spielberg describes in Minority Report. P.S.: And yes, I agree that Tom Cruise did a very good acting job in this movie. P.P.S.: I liked the movie a lot!
Addendum: I just found out (here and here) that our very own John Underkoffler has consulted with director Steven Spielberg on the film's futuristic details. That's why some of the gadgets look so Medialabbish!! And congrats, John, I like what you told Steven.
|
|
|
|
| Now Matt Damon is a better CIA agent than Ben Affleck! He can look really bad and dangerous! The movie itself is not something new, but the actors make it up. Although she is by far not as cool as Lola in Lola rennt, I liked Franka Potente, though: she doesn't look like a model, but like a serious actress, and that's good so. Actually, on stills she looks very good, almost like Sophie Marceau (and we all know that she is hyper jolie...) It's cool that her English is good enough for Hollywood, and she still is allowed to swear in German, meaning, it is still clear that her character is allowed to be German. In general, it is a rather European movie, most of the outdoor shots were done in Europe. Matt is trying really hard to speak French, German, and other unusal languages, and he's doing an ok job. Just a detail: the Swiss cops in Zurich were not 100% convincing, one was native, the other one certainly not! But who cares, beside the Swiss German population no one will ever notice... And of course I like Franka's hair color in the first part of the movie... :-)
|
|
|
|
| The movie is better than the critics tell us. Ok, Ben Affleck seems to be too soft to be credible, somehow. But then again, that could be part of the idea behind his character. And in the same way Ben Affleck is too soft, the spy, John Clark, is too 007, too James Bond: he is everywhere, desert or ice, can talk all languages, kills everybody who gets in his way. Also not very credible. But the thing that I really don't like in this movie is that the horror of a nuclear bomb detonation is not made clear enough, i.e., there is no radiation sickness, there is nothing about a decade-long quarantine of the area around the blast, etc. There is a BIG difference between traditional weapons and nuclear ones—and it is a not just a quantitative difference. Oh well. And then, at the end, getting rid of the terrorists takes just a few minutes. Hmm, that looked TOO simple, even for a Hollywood movie, given that in real life the US military elite are chasing after a few men for many months now. Actually, that seems to be the hard part nowadays, finding the guys who are responsible. But it's a Hollywood movie, and pre-Sept 11, so that's ok. Unfortunately, real life has caught up quite a bit to this movie. :-( |
|
|
|
| This is one of these movies that is so famous that I don't know what to write about. All things have been said/written already. Well, I guess I just have to focus on my own experience. First of all, I saw it in digital projection—the first time I saw a digital projection. I thought that would mean it's better than analog, right? But I saw pixels, and jagged fonts, like on common computer monitors! I am not sure if that's better than the less stable and less bright picture of a normal projection. Anyways. Another thing that was strange was the end. After the credits were done, at the very end, the credits started all over again! An encore of the credits! Or was this a bug of the digital projection? Or a new trend? And finally: Padme's eyes are amazing. The color is very... unique. I tried to find out what's the name of her eye color, and did a web search. It's crazy, there's a gazillion Natalie Portman fan sites—and I still don't know the name of the color of her eyes... |
|
|
|
| This is such a Hollywood movie! A big dose of super hero, a table spoon of scream queen, several spoons of villain here, a little bit of mystery there, and of course the perfect connectors to a sequel. And a tiny tea spoon of morale: When you have power(s), you have responsabilities. Nothing more and nothing less. Europe won't like this movie—it's just too shallow, too American. I am not sure what to think of it: I liked Batman better, including the villains and the girls—nothing beats Michelle Pfeiffer in this role! Speaking of female companions: Kirsten Dunst is certainly a nice person, but she is soo normal looking. I know, I know, it's the current fashion trend, and she indeed looks somehow like a second class American Eagle Outfitters or Abercrombie & Fitch model, but not really all the way. Or am I missing something? Right, she was an excellent actress as a child. But does that really count now? And why does she look so much like a German teenager? Perhaps I am influenced by her German name. And when I saw Tobey the first time, his smile looked so familiar to me. It took me about an hour to figure it out: he must be the little brother of Brent Spiner, courtesy of Star Trek NG's Lieutenant Commander Data! It is true, they both have the same smile!! And the transformation of human to insect was better in The Fly. Okay, spiders are not insects, but arachnids, who cares. They both would stick to walls and ceilings. Whatever... |
|
|
|
| I didn't expect anything, and that was good. Since I didn't expect anything, the experience was pretty good. I don't think it is an above average movie, but I guess it's an OK movie. One of the reasons why I am not particularly enthousiastic is because Angelina just looks artificial in this movie: her blonde hair looks artificial, her lips look artificial, etc. It just looks somehow fake. Whatever, I think the ending is surprising, and that's at least worth something. |
|
|
|
There are two sides to this movie: first, it is very nicely done. It is in the style of classical Disney animations: great body language, slapstick, etc., but it is rendered much more realistically than any animation movie of the "old" style. Second, I had a problem that bothered me most of the time when watching this movie. It is about emotionalizing wild animals. I felt rather uncomfortable when thinking about these animals, their natural behavior, and how they are anthropomorphized, or rather, emotionalized. Basically, the saber tooth tiger has no choice but to kill a mammoth, if it can, because the predator will die if it doesn't kill they prey. That is OK with me as long as I don't attribute human emotions to such a destiny. The saber tooth tiger does not mean it personally when it kills prey—it just has to do so to survive. (The movie actually adds revenge as a motive.) Such an animal in real life does not have the option of friendship, if it comes to life and death. Basically, it kills or it gets killed, one way or the other. This is true for every species, except humans. (And it is true for humans in extreme situations, like war, but that's another issue.) So if we attribute human emotions to animals that just try to survive, and we find out what they actually can do or are not able NOT to do, it will inevitably end in a tragedy. Now, why does this not bother me with other animated movies? The difference is that Ice Age actually depicts a lot of the animal's movements, habits, and even drives much more realistically than other movies. Furthermore, the whole movie is based on a story of friendship that bridges species, against all drives, instincts, and needs. This friendship is not just a byproduct, it is the main issue in this movie! One could say that not all characters are modeled after real animals. That is true, but we know from the Rhinogradentia that emotionally, for humans it doesn't matter if the species indeed exists, as long as it's appearance and behavior is described consistently—as long as it is believable. The creatures in Ice Age are pretty believable. In this case, we are willing to believe, and are willing to attribute human emotion, including drama. And going even further, it doesn't even matter if we know that this character is just a fantasy creation, as long as it is described in a believable way. We make it real, in our minds. Terrel Miedaner gives a good example in his short story The Soul of the Mark III Beast (in chapter 7 of Douglas R. Hofstaedter and Daniel C. Dennett (1981) The Mind’s I. If you want to know more about that, read my comments on it here. You have to skip to page 36 of this 78-page document, though.)
So, watch out: this movie is cruel. What I want to say: be careful, you cannot be empathetic with the main characters without potentially getting "hurt." Wild life is cruel, if we like it or not. As long as we rationalize it as adults, that's OK, but children do not do that. A good example is the parallel story line of the small rodent that tries to safe a single acorn, throughout the whole movie. Its story is a tragedy! The poor animal just wants to survive, and surviving in the Ice Age is very hard! It looses the acorn so many times, gets trampled on by bigger animals, etc. Funny! I can laugh about it (sorta), but I am not sure if I want to expose little children to that, until they have developed a certain immunity to the potential tragedy of life. The film makers probably knew that too and felt bad about it, so they added the ending with the cryogenically preserved rodent that finds a super nut after 20,0000 years, on a paradise island. So it eventually gets its nut and is happy—just to cause another catastrophic natural disaster. Life is a tragedy, as I have said, and we can laugh about it. Or, at least, we should. I am not sure if I can, though, my laughter got stuck in my throat, somehow. And perhaps I am taking this all too seriously...
|
|
|
|
| Wow, time travel—I like that! It's so cool to see what will be in 50 years, 100 years, or even 1000 years! One of the reasons I like Star Trek is to see what the film makers think we will have in the future, what technologies, but also how human societies will have evolved, etc. So when I heard that The Time Machine would go 800,000 years (eight hundred thousand!!!) into the future, it almost blew my mind! Then I saw it. The thing I liked best was the time lapse photography. That was really cool. And the exploding/exploded moon. Then, let's see... That's actually about it! All the rest was either unclear, confusing, silly, stupid, or just didn't make sense. I know, the time paradox is a difficult issue, but even the Back To The Future trilogy did a really good job compared to The Time Machine! It just doesn't make sense what is going on in this movie. If I understand correctly, the main thing Alex learned is that although you can travel into the past, you can't change it, so you better find the right future for yourself. That's it. I think I don't want to go into details about what is not working in this movie. It's just: they spend about one million man hours on such a flick—one man working a million hours, or 1000 man working 1000 hours. That's a big investment! And the photography is indeed nice—they probably spent weeks and weeks on just a few seconds of footage, adding effects, compositing, etc. Why the heck can't the film studios make sure that the story is on the same perfection level as the photography? It just takes one good author to write a consistent and deep story, and many sci-fi shows can do it (for example, again, Star Trek Next Generation). Why not finding a consistent and deep story for a big investment like such a big movie? |
|
|
|
| I am glad this was not a horror movie—I am scared of horror movies (I guess I am just getting too old...) Instead, it was a soap opera like insight into the daily (or rather, nightly) troubles of vampires. Nothing mystic, just about all the ups and downs of these immortals. And it doesn't really matter that they are not really immortal eventually, and that many other things don't make sense. It is an aesthetically nice movie, including the main actors. Lestat looks like Brandon Lee, and Aaliyah is just perfect for her role as an almost omnipotent queen of the dead. Interestingly, they both have a very high level of androgyny: Lestat has a very feminine side, and Aaliyah a masculine side—but not too much, of course. It is also somehow like a long music video, and I don't mean that in a negative sense. Music is important in Lestat's life, and this makes a lot of sense: being part of a hardcore band on tour, getting up in the evenings and falling back into the tour bus bunks (coffins...) in the mornings—such a life could indeed make one feel like a vampire, I can tell from my own experience. With a little help of drugs, this effect really could kick in (and there I do not have experience myself). Levitating, being invulnerable, and especially being something better than the common mortals—doesn't that sound like some rock stars probably must feel like? But all that stuff is harmless, filmed nicely with cool photoshop effects: although there are dead people and killings, none look really real. It's just like Buffy—not scary, but entertaining, and we watch it for the FX anyways. In summary, despite the stoopid title, a very aesthetic experience, and the fact that the stunningly beautiful Aaliyah just died in a plane crash makes it a bit creepier. And even if the movie does not make a lot of sense story wise, I don’t care. I am glad that Aaliyah was able to finish it: it's a very pleasant way to remember her. BTW, don’t try this at home—I mean, the m
ovie looses a lot i
f you don’t have a stadium strength sound system. The hardcore soundtrack needs high quality and high volume speakers. That was the case in Fenway’s auditorium 12, a very pleasant experience. |
|
|
|
| This movie is based on the liberating feeling of revenge. I am not sure if this is a good reason for feeling good, but since this is Hollywood, what do you expect. Good has to prevail over Bad, so if somebody is in a horrible prison for 13 years, innocenty, then some bad guys have to suffer afterwards to compensate for that. It is somewhat predictable. If you like this movie, you should see Papillon. I think it is going much more under the skin (not that I like that...). Oh, the best scene of the movie was the way the Count arrived at the castle... My style! |
|
|
|
| The narrative style of this movie is fascinating: since it's probably how I would approach a comedy if I would ever make one, I liked it. It's like somebody literally telling the story of this family, in separate chapters, illustrated with moving pictures, very short scenes (at least in the beginning). Interestingly, the movie's funny elements are not on the surface, but somewhat hidden. There are no superficial slapstick elements, but all in all, eventually it comes across as a really dry comedy. And I mean that in a positive sense. But don't expect too much depth: the motivation for the behavior of the characters is not deep. The only deep thing could be how correct the movie describes an american middleclass family (except for the prodigy children, of course). |
|
|
|
| This is one of the many movies where the audience realizes halfway through the movie that not all the things the main character sees and does are real (Fight Club, Sixth Sense, etc.) I don't particularly like Russell Crowe, I just can't connect with him, and this is a one-man show, so, I am not sure what to say. OK, he is a good actor, and it's great that a person who classifies as "crazy" (whatever this means) still can get a Nobel prize. But there is something missing, something that makes this movie not as emotional as it could be. Oh, I see: there are no bad guys. It's nobody's fault! There is no real conflict, it's just bad luck that this guy sees things that do not exist: the drama exists mainly within this person's head. |
|
|
|
| What I like about this movie: the landscapes, the architecture, Gandalf. The landscapes are not all computer generated, so New Zealand must be really beautiful (note to myself: visit New Zealand). The architecture is extremely fancyful, I like that. Gandalf... hmm, I thought he was the strongest character by far: old, but still strong and agile, radiating an incredible wisdom and goodness. All the close-up shots intensify that. The way he uses his magic is much more sophisticated than, e.g., the magicians in Harry Potter. What I don't like about this movie: the stupid monsters: why are they all looking like creatures from a video game? Why are they all so dumb? I also don't like that the movie ends in the middle of the story. That's ok with TV shows when the next episode will be aired next week—but I don't want to wait until next year! The audience in our show also thought that you can't stop the movie where it ended—a lot of them complained. |
|
|
|
| I have never done drugs, but I actually have talked a lot to people who did. They described their experiences to me in detail since we were on band tour busses where you can't do anything else, and you can't go anywhere else. So I know how LSD must feel. This movie came closest to how my friends described the effects of LSD. But let's start from the beginning: During the first 10 minutes, you try to figure out why this animation movie looks so extremely real, although the animation itself is somewhat rough. Then you realize that they first must have shot the whole movie in real, and then "painted over" it. Or perhaps they had some computer help that took each tenth frame, applied some segmentation software to separate background and foreground, and then modified the patches with some fancy Photoshop plug-in. Of course they must have done a lot of manual corrections to make it look so artistic. Then, after 20 more minutes, you start to remember where you have heard this kind of monologue before: in the transition between adolescence and becoming adult, you had many discussions with pseudo-intellectuals, dreamers, and other very interesting guys. These discussions took place usually after they had some beers, between midnight and 6am—which does not make them less valid. Anyways, after 20 more minutes, you realize that the low frame-rate of this movie can get very annoying: cool for a music video, but very difficult to watch for 90 minutes. And so you close your eyes to avoid getting too dizzy, but then you have to listen to the intellectual wanking of these weird guys. So you open your eyes again and try to make sense of what the main character is actually up to, or what is happening to him. And then the movie is over (and you probably still don't know what it is about). Then you go home and google up the official web site and learn that the technology used for this movie is called Rotoscoping (invented almost a century ago by Max Fleischer), and the many animators and a
rtists spent 250 hours for one single minute of real footage—but on the rest, you were right. |
|
|
|
| Neato. Not that Clooney or Pitt or Roberts (or any of the actors, for that reason) were great, but it is a typical movie where the audience thinks they know what's going on, and during the second half of the movie they realize that they have no clue: surprise after surprise after surprise. Sorta like a James Bond movie, spread out over eleven: you know the outcome exactly, but you don't know how they're gonna do it. That's it. Nothing more and nothing less. Of course it works only the first time, because if you'd knew what they were doing, it wouldn't be suspense anymore, would it? But that's true for all suspense things. So there. |
|
|
|
| So, this is my fifth year in the States, and I admit that I enjoyed the local (U.S.A.) movie landscape with its high Hollywood saturation. However, after all that time, I still have to say that Amélie is actually THE real cinema: a movie that is art and entertainment at the same time. It's a funny and surprising story, stunning cinematography, subtle special effects, great acting, all in complete style, a main actress to fall in love with—in short, a jewel!! This Jeunet guy is just a master, absolutely astonishing. Not that it surprises me, but Amélie is even more sophisticated than his earlier movies because it is a HAPPY one, in contrast to Delicatessen and Alien Resurrection. And the main actress' eyes are sooo perfect for this role! Go and see for yourself. You will not be disappointed, I can guarantee you. |
|
|
|
| Well, well, well. Let's just assume that I am completely unaware of the big media buzz around this movie, and let's just ignore that I know that Warner has spent 40 Million bucks just for promoting this flick. If I ignore all that, what remains? First of all, I like all the free floating things in this movie (duh!). Fantastic! The fancy, ever changing free floating decoration of the main eating hall, like the candles, the pumpkins, and so on and so forth. I wanna be able to levitate or make things float like that! Another thing that I really liked was the atmosphere of the school: something like magician's MIT for elementary school kids: a bit weird, on-campus dorms with strange traditions, but then again everybody is a geek anyways, a bit secretive, the graduates are almost certainly getting famous one way or the other—or is it rather like Harvard? Then, I like the game: a mix of airplane pylon racing and rugby and polo and Star Wars pod racing. Cool! Then, I liked all the wizard's gadgets, like cloaking cape, the wand, the owl. But there it starts to get problematic: none of |
| |