I've only seen the first two episodes and so far the show is holding on pretty well. Yes, it might be a mixture of Lost, Flashforward, The X-files, 4400 and even 24 with a black president (which is actually not such a far fetched possibility anymore...), however it seems like the makers behind this show have understood what is it that frustrated viewers with shows like LOST: lack of answers. Thus, even though we do get constant flashbacks, these are always intended to answer questions straight away and they don't seem to hold the real story too much. I hope they carry on doing that. The cast is pretty solid, the production value is all there on the screen: big scenes, special effects, lots of extras, locations, helicopters and so on. The pace of the editing is pretty impeccable and it all moves pretty fast. I hope they'll be able to keep these standards and advance the story forward on every episodes. It's all quite promising, but please don't stretch it too much.
Reviews
12 Reviews
Buried
(2010)
An incredible achievement - close to a masterpiece
19 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This film is brilliant!! I had heard about the concept (90 minutes with a man stuck in a box with a lighter and a cell phone) and I was waiting for pretty claustrophobic experience. However, what I found was ALSO an incredible roller-coaster of a movie. It was wonderfully told and perfectly balanced. They even managed to have a couple of really tense action scenes... yes in a box!!! more action scenes, funny moments, mysteries, twists and turns than you could ever think and yet...
The film is very brave and never lets the camera outside the box. It doesn't cheat either and yet it's never boring, slow or repetitious (I don't think there's a single shot being repeated twice).
You know you're in for something interesting from the title sequence, which would have made Saul Bass and Hitchcock proud. Nicely designed, beautifully paced and with a "Hermanesque"score that you would probably expect from an action movies. And that pace and energy and inventiveness permeates the whole film.
The first few minutes are probably the toughest to watch (no pun intended, since most of that time is spent on a black screen): it's the moment when our character realises is "buried". At one point I though to myself "If it is all like this I don't know if I can watch it..." It's a claustrophobic experience, more that I thought it would be But once the film gets going and the mystery unravels, then, you became used to the settings, just like the main characters does.
I don't really want to give away too much, because part of the fun is discovering what's going on together with the character himself. And the film is beautifully constructed and gives you a new clue every few minutes making feel always fresh, new and intriguing...so just when you think the film has run out of tricks in the bag, here comes a new idea. I will just say that this is one of the most accomplished and inventive film I've seen in a while.
Technically is pretty much faultless too: the camera swoops around the box and shows you the action from any conceivable point of view using pretty much any every trick in the book (zooms, tracks, extreme close ups and so on). The sound design and sound mix are both top notch and they have a lot to do with the fact that you really feel like you are in that damn box!
The music, as I mentioned before for the title sequence, treats it all like a real action movie and to me that was probably slightly overdone. It works for most of it making even the silliest moment successful (the snake sequence, for example that when it start off I thought was a cheap trick, ends up being one of the most accomplished action-packed moment), but I can't help thinking it was a bit too bombastic in a few places. But I am really picking needles here and I shouldn't, because this is a little MASTERPIECE, probably not for the faint-hearted or people who suffers from claustrophobia, but if you like tense films, thrillers, action romps or simply good film making this is for you.
The film is very brave and never lets the camera outside the box. It doesn't cheat either and yet it's never boring, slow or repetitious (I don't think there's a single shot being repeated twice).
You know you're in for something interesting from the title sequence, which would have made Saul Bass and Hitchcock proud. Nicely designed, beautifully paced and with a "Hermanesque"score that you would probably expect from an action movies. And that pace and energy and inventiveness permeates the whole film.
The first few minutes are probably the toughest to watch (no pun intended, since most of that time is spent on a black screen): it's the moment when our character realises is "buried". At one point I though to myself "If it is all like this I don't know if I can watch it..." It's a claustrophobic experience, more that I thought it would be But once the film gets going and the mystery unravels, then, you became used to the settings, just like the main characters does.
I don't really want to give away too much, because part of the fun is discovering what's going on together with the character himself. And the film is beautifully constructed and gives you a new clue every few minutes making feel always fresh, new and intriguing...so just when you think the film has run out of tricks in the bag, here comes a new idea. I will just say that this is one of the most accomplished and inventive film I've seen in a while.
Technically is pretty much faultless too: the camera swoops around the box and shows you the action from any conceivable point of view using pretty much any every trick in the book (zooms, tracks, extreme close ups and so on). The sound design and sound mix are both top notch and they have a lot to do with the fact that you really feel like you are in that damn box!
The music, as I mentioned before for the title sequence, treats it all like a real action movie and to me that was probably slightly overdone. It works for most of it making even the silliest moment successful (the snake sequence, for example that when it start off I thought was a cheap trick, ends up being one of the most accomplished action-packed moment), but I can't help thinking it was a bit too bombastic in a few places. But I am really picking needles here and I shouldn't, because this is a little MASTERPIECE, probably not for the faint-hearted or people who suffers from claustrophobia, but if you like tense films, thrillers, action romps or simply good film making this is for you.
Alice in Wonderland
(I) (2010)
Very disappointing
14 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I was really looking forward to this. The trailer looked amazing and Burton seemed just the right man to bring something new (and his amazing visual style) to a well known story... And yet, I found myself suffering from the "Hook" effect during the whole film. First all of, the 3D (which generally I really love) brought absolutely nothing to the film. In fact it of all rather distracting and annoying. It's interesting that I thought it felt almost an added on gimmick and only today I found out that it was indeed decided after most of the film had already been filmed. Johnny Depp does his usual weird, mad character, which by now we are all become a bit sick of. The design of the whole "wonderland" becomes a bit monotonous and boring after about 20 minutes. And even some of the special effects look pretty bad (next to some really stunning ones too, I have to admit). But worst of all it the story. First of all, why bother with this sort of "sequel" idea? What is really the point of the whole Alice has now grown? Does it really matter that she had been there before? And why is she so keep in saving the Mad Hatter? And what about that rabbit? Who is he working for? What's his role in all this? And (big spoiler here... watch out) what's point of all that going to China at the end? What a mess! And finally the music score: yes, it could have been good, if only they had work out where to use it, as opposed to ending up having music throughout the whole film, thus diminishing the effect that music should have. Overblown is the word that comes to mind. I wonder what this film could have been like if maybe Tim Burton had made it, without Disney behind his shoulders.
Hallam Foe
(2007)
Jamie Bell saves the day... and the film (just about)
26 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this film a couple of days ago at the BAFTA screening. The theatre was half full (or half empty ;) depending on your mood) and the audience, made by professionals and people in the industry mainly, was rather quiet throughout (read as: stiff). I'll give you some of my impressions without giving too much away (in fact even the trailer, which luckily I saw afterwards, ruins quite a lot of the surprises in the film, so try to avoid it if you can), though if you really want a SPOILER-free review, you should probably stop reading right now... Despite the film's story, its subject and its setting (gloomy and grey Scotland), "Hallam Foe" manages to be a rather light film for most of it, with lots of funny moments and sincere heart-felt scenes. The best thing has to be said, is Jamie Bell who really carries the whole film on his shoulders and never disappoints. His range of emotions is complete and he even manages to make a character which probably on page would look disturbing and uncomfortable, sympathetic and lovable
His character has been compared to the main character from the "Catcher in the Rye" and I can see why: Hallam Foe is an angry and confused boy, but he's clever and has moments of inspired brilliance (his job interview, or the way he manages to "shut up" his boss
). One of the scenes at the end, when he breaks down in tears, shows him at his best: fragile, natural, shameless (he even attempts a Daniel Radcliffe's Equus, standing almost complete naked in front of the camera... though not as brave as the Harry Potter actor, he cannot resist from covering his privy parts); but he's also very good in more relaxed and simple scenes, which could be straight out of any romantic comedy around today. I don't think I had ever seen Sophia Myles before, and I was quite pleased by her too
though her character has such extreme moments, going from stiff and serious to funny and a bit crazy that it's hard to tell how could anyone have played her
It is really hard to care for somebody so unbelievable
David Mackenzie's direction, script and choices are arguably not always the right ones... but then again, that's probably just me. A mixed of hand-held camera and very big close ups during some of the dialogue scenes and complicated and to my mind, not really needed, crane shots sweeping across the rooftops of Edinburgh (which give away the fact that most of it was clearly a set). It's nice to see Edinburgh shot in slightly different way from the way we are used to see. In the end what should have been a film about a kid coming to terms with the death of his mother and growing up, it becomes a lot more: it's also a film about a weird and probably even slightly incestuous and uncomfortable love story, a nasty step mother, voyeurism, sexuality, pain, death
There's just too much in it and some of it just doesn't go anywhere. For example, what the hell happens to the sister character and what was the point of all that goodbye scene at the front then? Was there any need at all for the sex scene with the stepmother at the front? You may argue that's the reason Jamie Bell leaves home
but to be honest the film would have worked just as well without. The scene with the mother's dress at the end is rather forced and actually for the film to worked better (WATCH OUT FOR THE BIG SPOILER HERE
) Jamie Bell and Sophia Myles should have never had sex (another scene that really sticks out as uncomfortable is the one where the two of them name their private parts
When you see it, you'll know what I mean). Actually, thinking back, it seemed to me that pretty much all the sex scenes and references are just out of placed. Anyway, to round it all up: "Hallam Foe" is an OK film, lifted from the bag mediocrity where most films lay these days by Jamie's performance and some lovely moments throughout which are genuinely inspired and original and make you want to forget the (several) other bad bits. The script leaves a lot to desire and one cheesy line follows another, especially from the characters of the father and from Myles' character. The music does however need special mention as most of it seem to be quite stop on, at least in terms of mood and energy.
As a film, it could all have been so much better But it just tried to hard to do too much.
As a film, it could all have been so much better But it just tried to hard to do too much.
Viva Zapatero!
(2005)
the first step towards some real "freedom of speech"
1 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
In the era of Michael Moore-like documentary-makers this film was long due! I've been living out of Italy for about 15 years now and my first reaction while watching this film was a certain guilt and shame to be part of a country where the term "freedom of speech" was so loose! Yet, the ending of the film could not have been more optimistic: Seeing all those (mainly young) people at the end of the film standing in line to watch Guzzanti's second part of her satirical show made me realise that the future for Italy is not as dark as you might think and after all. I really should be proud of being part of a Country where actually just a few people at the top are corrupted but most of the others have a real will to change things, and hopefully things will change soon! But, I'm digressing, back to the film! Stilistically the film is a bit all over the place (spilt screens happen completely arbitrarily, jump cuts, bad rostrum shots of newspapers and so on), the whole thing seems to be cut on Final Cut Pro or some cheap editing system by somebody who wants to try to new FX here and there for no apparent reason, but luckily all this doesn't matter, since the subject itself and the argument for the film are so strong that you hardly notice anything else but the real content. And that's the way it should be. The film sadly is very Italian and assumes everybody knows most of the people who are being interviewed. And it's a shame because it would not have needed a lot more to make it a little bit more appealing to the rest of the world. Surely it could have done with some more background information and some more archive clips from some of the other comedian who have been censured just to get an idea of what kind of stuff they stand for (I.e. Grillo, Paolo Rossi etc) . I'm sure a lot of foreigners will get lost in the hundreds of names that are mentioned. But sorry, I'm just picking needles: I guess I just want this film to be seen by as many people as possible, because I know that this is the only way to make a change! But as long as Italians watch it I'll be happy! Well done Guzzanti, but please don't stop now!!
Driving Lessons
(2006)
a rather superficial attempt... what a pity!
5 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I'd gone to see this movie with all the good intentions in the world, but I left the theatre so disappointed that I'm now struggling to find something good to say about it all. Well, I suppose the performances are all fairly good and the choice of music seem to be quite inspired in many places... Also the general idea about the film is all right I suppose and you can feel that somehow behind it the intentions were all good... Sadly, in the end the film leaves you a bit cold, with a certain "so what" kind of feeling. Julie Walter is over the top and you can hardly say it's a good performance, but arguably so is her character. Ruper Grint, gives a good performance throughout, though in a few places you can't help seeing a certain "Ron Wesleay" cropping up (especially in some of the more comical facial expression). But generally speaking his body movement, his "minimal acting" (more reacting in this film) seem to be very appropriate for the character. Laura Linney, is splendid! She manages to give a wonderful depth to a character which on paper would be really a caricature. In fact what annoyed me the most about the film are all the silly subplots around the main story: the religious aspect for example (and the character of the mother) are treated so superficially that end up just being just annoying and they are so over the top that they become hard to take seriously (especially if, as the director claimed) they're meant to be critics. The whole thing with the crazy guy dressing up like a woman is so bad that it's just embarrassing! Not to mention the bird-lover/father character: another two-dimensional character who's finally given about a 2 minutes scene towards the end of the film hoping that it would be enough to round him up a bit... Luckily all these are just little sub-plots not completely relevant to the main story, but the saddest and most disappointing thing of all is unfortunately the fact that even the main story is all too superficial. You don't really believe that Evie is unable to talk in front of people without the help of Ben for a single moment and that final showdown during the "mother's play" is really just pure silly. It might have worked on paper, but in the hands of a non very skillful director it all falls to pieces and it becomes just another scene which the audience finds very hard to believe. It's a real shame: somewhere in it, there could have been a good film. but unfortunately it never really managed to make you laugh out-loud (most jokes left the audience quite cold in the theatre where it played )nor shed a little tear. In the end, I could hardly care for any of those people. Visually it seemed to suffer from the same "averageness". Even the moment when Evie looks at the landscape in awe, is rather underwhelming... Not to mention the continuity of the weather ... At one moment it rains, a second later the sun is shining. But hey, that's the UK...
The Da Vinci Code
(2006)
A rather dull adaptation shows the flaws of an overrated book
22 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Sorry to tell you but I found it all rather disappointing... First of all, the translation onto the big screen showed the flaws of the book which, however "grabby" it was, let's face it, it wasn't the big masterpiece most people believe it to be... It's an incredibly static movie: there' s so much exposition that it hurts!!! On a book you might get away with long scene of dialogue that go on for chapters and chapters (after all that was the strength of Brown's book: all those conspiracy theories) , but on a film, it all looks and feels rather dull! The few "action" scenes are so badly handled that it's almost incredible they got away with making them and have them financed by producers (The producer is the same guy who produces "24" a TV show that keeps you on the edge of your seat from week after week, with a twentieth of the budget DVC had)... I mean, let's take the car chase for example... It was all done in close-ups and cut so fast to try to deceive the audience that it was bigger and better that it actually was.
Tom Hanks looks almost embarrassed to be in the film bringing NO depth to his character at all... I could hardly care less about him... and (sadly) our lovely "Amelie" is ...erm... well lovely, but she should definitely stick to French films, where she is way better! The Character of Silas is very well portrait and Ian McKellen does a pretty good job too with a part that is so full of dialogue for the sake of exposition that it's unbelievable!
The direction itself by Ron Howard is pretty standard I have to say. He brings absolutely nothing new to the picture... The film is an exact transposition from the written page to the celluloid... but since we are talking about a book that's hardly "Shakespear", the end result feel all rather conventional. Ron Howard shoots everything in a pretty standard way. I have been to half of those places where the film takes place, and all of them(Louvre aside) looked much better in reality, something quite rare in an age of movies looking astonishingly perfect.
Some of the strength of the book was its construction: the way it left you hanging form one chapter to the other... Unfortunately the film follows he same tricks, and it failed! What works on the written page doesn't necessarily works on film. I'll give you an example: in the book Tom Hank's character arrives at the Louvre and is amazed by the sight of "something..." End of a chapter... Next chapter is about something else... and it'll pick up in the Louvre in a couple of chapters... That works in a book obviously. You just want to turn the next page and see what's going on. you don't want to go to bed, you just want to carry on reading...
The film does the same thing, it leaves the audience hanging for a moment... the same way TV series do... like a cliffhanger, but unfortunately it spoils the mood of that moment and ruins it all... It's against everything that movies (especially blockbusters.. which this clearly is!) are supposed to be. Movies are about creating the right mood, making people scared, making them laugh... creating tension... and so on. They are a different medium from books, and they should work in different way. Theer's no need to break the low of certain scenes, just because the book does so. In a cinema, you're sitting down anyway, and you're inside a dark room.. You just want to enjoy the moment, you don't want to be teased by a scene and than pick it up later when you're attention has already gone somewhere else and your nerves relaxed
In other words, it was all too literal, and to sterile if you ask me. And also... VERY LOOOOOOONG!!! The last half hour really lacks fuel... And that scene towards the ending... "I'm your grandmother" Oh My God!!! It was so dodgy. Just like a bad soap opera where relatives show up from nowhere... Another example of how something might seem right on the written page.. but when it's materialised on film it looks very cheesy and rather unbelievable!
Maybe it was because I had read the book, but it all felt very slow to me. But I suppose people who are new to the book might enjoy it more... Let's face it, it's just a "one-single good idea" (the whole Madgadalene thing) stretched for 2 and a half hour of "clucky" dialogue, 2-dimentional characters, rather standard recreations, and cheap twists!
Tom Hanks looks almost embarrassed to be in the film bringing NO depth to his character at all... I could hardly care less about him... and (sadly) our lovely "Amelie" is ...erm... well lovely, but she should definitely stick to French films, where she is way better! The Character of Silas is very well portrait and Ian McKellen does a pretty good job too with a part that is so full of dialogue for the sake of exposition that it's unbelievable!
The direction itself by Ron Howard is pretty standard I have to say. He brings absolutely nothing new to the picture... The film is an exact transposition from the written page to the celluloid... but since we are talking about a book that's hardly "Shakespear", the end result feel all rather conventional. Ron Howard shoots everything in a pretty standard way. I have been to half of those places where the film takes place, and all of them(Louvre aside) looked much better in reality, something quite rare in an age of movies looking astonishingly perfect.
Some of the strength of the book was its construction: the way it left you hanging form one chapter to the other... Unfortunately the film follows he same tricks, and it failed! What works on the written page doesn't necessarily works on film. I'll give you an example: in the book Tom Hank's character arrives at the Louvre and is amazed by the sight of "something..." End of a chapter... Next chapter is about something else... and it'll pick up in the Louvre in a couple of chapters... That works in a book obviously. You just want to turn the next page and see what's going on. you don't want to go to bed, you just want to carry on reading...
The film does the same thing, it leaves the audience hanging for a moment... the same way TV series do... like a cliffhanger, but unfortunately it spoils the mood of that moment and ruins it all... It's against everything that movies (especially blockbusters.. which this clearly is!) are supposed to be. Movies are about creating the right mood, making people scared, making them laugh... creating tension... and so on. They are a different medium from books, and they should work in different way. Theer's no need to break the low of certain scenes, just because the book does so. In a cinema, you're sitting down anyway, and you're inside a dark room.. You just want to enjoy the moment, you don't want to be teased by a scene and than pick it up later when you're attention has already gone somewhere else and your nerves relaxed
In other words, it was all too literal, and to sterile if you ask me. And also... VERY LOOOOOOONG!!! The last half hour really lacks fuel... And that scene towards the ending... "I'm your grandmother" Oh My God!!! It was so dodgy. Just like a bad soap opera where relatives show up from nowhere... Another example of how something might seem right on the written page.. but when it's materialised on film it looks very cheesy and rather unbelievable!
Maybe it was because I had read the book, but it all felt very slow to me. But I suppose people who are new to the book might enjoy it more... Let's face it, it's just a "one-single good idea" (the whole Madgadalene thing) stretched for 2 and a half hour of "clucky" dialogue, 2-dimentional characters, rather standard recreations, and cheap twists!
24
(2001–2010)
Absolutely perfect!
22 October 2005
to put it simply, I guess this is possibly one of the best TV series ever put on the screen. Technically speaking, nothing on TV has never been so close to the standards seen at the movies (and actually sometimes even higher than those): from the sharp editing (and thanks to "24" split screen in again in fashion
), the controlled lighting and carefully planned hand-held camera-work, the action packed story lines always always always playing against any possible expectation, the incredibly moving and sophisticated subplots
and obviously the A-rate acting. First in the line obviously is Kiefer Sutherland, who's never been so charismatic and never before had such a presence on the screen. Basically when Jack is around, we all feel safe! The first series exploits the format at its best and maybe because it was a new experimental thing, it feels incredibly fresh and we know that "action/thriller TV" will never be the same. In fact, years later, new series try to steal so much from here, but never quite succeed to reach these levels (Alias, Lost, Prison Break, to mention few). Some of plot twists of this series are absolutely incredible right to the very last minute and the surprise (and unnerving) ending! Absolutely perfect!
Best to be watched on DVD, when you can enjoy one episode after the other without having to wait a week between each "Hour". And it's just IMPOSSIBLE to watch only one... Try, if you don't believe me.
Best to be watched on DVD, when you can enjoy one episode after the other without having to wait a week between each "Hour". And it's just IMPOSSIBLE to watch only one... Try, if you don't believe me.
The Consequences of Love
(2004)
Flat!
24 October 2004
OK, fine, Toni Servillo is very good... but the film itself is really really flat! Full of little details that by no means advance the story whatsoever (the whole episode about the "hit": did we need that much?). You never really care about anything you're seeing: the main character is boring to watch and completely unsympathetic! Definitely not enough to keep your attention going for 2 hours. Not to mention the dialogue, which might look alright once it's subtitled, but for anybody who speaks Italian it is actually trite, fake and just out of this world! Nobody talks like that! And I should probably add one final note about the way it's been show and edited, a mixture of "flashy" devices and "showing off" camera movements that are just too isolated and completely unmotivated all the way through. I'm sorry, it just didn't do it for me (and for most of the people with me watching it on the day!).
Van Helsing
(2004)
Let's all try to find a way to spend an insane amount of money!!
5 May 2004
I left the theatre with a strong thought in my mind: I'm about 20 years older than I should be to enjoy this movie! How old am I? 32!! The film is a showcase of special FX, loud music and handsomely looking set pieces all put together in a "mish mash" of a movie. The only original thing in it is the fact that nobody had ripped off so many other films before...OK, fine, let's all call it an "homage" to the old "monsters movies"... but I have to say, as a lover of those films, this one didn't really cut it for me. Am I really too old for this? But then again, everybody else seemed to love "The Mummy" and its lousy sequel, so I guess they will all flock to see this too. It certainly looks expensive for most of its length (20 minutes too long, by the way) and the CGI work in places is some of the most impressive I've seen recently (but Mr Hyde is just as bad as the HULK was last summer)... I just wish they could also spend some money in making sure that the audience cared a little bit more about what's going on the screen. The story is really thin and the dialogue is almost non-existent while the comic relives are so few that when they come you almost forget you're supposed to laugh (in fact in the theatre where I was, nobody ever did!). Having said that, I can see a sequel coming up pretty soon. So who's next? Let's bet: the mummy, the monster of the blue lagoon, the invisible man? The Smurfs? What a shame is to see Hollywood wasting so much money on what's basically a kid movie... what about their older brothers and sisters? And their parents?
Waiting for the BIG OSCAR!
13 December 2003
WOW, that's the only word I can think of... I've just come out from a BAFTA screening of ROTK and I've litterally been blown away. If I really have to find a criticism I can probably say that the film is a little bit too long (and there's no excuse for those first 20/25 minutes where very little happens... and those 3 maybe 4 .. or maybe 5 endings! I thought the film was over 20 minutes before it actually ended). A part from that, the film really deserves some recognition... (and I don't mean getting big bucks... ). Especially when we think that Peter Jackson directed all the 3 of them together, it's a really impressive piece of achievement. If you thought the battle in "The two towers" was big... you ain't seen nothing yet!
La haine
(1995)
Forget the subtitles!
25 February 2003
How can somebody rate a film on the basis of whether the subtitles are on white or not is really beyond me! Jesus, learn some French or get a better copy of the film at least before you judge. This is a very skilfull film on the stupidity of violence and, as somebody else mentioned before me, the abrupt ending is just to confirm that point. First class
Tell Your Friends