Reviews

6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Avatar (2009)
3/10
The question that is Avatar
10 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
To say that I found Avatar to be a waste of money, talent and time, would be an understatement. Don't get me wrong, I think they did a fantastic job in creating a believable digital planet, that all the artists and special effects people should be prized and respected for the mind blowing cgi. I just wish they had a better story to work with.

First complaint: there's a massive difference between ScienceFiction and ScienceFantasy. The first is based on possibility, the latter on nothing whatsoever. If you're going to tell some important story based on the future of humanity and what we, as a people, will be one day capable of doing, you should get your science straightened out so as not to make it totally ridiculous. When I see rocks that defy the laws of gravity, the link between us and this as our possible future is destroyed. And don't get me started on the biological inconsistencies. Was anyone else bothered by the fact that the Na'vi were biologically designed to mindrape all other fauna of the land?

Then there's the enviromentalistic and liberal attack against present administrations, which is so blatant and unforgiving that it's almost childish and superficially one-dimensional. People say that this film is a revolution, I strongly disagree. Apart from the great visuals, it's a huge leap backwards in the art of storytelling and character development. One of the major reasons film has evolved over the years, apart from the obvious technical advances, is that today we are free to express whatever ideals we wish without as much censorship as there was in the past. This means that we are no longer obligated to turn our movies into propaganda. We are allowed to be objective. Our bad guys may not always be bad and our good guys may not always act so well. Not only does this movie place you in some not too distant future, give you no political or social background of what's going on, and take away all scientific credibility within the first 20 minutes, but we're also supposed to believe that the situation on Pandora is as simple as good vs evil? Nope, I'm not giving in. I think we, as a public, deserve a little better. I don't like being treated like an imbecile by films and I don't care too much for political propaganda.

Let's forget a second about the political and environmental message that lays on the surface of the story. What else does Avatar have to say? It's about a young man, Jake Sully, who has everything against him. He was injured, and despite the fact that he could recover with the proper treatment, social health care is not a human right yet. So he is stuck in a wheelchair. He's a really easy person to empathize with. When he is given the chance to replace his deceased brother on a mission on Pandora, he will be able to walk again, so to speak, while controlling his avatar. What are the humans doing on Pandora? They want unobtainium, of course. And since this mineral is located in the Na'vi village, they need to evacuate them first. Jake is sent to Pandora to guard the science team while they take samples. But he's curious and stupid, and manages to get stuck on the island alone for the night. The Na'vi save him from a pack of hungry beasts. When the humans find about this, they decide to give Jake a few months to get close to these people and convince them to move away. Sounds like a pretty good plan to me. Jake lives with the tall blue aliens, learns about their culture and beliefs, falls in love, has sex and has a grand old time with his new blue family. But wait! He's had plenty of time to tell them about the plan his people have! Why does he wait till the very last moment to warn the Na'vi about their future attack? There are very few possible reasons for this: He forgot, he thought the humans would maybe just forget about their multi billion dollar plan, or he's really not a reliable person. I'm voting for :Jake is a bad hero. Maybe he's likable and just got too into his role as the blue cat girl's blue boyfriend, but this is not a forgivable act. Jake Sully could have prevented countless Na'vi deaths and the whole human population in the area, but he didn't because he was having too much fun. Am I supposed to feel sorry for him now? So at the last moment he decides that he is going to fight with his new alien friends in their war against humanity. You would think that they could maybe resolve their differences without bloodshed, but I guess the Na'vi are no more peaceful than the humans. Is there ever a time when Genocide is justifiable? Why is the ideal outcome of this film the murder of humanity as a whole? I'm not defending the humans, for their behavior is absolutely reprehensible. But without a back story, I really don't know what to think of this confrontation. What I do know is that if Jake had been more responsible, nobody would have died. Don't you think that maybe there was some other possible solution before starting to kill each other? Jake sure doesn't think so. Not only that, but he is willing to kill every last human being in the vicinity for the sake of his new-found friends. Or maybe he's just doing it for the legs.

Conclusion: This is a film about a sad and lonely invalid who is given a chance to prove his worth by becoming the intermediary in a human/alien conflict, ignores his responsibilities and provokes the death of millions and is rewarded with legs, love and happiness. This is what we call correct and just?
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Notebook (2004)
8/10
Beautiful
9 January 2010
I have absolutely no idea what to say about this movie. I thought I would hate it. A really popular romance that all the kiddies loved? I was positive that I was gonna make it through half the film (if even) and scream " What a load of crap!". But that didn't happen. Now, I have to admit I was curious. I am a fan of Gena Rowlands and her late husband. But don't know much about Nick. McAdams is cute and Gosling was great in Lars...I really didn't want to see this movie. A friend recommended it ...so my husband and I sat down, watched the movie. And I cried. Yup, like a little sissy. The tears just ran down. In all honesty I can say that I was surprised and really inspired by this film. You don't find that many love stories that you can truly relate to. But you can with "The notebook". Anyone can understand the characters and basic trauma of their lives because they are ordinary. Most films are based on a platonic and ideal love, but in this story, we can actually relate with the characters and their relationships. That's why it's special. Anyone can understand it. Other than that, I have to say that the movie was beautifully made, set design, photography, etc...but the actors.... damn! Talk about chemistry!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
a really long short film
11 October 2009
So I watched this film in Sitges and just got back from the awards show where it received best cinematography (which I understand) and special jury prize (mmmm....). Yeah, the movie is innovative and has really great visuals. I'm into Gaspars movies, but this seemed more like an excuse to try out a new camera than an important story that needed to be told. The story pretty much ends at 20 minutes, after that, it's downhill. I was upset because I think this guy has potential, but this was a hardcore step backwards. I believe that movies exist to tell important stories. Important in the sense that you learn something. I want to walk out of the cinema a different person. But with this film, I walked out a very tired and unchanged person. I don't believe that cool camera-work and trippy images are an excuse to make a movie. The acting was poor and the character definition inexistent. The plot it minuscule and the message superficial. Best part: initial credits were brilliant. And I think the jury was blind to consider this film for a special mention over Dogtooth, which in my opinion is probably one of the best films of the year.

All in all, if you want some cool background images for an after party, this film is perfect, but for those people who need a little substance, stay away (or turn off after the first 20 minutes).
43 out of 81 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
[Rec]² (2009)
1/10
Have a very nice pillow handy!
11 October 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this flick at the Sitges film festival opening night. I have seen all of Plaza's and Balaguero's movies and have always wondered about their success. When I saw Rec, I was pleasantly surprised. I thought that perhaps these guys finally learned how to make a movie. But I was wrong, and Rec2 proves it. Apart from having one of the most stupid and boring scripts imaginable, the audience will have to suffer through 85 minutes (really? seemed more like 5 hours) of horrible acting and bad camera-work. The first movie gave you a really cool intro with funny and interesting tenants and some scary zombie attacks, this film gives you a bunch of one dimensional Swat guys, a dumb priest, 3 unbelievable kids, and a bunch of badly filmed zombie appearances.

So, now I would like to question some of storyline elements: 1. Why does a Swat team need to film everything that happens? If the answer is "just because"... then: why does a Swat team need a camera man when every one of them already has a spy cam on their helmets? No, it's stupid and makes no sense 2. If people are warned about a dangerous virus and a building is quarantined, how do people get inside?, which leads us to 3. what kind of stupid kids would go into a quarantined building? 4. Since when is demonic possession contagious thru bite? 5. Possessed slugs? 6. Why would a demon, after taking over the body of a person (the reporter), take her camera to the Swat team? 7. Does night vision alter sound? 8. Does night vision alter tact? 8. Does the button of night vision alter reality only for the holder of the camera or the people within X distance?.... I have more questions about this stupid movie, but these are the ones I could remember at the top of my head without checking out my notes. Most importantly, this flick fails with the basic horror requisite: entertainment. You'd have more fun watching your neighbors summer holiday home video.
21 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dogtooth (2009)
10/10
Brilliant
11 October 2009
Boy,am I upset with the Sitges Film festival Jurors this year!!! So this film is not for everyone, but if you like realistic and paced films, are not bothered by highly explicit scenes, don't mind taboo subjects, like independent film and are into original stories.... this is the movie for you. I've read negative comments about this movie. I get it. It's not the most easy movie to watch, but I haven't been this pleasantly surprised in a long time. Saw this in Sitges with a packed audience, and I believe most of the people there were glued to the screen and didn't want to see the film end. Surreal, emotional, cruel, realistic and beautiful would be the words I would use to describe this picture. At first you don't really understand what's going on or where you're at, but soon find yourself submerged in the sad and pathetic life of a disturbed family. This is definitely one of the most important indie films of the year; aside from the original and highly meaningful story, the film if impeccably made with astounding performances. Shame on the Sitges film festival! This movie deserved the best actress and the special critics award. And I say that on behalf of most of the other people who were at the festival.
212 out of 337 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Barcelona
22 September 2009
I was pretty reluctant to watch this movie given that I don't care for most of the actors and I hadn't heard good things about it from the people in Barcelona, where I live. After watching it I can say that I found the movie entertaining and well made, but in many aspects I do agree with the Catalans and their complaints. Most of all, I would really like people to know, and I am an American who has been living in Cataluña for the last 20 years, that the beautiful and welcoming city you see in the movie is complete fiction. Barcelona's habitants, who speak a language called Catalan, are mostly poor and can't afford the many luxuries most tourists think. I know artists of all kinds, but not one who could afford to live on the money earned from it. Neither Javier Bardem nor Penelope are Catalans, which bothered some people, but most of the Catalans I know were more concerned with the fact that Bardem's character is from Oviedo, yet Vicky, who studies the Catalan identity (her one reason for visiting Barcelona), says she's interested in him because he's Catalan. Anyone who knows about Catalan identity should know that you are not Catalan just because you live in Cataluña. My husband was born in Barcelona, yet the Catalans consider him an outsider, because his parents are from the south. I understand that as American tourists, Vicky and Cristina are more interested in seeing the popular sights, but it would have been OK to show the real side of Barcelona, the heroin junkies (1% of the population, also the most common cause of death), the crime (mostly thieves), the very poor immigrants, etc...

That aside, there are many things I did like about the film. As with all Of Mr. Allen's movies, you find incredibly witty dialog and interesting characters who will surely entertain you for the duration of the film. But the best thing about the movie, and this surprises even me, is Penelope Cruz as Maria Elena. I'm usually not a fan of her films or her acting, but she really outdid herself and was more alive than most of her costars. I'm tempted to have her "Niñata de mierda!" scream as my ringtone.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed