redrum_9 Reviews

Crash Bandicoot: The Wrath of Cortex (2001 Video Game)

One of my biggest video-game deceptions...a poor and uninventive clone of the original games

[3/10 · 19 December 2013]

I was and I'm still am a huge fan of the original Crash Bandicoot series on the PS1. They were great, challenging games that never managed to be repetitive. I knew about this game beforehand, seen stills of it, some gameplay videos, and the cover looked very promising, since both Crash and Cortex are on it, both are crazy in their own manner: what more do you need? Well, a better game for sure. Is it that bad? Yes, and I'll explain why:

-The character design: it's not only different, but absolutely horrible. They look like bland, soulless plasticine puppets who are the originals' poor man's copy-paste work. Cortex looks arguably the worst. But it's OK...skip the cut-scenes, play the game, and realize: Crash moves differently as well. Why? Well, it might not be how he moves, it might be because of the design, but he unarguably looks different, when he runs and spins. "Different gen, different design, idiot" OK, then tell me why do I feel like the whole character's dynamism, which maybe could have single handedly give life to an original Crash game, if it didn't have fun characters, levels, humour and other great stuff, is completely gone? He runs and spins like he doesn't want to do all this. Why should I go fight Cortex for the sixth-billion time? Why should I spin at enemies, when I can just go home and chill, do I care about all this stuff? No, he doesn't. The Crash character was definitely re-designed by one of the creators who had the same attitude towards the game he was programming, and put his personal feelings into the character.

-The levels: I can imagine the programmers' boss: "Ok, we are done with the game, we just need some levels there. Anyone to do the levels? Matt, could you do the levels, please? Just do the levels please, and then you can go home. Just try to do something that looks like the original games. But please put no effort into it. What? Oh yeah they were some snowy levels in the second game, just put some snow on the levels. What you have an idea of a Mine Cart level? Yeah, it probably gets boring after a while. When it happens make him jump out of a cart, and put that half-level after it, that you put in the Recycle Bin yesterday and you're done for today" I hope you understand how much passion they put into the game. The level I mentioned is actually an existing level in the game: you start off in a mine-cart (on which you can only lean left and right, there was maybe time to add a jumping and crouching option, but since there was no time, or no care whatsoever, about making obstacles or boxes, there was no need for it). After a while it gets boring, but it still goes on for like a minute (which is believe me a lot when playing a game as boring and uninteresting as this) then Crash jumps out of the cart, and you land into a......some kind of factory....or like a....something maybe related to Cortex, maybe not......who cares, just run, go forward....but hey I'm astonished by how detailed is the design of this whole levels, oh no wait they are just bland, grey walls. I always remember with a smile the Egyptian levels , the "fantasy" levels , the sewer levels. They were all very well-thought out and specific. The creators back then had something very precise in their mind, and they just made it, and gave the best out the each level. It was never boring due the dynamism, the funny enemies and details, the challenging level-design (Tomb Wader in Warped for example: went on for hours, and still never got bored even if many times frustrated). In Wrath of Cortex, the levels have no soul, and frankly I can't make a difference between any of them! It's all the same, just some background stuff, to have a level, otherwise it's an unfinished game.

The humour: something the creators clearly didn't have. The original games used tons of clichés, but used it impeccably. Killer bees, frogs that turn into prince, evil wizards and so on. They even put twists one them sometimes: a pharaoh with a flamethrower for example, hilarious. Not that I'd pause the game, and laugh for hours, but they were little jokes, that were present in each levels and it played an important role in giving the game a soul. The creators here, they have no sense of humour...a medieval castle? Let's have a dragon! Oh these tall thin Cortex henchmen guys, they were funny looking....but what should they do? Oh just .......just make them stand there and shoot.....like..........i don't know things.

-The bosses: the story, which I frankly don't care about, because it doesn't have seem to have anything interesting in it, has something to do with...like masks, corresponding each to one of the fifth elements. And like...who cares? The bosses are like....big....scary.....things each representing one of these elements. OK, why did N-Gin, Dingodile, N-Tropy and the others go on a strike the same day? The bosses are extremely boring. I don't want to go into details, it's just boring, uninteresting and far from the feeling of the epic boss battles that were set in the earlier games. Except for the last boss...Cortex! Finally we are going again against this crazy maniac ..... oh no it's that Bandicoot clone Crunch and Cortex is there but he's like... Oh, whatever.

I could go on, but it all comes down to what I've been trying to explain and convey with these points: the game has lost the dynamism, the fun, the humour, the feeling and basically its whole soul with this episode. It LOOKS like a good Crash game, but when you play you'll probably be deceived.

A Bug's Life (I) (1998 Video Game)

Not flawless, but a very enjoyable Disney game, a classic in my book

[9/10 · 15 December 2013]

This is more or less an answer to one of the reviewers here who was not so enthusiastic about the game, as I am. Since he described how the game works, I'm not writing it down again.

"Control is awful, camera is painfully bad, sound is poor and game-play is all over the place, random and barely making sense" The controls are not awful, you just have to get used to it. They are not the greatest controls ever created, but for example the slide option, and the high jumps make it easier for you to navigate Flik throughout the levels. The camera is indeed bad, I don't think that's something anyone can argue on, but sadly with the transition to 3D at that time, many games of that generation had terrible camera angles and control. It just "helps" that the PS1's right analog almost never has any function in PS1 games, and with the N64, the camera can sometimes be controlled with some of the buttons, which is needless to say, anything but comfortable. Sound effects are great, so is the music, which fits the mood of each level perfectly.

"Since I haven't seen the film, I can't say if the story faithfully follows it, but from what I've been told, it seems fairly accurate." The game follows the movie very well. Some levels are exaggerating the importance it has in the movie, making full levels relying on "smaller" scenes from the movie, but during a movie-game transition this is almost unavoidable.

"The game-play is pitiful, with most levels simply being about finding the way to the end of the level" Many games, dare I say most of the games are about going from point A to point B, the question is how well the game succeeds in making the player not feel this obvious fact. I think this game does it pretty well, mainly because of the seed and berry system, on which you have to improve on each level, making logic and smaller backtracks essential to the gameplay.

"I'm not kidding, this game has some of the most confusing levels I've ever played through, which doesn't really make sense, since it's a children's game." I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as you make it sound. Levels are more or less labyrinthic indeed, which is a thing I don't like either therefore my dislike for games like Metroid, but this game is a smooth version a real video-game labyrinth, which is, to me, perfectly enjoyable.

"If you collect all the corn in a level, you get full health. So?" That aspect of the corn collecting is just a small bonus. Collecting all 50 corns on the levels serves to -traditonnally- complete the game 100%, same goes to the FLIK letters you later mention.

"Most levels are either easy enough for you not to get hurt or has a plant that spawns endless supplies of health" These plants can be planted as well, if you have reached a certain seed levels, so therefore they are on every level, and it does make the game easier, unfortunately, maybe fortunately for smaller kids.

"If you collect a special weapon, a golden berry(more about them later) and kill every enemy in the level with it(enemies re-spawn when killed by any other means), you get a bonus clip from the movie. Wow! What a treat, huh? Really something you want to fight hard for, especially if you don't have the movie itself" To my knowledge, you have to collect the berries, the letters and the corns to unlock the bonus clip. Not a huge treat indeed, but you have to keep two things in mind: . 1. Back then, the PS1 was unique in many ways, including the fact that it could play clips from movies, and that was an easy way, to exploit this feature. People were more enthusiastic about it back then, even if they didn't have an orgasm or whatever because of it.* 2. A bonus level would have been nice, yes, but many games not even does that, because they know that many gamer's goal is 100%, and that will make them happy until they start playing a next video-game.

"The real problem with these is that the variations are often used as poor excuses to create levels around. " It's not an excuse, this is how the game works. Seeds are key elements to the game. At this point some can say shooting portals in Portal is an excuse to create levels around, but that's just its aspect, it is what's is the game is built on. Portal is of course a far superior game, but Bug's Life has its own aspects, and if you don't like the way the game works, then that's fine...but it certainly doesn't feel like an excuse.

I'd like to add, that I got this game for Christmas at a very young age, and didn't like it back then because of the seed system. The only thing you can do is try it and see if it's your cup of tea. A negative point for me is that during the boss levels the game just doesn't want to let go of the seed and berry system. In THAT case I CAN tell, that the bosses seem like an excuse, but they are still highly enjoyable, as the whole game is.

Ace Attorney (2012)

What a bless seeing an Ace Attorney film: not perfect, but could hardly ask for more

[9/10 · 15 June 2013]

I'm incidentally a huge fan of both Miike and the Ace Attorney game series, but I believe people who want to see this film, are mostly Phoenix Wright fans, so I'll try to review the movie from this point of view, to show fans what they need to expect.

Adapting a game like Phoenix Wright might seem easy at first, but in fact, it's something you have to be careful with: the game is basically like a comic book, a series a images well put together, with often intriguing, other times funny but never uninteresting dialogues and characters. Like a comic (or even a novel for that matter) most of the world is created by the reader (or in this case the player) who links these dialogues and images in a way, to create a motion picture in their mind. I loved exploring the crime scenes, and such (=the non scripted parts of the game), but it's the story and the characters that had a bigger impact on me. Each player has a different way of imagining this world while playing the game, and for that the film has to work in a way that it ruins the least amount a fans' expectations. Every single imagination can't be pleased, but this film tries its hardest.

First, what I liked about the film, is the attempt itself to create a Phoenix Wright movie. Second, the fact that this "distopic absurd world" of the source material is portrayed in the movie without the creators shying away from ideas that an average human being would find acceptable in a video game, but not necessarily in a film. In fact, that is a very strong aspect of the movie: it has a world without rules, limits, it's crazy, dark and fun, just like the game. It doesn't want to be just a movie, it wants to be THE Phoenix Wright movie. In other words, one of the films biggest values, is that it wants to translate the least amount of video game logic to film logic. It embraces video game logic, plays with it, and uses it to show the craziest ideas on screen. I mean for example by the trials with holograms, which is of course not like that in the games, but the idea is brilliant, because it translates the game's epic moments perfectly, when somebody pulls out the definitive evidence and shows it to the court. Third, the film is not only made by somebody who knows the source material throughly, but from the film's attitude, is a big fan of it as well. The most possible elements are compressed in these 90 minutes to please all the fans' needs: for example some unexpected characters from the series make short appearances (which, I'm not going to tell you of course) and many similar surprises..

All that being said, the movie has a few downsides for me: First, the Gumshoe character: I love him in the games (my second favourite character after Godot) and I'm sure many of us do, but he had a lot less screen presence that I wanted him to have. Because of that, his style, his whole presence could not be felt as much in the film as in the game. Also, I think it was bad casting: although the actor does a decent job, they should have gotten somebody with a bit more weight on him to do it, after all he's the big guy in the games. Second, even if I didn't care as much for the Maya character in the games, as much as for several others, I always loved his relationship with Phoenix. Here, the chemistry between the two can hardly be felt, Maya seems more like an assistant than a true friend/partner of Phoenix. Also, I think bad casting here as well, since I think the actress was a bit too old for the role, but that wouldn't have been a big problem if the chemistry between the two worked. Third, the judge character. In the game we discover two sides of him: a strict (but old and tired of it) and a humorous naive judge (the way I see it). Here, I felt that he is left only with the first, and frankly least interesting side of him. And here again, I know this is tiring, but I think the judge having hair was a bad decision (I'm sure many of you think of this as astonishingly stupid nitpicking, but hey, the bald bearded guy: it's one thing that made him memorable for me, and if you make him have a beard, then cut his hair as well) Last, but not least, is a key scene which has been slightly modified by the writers. I'm not going to say which scene it is, all I can say without spoiling is that this key scene, was moved to another location in the film (the location in the game was one of the aspects which made it great). I think it was an easy choice, but they might have had a reason for it.

Although I devoted the bigger paragraph to negative aspects, I wouldn't call them flaws, more like things, ideas I would have done/solved differently. To end this all, and to clear all misunderstandings (if any happened): i loved the film. I think it's an absolute treat for fans, and a very well made piece of work, in terms of cinematography, screenplay, direction and everything else. Although I thought that the problems I had were worth mentioning, they didn't affect my viewing, since I was blown away by seeing Ace Attorney as a movie, and I thoroughly felt that only passion has been put in the making of this film and little to no laziness, which is sadly rarely the case of films nowadays. Does the film work? Absolutely. And that is what matters.

El Tigre: The Adventures of Manny Rivera (2008 Video Game)

A really fun ride, and really short ride

[7/10 · 17 March 2012]

This game is based on the Nickelodeon show with the same name, which I admit I haven't watched, just heard of it. These games are usually bought by those who are fans of the source material, or people who just find it by accident in the store while browsing, and decide to buy because they like the cover. I'm just someone who grew up, like many, on platform games, and still love playing those games at 20...like few, I believe. So... this game gained my interest. What to say? I think this game is great, but totally ruined by it's absurdly tragic and ridiculous length. I don't think that more than 2 hours are needed to finish the game. It's not far from looking like it's a demo. It can actually be described as some kind of promo game. I could perfectly imagine this game disc next to a special edition DVD of the show with a sticker on it "Free El Tigre game included!" Actually, I wouldn't care much about all that, if it wasn't a great game. It is actually something, which have, well had a lot of potential. A bit of a jump back to old-school 2D platform games, the game still has its own, unique style. The main thing which it relies on is timing. When to jump and how. There is a double jump function, but when on a bouncing surface, you can jump again a second time in the air. In the fourth (and well...last) level, you need to control every single of these three jump to not to get killed by spikes or other lethal things. Other than timing, it's about time as well. Yes, you are a against the clock. Although there are parts, when you HAVE to finish in a certain amount of time, but usually it's just part of your score. It still might not be clear why I said it had potential. Well, it's just really simple, and really fun. By simple I do not mean easy (by the way, first the game seems pretty hard, but when you get into it, it becomes easier..also checkpoints are at every corner...) but I mean that it doesn't complicate things by adding extra-powers, combos, several collectible items, puzzles and so on. It does something which has already been done a lot of times, in a simple and fun manner. Actually in the game, you don't lose lives, since you don't have any, but it indicates in the upper corner how many times you died. Kind of strange, but shows that the game is mainly about scores: finishing the levels fast, and dying the least time possible. That are the only things which gives the game some replay value, other than that there isn't much sadly. To finish all I can say is: a really fun, but really short ride.

The Box (I) (2009)

A watchable mess, and watching it once is fine and enough

[3/10 · 22 May 2010]

I started getting interest for this film, when I heard that it's a mystery film by Richard Kelly. I later saw the trailer which was fine, but nothing too special. When it came out I saw the mixed reviews and finally decided to watch it for myself.

They are so many problems with the film, that I just can't find anything positive about it although I know there is, and I'll try.

There is a weak and rather rushed attempt at a character development near the beginning. Basically what is shown at the beginning is Cameron Diaz and his husband receiving the box, talking about it a bit in the morning with their son, and then going to work. From then on, the strange elements already start to occur, I'm mainly thinking of the bleeding nose, which is a reoccurring symbol in the movie. It's like the movie wants to get right into the mystery because it knows that it can't properly develop the characters and is afraid of loosing its audience. This flaw has an effect on the whole movie of course, since we're following the story of those two characters along the film. Having said that, however, the first 30 minutes are very fine in my opinion, and the movie doesn't really get better after, which is the main problem.

The movie, its whole structure is a giant mess. At the very best the scenes only slightly relate to each other. It's like I'm thinking about a scene in it right now, and I'm wondering, why was that even there? Also, the film is set in the 70's. I was very surprised by this (in fact, I thought that showing the year at the beginning was a sign of a flashback, well it became a quiet long one!)But the fact is, the whole movie doesn't have any 70's feel to it. It doesn't have the atmosphere. I admit I wasn't even born back then, but from films from that era I've seen, the whole setting isn't like that either. How people talk, the clothing...and everything looked to modern too me. After 5 minutes I even forgot that it is set in the 70's and was only reminded a very few times, because of elements like an old TV.

Another problem (or upside?), are the Sci-Fi elements. And I don't spoil anything by saying this, since it's labelled as a Sci-Fi film. These elements come in when the movie can't use the mystery of reality anymore, and when showing peace signs stops becoming weird for the audience. I thought that kind of ruined the movie, since when I sat down to watch it I was expecting a more realistic mystery film. But sadly, near the end, it turns out good to have had sci-fi elements. Well, sadly because the movie just feels so dull after a while that those equally dull sci-fi stuff start to fit to the whole thing.

It's like they started making a solid and realistic mystery film, then realised it has became too messy, but they have already done half the film so they thought: "Alright let's add these cheesy Sci-Fi stuff, so at least we can get the audience to show a weird face to the screen".

So what made me watch it until the end, without having to even think about turning it off? Well, I think Frank Langella's performance was very good. I liked a lot his character. He looks like the typical "mysterious man in a black suit", but he isn't. I also thought that the mess is actually going to make some sense throughout the film, that scenes are going to be more related to each other, so that I can start puzzling in my head. No, it didn't happen of course.

But I have to say though, I didn't fell asleep, and I wasn't even bored during it. So I was entertained to some extent by it, although it being an incoherent mess. I think the main title I given to this review is how this film should be treated, and how I'm concluding this review.

Them (2006)

Intense and scary, but its flaws ruin the film's initial plan

[5/10 · 24 March 2010]

SLIGHT SPOILERS, BUT NO END SPOILERS

"Ils" is a french horror film, set in Romania. It's about a quiet young French couple, the woman's a teacher, and the man's a writer, who live in a house in Romania. One night the woman wakes up and sees that the car is at a different spot from where she parked it. Next thing they realise is that a stranger has entered the house.The film is shot with possibly some kind of smaller and cheaper camera. That, and the premise of the film are the reasons why it made me automatically think of "The Blair Witch Project" before I saw the movie.

Maybe it's because I was expecting too much, but I was rather disappointed. Not only it's not as scary as Blair Witch but is full of flaws and after a while gets very clichéd.

I have no doubt in saying that when the filmmakers started this project, they were planning a movie that is REALLY scary, one that focuses more on the scares, the atmosphere, where the actions of the characters are believable, not to forget a good character development as well. Initially, this was what they were planning. This gets unfortunately lost during the film…

The film starts off with a good scare, with characters unrelated to the ones the story will deal with later on. Then after, we got to know the two main characters and where they live: that's the first problem. The house they live in is in the middle of the woods. Secondly, I don't know what's up with that house today, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's owned by a family of at least 20 members. I don't know if the couple wanted a lot of children later on, or that what was going on, but that house is just too big for two people. Not only that, but living in that house would also be scary in the middle of a sunny day. Not only because if you look around you'll see that you are in the middle of nowhere, but also because it is nearly empty, very poorly decorated and looks like it's under renovation of some sort. All that means that the location is ruined: the characters are normal, everyday people, but where they live is a set for a horror film. However, this doesn't mean that the film is completely ruined. Fortunately, the movie becomes intense as the couple start being suspicious about the things that are going one, and the whole thing becomes quiet scary, which makes you forget a bit about the haunted house thing. The way the bad guys are put on screen, how we don't know who they are, what they want is, is very well done. But most importantly: we don't know how many they are. The filmmakers achieved making a certain effect: you feel like there's an endless number of them coming out of nowhere. All that is great,

The part where it truly goes downhill for me, is the long tunnel scene at the end. The problem is not that it's not scary anymore. It is still scary. Actually it is the scariest, and most effective scene in the movie and is very well done. But it ruins the whole first part of the film. The tag-line says: "You'll never feel safe in you home again" The problem is that with the last scene the movie becomes something different. It becomes a conventional (but good) horror film. This is entirely where the filmmakers gave up trying to scare us with elements the most closest possible to reality: we discover that there is a massive gallery of dark tunnels beneath the whole house and the area around. Of course next thing: pain and torture, next thing graphic scenes, next thing more screaming. They started off doing a Blair Witch like movie, and ended with doing Hostel (well, nearly). The whole thing becomes non-believable at the end, and left me without becoming scared of the dark.

All that being said… Was I scared during the movie? Yes. Was it entertaining? Yes. Did it have enough things in it, so it could be considered as a decent horror movie which is worth seeing once? Absolutely.

Also posted on The Auteurs site: http://www.theauteurs.com/films/2181/reviews/20117

Coco (2009)

Where is Gad Elmaleh?

[3/10 · 27 October 2009]

I was really excited to watch this. Gad Elmaleh is quiet possibly my favorite stand-up comedian. He's unfortunately not that well (quasi not known at all) outside France, or maybe other French-speaking countries, and I would not like at all this film to introduce him to other countries, since this is an extremely mediocre work from one of the funniest people alive.

Gad Elmaleh writes, directs and acts, and I thought oh well...that's brilliant! That never happened, he only did acting before, and now he'll have the whole film under control, and this is going to be great! I was immensely disappointed.

This is, unfortunately, the kind of comedy where it's enough to watch the trailer, because there is nothing more really in the film. I nearly turned the film off after half an hour, since I only smiled a few times, and hey, there is a bit of comedy in every film nowadays, even horror films.... so that means I wouldn't have realized that it was a comedy if I didn't know about it beforehand. Fortunately after the first 30 minutes the film gets better. There will be a few 'gentle' laughs, but nothing compared to to his stand-up acts where I was crying from laughter. Interestingly enough enough there is a part where he uses one of his funniest and most famous sentence from one of his stand-up shows...and it just doesn't work, which shows that the whole thing is far from that very best Gad Elmaleh can do.

Secondly, maybe less important, but extremely annoying is the terrible editing. It's the problem throughout the whole film: in one shot the hand is up, in the next one it's down. Sometimes they could even change their hair style in the split second. I believe the reason for this is a rushed post-production, but anyways it's there, it can be noticed and it's extremely annoying.

The truth is that the film doesn't know what it wants to be: at the same time it's a drama about family, friendship, success and a comedy. The problem is that the dramatic part, although pretty decent considering that this is Elmaleh's first film, is still unoriginal with no particular surprises. As for the comedy part, just read again the third paragraph. So what is there left? A film that is just flat, with too many uninteresting parts. The only thing that kept me watching was Elmaleh himself, and only because in every scene of his I said to myself: "I know this guy. He's usually extremely funny. I'll wait, there sure will be hilarious moments". And I waited for 90 minutes and nothing happened. Elmaleh is very very far from his best, and if you do not know who he is, then I don't think you should even start considering watching this film.

Lucky Day (2002 TV Movie)

Satisfying TV film with good story and suspense

[6/10 · 19 October 2009]

I'm not the kind of person who watches TV a lot, but I did incidentally caught this film two times on TV. The second time I saw it about two years have passed since my first viewing, but interestingly enough I recognized the film and even remembered the story and characters, which means the whole thing had something memorable.

I wouldn't like to give anything away not even the first minute of it, but basically if you catch this on TV, what you need to expect from this is a good murder mystery story, with a female protagonist, good characters, filled with occasional suspense. Don't expect originality though, and complicated puzzles, it's more of a typical murder mystery, but a good one.

If you want to release stress after a long and hard day at work, and this is on TV, then it's on for you.

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (2009)

A hilarious and surreal ride! One of the best modern animated features!

[10/10 · 27 September 2009]

This was a film I didn't have high expectations for. But I'm a fan of Bruce Campbell and I also like Anna Faris, and heard a review which made me want to see it immediately, so I decided to go and see it. And I loved it!

Most comedy films coming out today have many jokes, but unfortunately all bad ones, because the problem is that they try too hard to be funny, and it just doesn't work. In 'Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs' the humour is natural. They have a hilariously absurd situation (food falling from sky) and some lovely characters, great voice-overs which help to bring some great jokes, and shows that they are still people around in the film industry who have a good sense of humour.

The visuals are stunning, surrealistic and sometimes even dark, especially if you think about the fact that it's an animated kids film. The animators sure did a great job. This is one the few animated newer animated films which actually has an atmosphere ('Wall-E' being another example). The film has a variety of things such as walking roasted chickens, a guy with a macaroni on his head, multicoloured clouds which increases this absurd surrealistic feel that the film has.

Over nearly 2 hours you regularly see different foods falling from the sky, but interestingly enough, it never bores you, because every time a good joke is added, and you can enjoy the visuals. This means the film is working.

I think this film might be one of the year's best if not the best. Clearly it has an intention of being memorable, and not just one of those little animated film you see once with your children, and then forget about it a week after. This is a film that males/females, adults/children can enjoy from beginning to end. It's a film that succeeds on many levels. I've seen it in 3D, which I do not believe in, and I am sure that a 2D experience is as good, and enjoyable for everyone. So don't let 3D fool you, just sit back in any dimension and enjoy this wonderful modern animated feature.

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

A Total Disaster

[1/10 · 26 September 2009]

This must be the most overrated film I came across on IMDb yet. If you look at the user rating statistics, you can see that most people voted it 10. Also, can be seen the average rating for male voters is 7.5 (as of the day I write this review). This is clearly a film that is usually more appealing to female viewers, and why is it that if only males voted for this it would still get a great rating, is beyond me.

This film is not only a total atrocity, but an opportunity missed to make a visually beautiful film with great songs and performances.

I have to say I'm a male, but the reasons why I dislike this film is not because of that.

The editing is absolutely terrible. CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT CUT. About 20 minutes in the film I started counting how often is there a cut (which is already a sign that I waited for the film to be over). There is a cut every 2-3 seconds in average. You barely can follow what is going on. You just see faces pop up on the screen. There is even a scene where you see the building of the Moulin Rouge for a second. It just pops up, you don't know why. That shows that the whole editing of this film is a mess. The director employed this quick editing for the movie to be stylish, but it just failed.

The acting and the character development are disastrous. Nicole Kidman looks gorgeous as always, but that's it. Both her's and McGregor's acting is extremely forced and unnatural. Also, I don't see why I should care about the characters, if the director doesn't care about developing them. What we know about the two main characters is that they LOVE each other. Everything else is unimportant. The creators thought that the love and chemistry between McGregor's and Kidman's character will be so strong and powerful that it will blow us away, and then they can do ANYTHING on screen we won't notice. NO. You don't care if a plane crashes in the Moulin Rouge, and all the characters die, because you don't care about them.

The visual style. A huge fail again. The whole thing tries to have it's own unique and beautiful visual style, but it just isn't impressing at all. The whole film seems like it's on a set, and maybe that was intentional, but in doesn't work anyway.

Ridiculously clichéd dialogues and story. The word LOVE is used in every sentence, there are monologues about LOVE, Ewan McGregor is a troubled writer who LOVEd someone, and writes a story about LOVE, and the whole film is about LOVE, ....... NO, enough!

The interesting thing is that all the points cited above have one thing in common (apart form that they are all negative). The quick cut-cut-cut editing, the forced and cheesy acting, the wanna look cool visual style, the 'they've done this story a hundred times before but I'll show that I'll do it the best' comes down to this: the director wants us to believe that this is great by those things. It wants to shows that this is a unique and powerful film. No, it's not. It's a bad bad bad film. Of course, it's got to be said that this is a musical, and you can still like the songs. If that is the case buy the soundtrack, but don't waste your time watching this atrocity. And the fact that it won 2 Oscars, shows the true quality of these awards.

Get Smart (2008)

Disappointing

[4/10 · 9 August 2009]

This was one of the few movies of 2008 I was looking forward to. I love the films of Mel Brooks, the man who's behind the original TV series for this movie. I'm also a big fan of 'The Naked Gun' series. I think Steve Carell is a good actor, a funny guy, who could play well (but not as good as Nielsen of course) a Frank Drebin-like character, and I hoped that this film is going to be at last a funny comedy from Hollywood. This wasn't the case.

Many, way too many parts of 'Get Smart' were boring. It was clear at times that for a while there hasn't been one joke. To that adds that a lot of the jokes are unfunny to slightly funny, in general weak.

The main problem of the film is that it was trying to be an action/spy film and a comedy at the same time, and that it failed. Normally these spy film spoofs like 'The Naked Gun' as mentioned above, have the right balance between suspense/action and comedy. Those 2 are well combined with each other. 'Get Smart' failed to do this balance, it can even be said that action and comedy scenes are sometimes altered. There are sequences of pure action without any comedy, and sequences with pure comedy without any action. You cannot decide which side to lean to, added to which the film doesn't really succeed in neither of the two genres.

Now, there are funny jokes in the film, and more than one, but most of them will probably just make you smile.

Even though negative points are dominating in this review, my opinion summarised in two words would be: 'Decent Fun'. It's entertaining after all, and it's better than most of the comedies coming out today, which won't even make you smile once. Give it a shot, but don't have high expectations!

Brüno (2009)

Hilarious! Cohen did it again!

[9/10 · 2 August 2009]

I always considered Bruno, as my least favourite character from Sacha Baron Cohen's 'The Ali G Show'. I found him to be the least funny character, with the least memorable parts from the interviews Cohen made. However, having seen this film, I began to like the character a lot more.

The story is quiet the same as Borat: Bruno the Austrian gay fashion reporter travels to US(and)A, trying to find a job there. The plot of the film might sound disappointing to some, who might think this is going to be the same thing as 'Borat'. Not at all! The basis of the film might be same but 'Bruno' has its own great jokes and its own hilarious moments.

The film is a definite laugh riot, those who enjoyed 'Borat' certainly won't be disappointed. It's a tricky question whether it's a better/funnier film, but it's by all means on the level of the adventures of the Kazakh reporter.

Didier (1997)

This film has a special place in my heart

[10/10 · 7 July 2009]

...as silly as it may sound (for those who know/have seen this film of course) it is true.

Around the time this film came out, I was living in France. It was on TV one night, and decided to record it for some inexplicable reason.

I cannot remember the way I felt the first time I saw it, but I know that it became my favourite film at the time(yes, I was very young back then...),and watched it over and over. In fact, I watched it so many times that I knew the order of the scenes, the dialogues word by word and the facial expressions as well. I remember I used to recite the whole film in my bed at night, when I couldn't sleep.

I loved the soundtrack, the characters (especially Didier, played by Alain Chabat, who is by the way a very famous actor in France) and everything about it. The funny thing is that at my age at the time, I didn't find the whole thing silly, since a kid wouldn't find 'Tom & Jerry' silly either, why would he find silly a story of a dog who one night changes into a man who behaves like a dog? In fact, I kind of considered it as a comedy, with serious dramatic elements.

Many people will probably find it stupid, but even today I find a certain charm about this film, and I do think that it's a very entertaining, funny little comedy. If you like the plot, you won't be disappointed, because as silly as it is, it's well executed, with very good jokes.

Check it out if you can, and enjoy!

Ty the Tasmanian Tiger 2 (2004 Video Game)

Certainly great for kids

[2 July 2009]

This game was sold out at once at one of my nearest stores, and decided to buy it, because of my love for these jump & run kind of games. Although these kind of games are aimed for children, I still enjoy playing them when I'm too tired for doing anything...but playing this game was more frequently annoying, than entertaining. I assume this game is perfect, and only enjoyable for children under the age of 12 or even 10.

It's pretty much a version of 'Grand Theft Auto' for kids. There is a peaceful little town, with funny looking characters who say 'Hi!' every time you pass by them. Around that town there are several connected roads, all in an area in which you can only travel by car. You can only leave it it certain places by the road, from where you need to go by foot. These are small or bigger areas where the missions take place.

The missions are usually about helping somebody/saving somebody, nothing too exciting.

Some of them are mini-games in which you usually have to control a helicopter. There are also racing mini-games which are not part of the missions.

Your 'weapons' are your sharp teeth and boomerangs of which there is a huge collection, but of which you'll only use 1 or 2 regularly, the others are just there for decoration in your inventory.

There are robots you can jump into and use, lots of collectible items, nice graphics and nice use of colours but all that in a very short and very easy game.

I'd only recommend 'Ty 2' for younger kids (max 12 y.o. as said above), it will most probably bore most bigger kids after half an hour of playing, or even less.