Change Your Image
iftekhar25
Reviews
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Shamefully bad
This kind of storytelling is unacceptable The only reason this film is anywhere above the 5 stars out of 10 line is because it's got George Lucas behind it, and it has the words "Star" and "Wars" in its title. That is an insult to aspiring filmmakers, and many others out there who have made clearly superior films with superior story, writing and acting, but did not get the credit. This is a travesty.
First things first. The story. Anakin's evolution? There is none. Apart from a little make-up around the eyes, and a little yelling, there is none. He becomes young, stupid, cocky Anakin Skywalker to Darth Vader in a single blow. The only thing consistent about Darth Vader in the original series was his intelligence, how good he was at almost everything he did, planning, fighting, you name it. The only consistent thing about Anakin that is perceived in the prequel trilogy is his consistent stupidity. He even loses his body because of a bout of stupid cockiness.
What part of the Emperor Palpatine telling him legends of the Sith does not point to the Emperor being a Sith? Unacceptable!
The fight scenes used too many digital doubles. Everyone's flying all over the place like teddy bears in a make-believe doll house. Count Dooku, Emperor Palpatine, Anakin, Obi-Wan, almost every fighter had a rubbery digital double jumping around.
In one specific fight scene, Obi-Wan and Anakin in the climactic battle, they both actually stop in the middle of parries and ripostes, to twirl their sabers a few times while inches apart. I realize the fights are choreographed, but that just got me shaking my head in disbelief and disgust.
The writing was awful. All the dialogue was of tremendously low quality. The good actors like Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman did the best they could with their lines, but that just wasn't enough. I can't say enough bad things about this film. Too much special effects, plot holes bigger than the centre of the universe, and absolutely no insights into any of the characters. This is the biggest mistake of this film: nothing new is offered. We know the rough picture of everything, all Lucas did was colour it in.
We knew Anakin lost his limbs. We knew Luke and Leia are brother and sister, we knew Luke is Anakin's son, we knew Obi-Wan and Yoda go to exile, we knew everything. Nothing new is offered in this film. If that's all the fans wanted, then that's fine, Lucas couldn't have gone wrong.
But when Anakin finally becomes Darth Vader, and he asks after Padme, and hears she is dead, he reaches out his arms awkwardly and screams "Nooooooooooooooooooooo." That scene screamed B-movie all the way, and I was half expecting Darth Vader to go "DANGER WILL ROBINSON, DANGER" at any time. That is what this is. A B-movie, disguised by a huge budget and a ultra-loyalist fan base that will settle with anything now that the first two movies have pulled their standards down to the pits of the Earth.
Batman Begins (2005)
Batman how he should be
This film finally explores Batman as a character and a human. Everything is attempted to be grounded in reality, and nothing is dubiously over-efficient at what it does, neither Batman, the characters around him, or his gadgets.
That being said, the full 10 out of 10 count doesn't come in for a few problems. One of them is the abruptness with which young Bruce Wayne returns home from his training with Ras Al Ghoul, it seems Alfred pops out of the snow like a daisy. And another one is how the microwave emitter that is the main instrument of the climax of the film vaporises only water in pipes, and not the several liters of water in human bodies.
Disregarding that, the exploration of Bruce Wayne's motives for being what he is, and the grim reality of leading a double-life hits us hard. It seems comic-to-movie works are catching on hard that humanism is the greatest point of resonance with the audience, as Spider-Man captures this torment with an equally adept inner eye, but without as much darkness as only the Dark Knight can provide.
The supporting cast is surprisingly star-studded, but pleasantly well-cast. None of them seem put there for the sake of sparkle, and they are all solid actors, including Christian Bale as Batman.
Hopefully, this will be the beginning of a successful franchise. I await the sequels eagerly. A 9 out of 10.
The Shining (1980)
Absolutely awful, awful stuff
This entire movie could have been viewed with subtitles and everything on fast forward. Low on dialogue and storytelling, and sky-high on Kubrik-Hype, his God-awful long shots were as deadly as Jack Nicholson's axe... they killed the movie and any suspense it attempted to create.
I literally watched the last part of this movie on fast forward. The Kubrik-esquire long shots are an absolute drag, and the producers should have worked more on the script to let people understand the story more.
Try watching a few scenes on fast forward, and you'll get the joke. Absolutely unacceptable. The story is not served in any way by watching a well-acted freak with an axe limp across a half-mile hallway or an old black guy walk, 6-inch stride by 6-inch stride across the same bloody hallway for five minutes.
All movie adaptations worthy to be mentioned should have enough material within the contents of the movie for people who have NOT read the book to understand ENOUGH so as to get the general story right. This adaptation does not do anything of the sort.
Unacceptable script-writing and unacceptable direction. I forgave Kubrik on 2001: A Space Odyssey, but after watching The Shining, in hindsight, his clichéd long shots and his awful storytelling puts him in one of the directors whose work I consistently do not enjoy.
The Village (2004)
Mixed feelings.
I'm a huge Shyamalan fan, along with a large section of people out there. But I really think Mr. Shyamalan has poked it too deep this time around, alienating his audience just a tad bit.
I'm not sure if the normal man realizes the significance of colours that he uses in this movie, or his persistence in showing empty chairs.
The twist wasn't predictable (to me), but I could imagine myself as a filmmaker thinking up an idea like this, and curtly brushing it aside because it just wouldn't work. Apparently, Mr. Shyamalan went through with it.
What I absolutely loved about this movie was the love story. I haven't seen a movie about love that touched me so deep in a very, very long time. The best lines in this movie, in terms of writing, are reserved for this aspect of the drama.
Although I liked the twist in this movie, I can see how when comparing it to the Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs, this has to be the lowest in the rankings.
All in all, I give this movie a handsome 8 out of 10.
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Solid Stuff.
Although Spider-Man is my favourite Marvel character, having grown up on the cartoons as a kid, alongside The Incredible Hulk, the first movie didn't get me up that much. This second movie, however, has me totally taken.
It's rock solid stuff. The acting is top notch, the special effects, though obviously fake, is absolutely breath-taking and the drama is completely captivating. I recommend this movie highly.
Dreamcatcher (2003)
God aweful stuff!
I cannot believe how bad this movie was. It's worse than the worst movie I've ever seen, and that's Battlefield Earth! Battlefield Earth was better than this stuff! At least in BE you knew from the first 5 minutes the movie was gonna be bad, so you could tolerate the crap that was thrown at you from the screen.
But this movie, the beginning is so AMAZING, it's so wonderfully and masterfully woven, the beginning, that when the stupid monster comes out of people's rears with a thousand teeth, you say to yourself, what the hell is this?!?! Did they cut to another movie?! I was totally taken aback by the crap that went on as soon as the monsters started appearing. I wouldn't have hated this movie as much if the monsters were there from the beginning. Show crap to be crap. Don't mask it with the first half hour or so of amazing storytelling and character development, getting my hopes up, and then damning the story to hell at the end of it.
Save 2 hours of your life. Don't.
Hulk (2003)
A new touch to a new genre
This movie really adds a new touch to a new genre of movies. The comic book style fonts is seen before in Spider-Man, but the comic-book style screen layout is really new and very nice, actually. I actually like the idea of the screen looking like a comic book page with live action scenes in each box. A smart, but inevitable development, I think, in this relatively new genre of movie that is probably going to monopolize summer blockbusters for a long time to come.
I also enjoyed the artistic representations and relations between big and small, the way the universe and a cell are put into a screen and made to seem almost the same, or a desert landscape and fungus on a rock.
All in all, I really enjoyed this movie. If people complain about the CG mindlessly, I'm sorry, but that's really dumb. The Hulk's modelling was very good, but I'll admit from one of the posts in the forums, that they could have textured him better. When I showed my mother a poster of The Hulk, she said it looked like plastic. That is intelligent criticism. Just saying "The CG sucked" is dumb. The CG was good. He interacted very nicely with his environment.
I liked the idea of them developing the story properly for almost an hour into the movie before giving us even a whif of the Hulk. I think that does justice to a large movie franchise in dedicating the first part to proper, human development of the character (unlike in Spider-Man; I was somewhat surprised at how fast they introduced the superhero).
And this character development wasn't at the expense of the entertainment either. There was enough "Hulk Smash" to keep it entertaining.
The ending was also good. It nicely wrapped up the story in the movie while leaving enough room for a sequel. I'm sorry, but after Lord of the Rings and Matrix Reloaded, movies that end as if they were a whole movie cut into half seriously, SERIOUSLY tick me off, even if that's the point. Even the Spider-Man ending left a lot hanging. It left with Spider-Man all fine and dandy, swinging around. The ending in Hulk is where something actually ends and nothing but a new story can only ever develop.
Casting was really good. The young and old versions all looked like each other. Absolutely seemless. In fact, even their 4-year-old versions were good.
I'll rate it a high 9/10 because 1. it has a good story, 2. it has good action, 3. it was deep for a comic book movie, and Ang Lee didn't mess it up, and 4. the novelty in the comic book-ish feel on-screen.
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
Definitely enjoyable.
Having never read the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I can very safely say that my rating will be as a person who is rating this as a movie, and little more than a movie.
In general, the movie was absolutely terrific. I thoroughly enjoyed every second of it. The acting was wonderful, and dialogue that would have otherwise been somewhat cheesy, simply wasn't, because I think the acting really did cover up for it.
The special effects were out of this world. The last Helm's Deep battle sequence was absolutely glorious, and it's a surprise I managed to stay in my seat all throughout. I felt like I wanted to join them and kill a few Uruk-Hai! Simply marvellous.
The revival of King Theoden, however, seemed kind of hurried... as if there was a "fix him up and get over with it" attitude with the writer.
The Ents were wonderful. Amazing CG used to make them... but underdeveloped as I hear from some other reviewers. Having not read the book, I didn't understand the gravity of their going into battle... but knowing the time constraints of cinema halls who want the maximum number of viewings in a day, I sympathize with Peter Jackson's dilemma. Maybe he saved something for us in the Extended Edition.
Gollum is a true work of art. Having heard that CG artists were studying anatomy to get Gollum's structure up, I was really curious to see him, and it's true. I think they truly did study anatomy. Jar-Jar, for example, seemed totally amorphous, as if he had cartilage for bones, in Star Wars: Episode 1. Dobbie (or Dobby, or whatever) from the second Harry Potter is somewhat, slightly (only slightly) comparable in CG art to Gollum, but then... Gollum was a magnificently developed character and was probably the most complex character in the entire movie. Gollum deserves an Academy Award, actually!
That's a nice development in the movie industry, I think. CG characters are now given... character! Before they were just there for the eye candy, like with Jar-Jar Binks, who I didn't quite find as irritating as some people would say, but he just wasn't really relevant. But Gollum... marvellous.
Maybe that's where Peter Jackson missed out with the Ents? Maybe he forgot to develop them as part of the drama because he knew they were going to be all CG? Maybe not. We'll have to see in the Extended Edition. Oh my, it's going to be a long wait. It was long enough with the Fellowship.
I thoroughly enjoyed it, though. It was a human endeavour beyond any scale yet to be attempted, and so I greet a human effort with human enthusiasm. They say Helm's Deep took three months of night-time shootings in the mountains of New Zealand? They definitely deserve the credit.
The One (2001)
Very original, but very 'Matrixy.'
The similarities to this movie to the Wachowski Brothers' "The Matrix" are many.
1. Reality is not what it seems to be 2. If you're fast enough, you can move appreciably with respect to a bullet, thus moving in "bullet time" 3. At one point, Jet Li's character appears to die, and then returns back (that's not a spoiler, don't worry) and gets better at what he was doing before (moving fast, thinking fast, doing stuff fast, basically... being fast)
The story isn't fundamentally the same as The Matrix' but it's still too similar for comfort. But then, it isn't a bad story. The concept is that there are 125 universes (collectively the multiverse
pretty good) and they're all alternate realities. In one, Al Gore is the President (I wish I existed in that one), and in another George Bush is the president. In one, Jet Li is a criminal psycho that shakes his head constantly, and in another Jet Li is a police officer. Simple, eh? No. Not simple.
If you can kill your alternate self' in another universe, his energy is distributed among the survivors all over the multiverse. This was not known till one guy (who is an inter-universal police
an agency set up to keep things ship-shape in the multiverse) kills his alternate self' by mistake and then finds out he gets stronger. Having experienced this, he (Jet Li) gets psycho and goes to each of the remaining 123 universes and kills himself,' getting their energy. He meets his match when he meets his 124th self, though. Pretty original when you think of it, but still
too Matrixy for comfort when they try to revolutionize reality in a movie stuffed with bullet-time scenes.
The thing with the Matrix was, the bullet-time scenes were limited to very few... I think I could count them in one hand. Trinity's kick to the policeman with a broken arm, Agent Smith and Neo's showdown in the subway (Agent Smith: "You're empty." Neo: "So are you"), Neo's dodging Agent Jones's bullets (`Only human').
The fact that the scenes were limited to so few was that they were made
with STYLE (except for the ripples, which I still don't get
breaking the sound barrier?). They were amazing, with no reason for disbelief. Someone can come out of that movie and think, `Sure, if I could move fast enough, I can dodge bullets' without being a complete and absolute psycho.
The bullet time scenes in The One' are way too many, which means some of them are better than others. Some of them are strangely reminiscent to `Blade' part I (Wesley Snipes) when he fires at Deacon Frost in the park. Collectively, the bullet-time scenes weren't too bad at all, but some of them were a little sketchy.
There are also a few scenes in which Jet Li jumps heights that normal humans aren't supposed to be able to. Filmmakers should really think a little bit when making scenes in which actors do things that normal humans cannot do. They should ask themselves `Why can't a man jump 10 meters in the air?' It's simple. A normal man's legs cannot give him the initial velocity required to reach such a height. Please, Mr. and Mrs. Filmmakers, get rid of the wires. Wires don't make people look like they're jumping. It makes them look like they're floating! And that's not the point! I believe in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon they were meant to float, but if Jet Li's going to have to jump from road level high enough to hold onto a traffic light, his legs are strong enough to give him the initial velocity required to reach such a height! If you're going to have to stuff a movie with special effects (and this movie was basically engineered' for special effects) do it right. That's where I found the special effects were a bit off. Jet Li floated. I don't like floating people.
Some of the effects were really good, though. I gotta hand it to them. They made his characters seem truly powerful sometimes. The scene where he fights himself is certainly praiseworthy effort. It seemed pretty real to me. I was trying to look carefully at the Jet Li facing away from the camera, but was it just me, or did they appear to be exactly the same? I can almost always point out a double in movies, but not in this one. Good stuff.
Jet Li is not a bad actor. I can't yet say he's a good actor. My definition of a good actor is Tom Hanks or Denzel, but then again, Tom and Denzel don't normally dodge bullets, and even if they did, it wouldn't be for roles like those that they'd get praised for being a good actor. Keanu Reeves dodged bullets, but, well
he's expressionless. Li wasn't bad. He has the kind of face that can turn really evil one instant and then look really innocent, so the fact that he played both the villain and the good guy didn't mess things up.
The makers also left plenty of room for a sequel, because clearly, the most important question wasn't answered in this movie: what happens when all 124 of them die, and only one remain?. Let's just hope Jet Li doesn't float in the sequel.
I give this movie, with a floating Jet Li, some shotty bullet-time scenes, a good motorbike-toting scene (forget fighting people off with sticks
motorbikes work better if you have the strength of 123 of yourselves), reasonably good acting, a good story and this totally amazing hand-held gadget that opens up into a circular screen, a 7/10.
Contact (1997)
Simple genius
It's very difficult to comment on a movie like Contact without giving out spoilers.
The basic concepts on which this movie is based, I can safely say, is simple genius, nothing more, nothing less.
The acting is absolutely beautiful. Jodie Foster, Matthew (here I go...) McConaughey (yaay!) and Tom Skerritt play their roles wonderfully and they do the movie justice.
I really like David Morse (the big, tall guy in Green Mile), who plays Foster's single-father, and he also plays his short role wonderfully, enough to leave a tear in anyone's eye. Morse has an air of amiability to him, kinda like the Big Friendly Giant, dare I say it.
All-in-all, a wonderful movie. This comment would have been three times as long had I been allowed to give out spoilers... DARN IT!
I found this movie amazingly entertaining, wonderfully written, brilliantly acted out and directed (Robert Zemeckis... that guy is a genius with what he did with Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump... I didn't know Zemeckis directed this movie till I came to this website to look up the makers of this movie and I figure... NO WONDER IT'S A GOOD MOVIE!)
I give it a 10/10.
The Prophecy (1995)
Very entertaining
Despite my reservations about the theological fundamentals on which this movie is based (angels being capable of free thought and having wings like those of birds, and Lucifer being an angel at some point), I found this movie particularly entertaining.
Christopher Walken fits into his role as a corrupt angel like a glove. He was practically made for this role and is beautifully casted as Gabriel. His acting, the way he says his lines, the way he carries himself, although natural (he has his trademark ways of doing all these things I mention) appear absolutely perfect for his role in this movie.
Elias Koteas also plays his role nicely, as well as Viggo Mortensen's short but essential role towards the end of the movie, but Walken definitely steals the show from both these excellent actors.
The use of audio and simple visual effects to make the angels appear powerful and intelligent combine well with the superb acting to permeate the atmosphere with a sense of unseen power. I particularly love the way Gabriel (Walken) shuts people up by putting one hand on their chest and another on his lip and uttering a simple "shhh!" as they collapse in a heap. What a concept!
What I found particularly interesting was Gabriel's referring to humans as "talking monkeys." Interesting how the makers of the movie seek to unite religion and science in an amiable blend of "truth." Although I, personally, am not much of a fan of evolution, I think unity between science and religion is a very nice thing, and something worth striving for.
In any case, despite the blasphemy (with respect to my faith and beliefs) contained within the underlying concepts on which this movie is based, it is wonderfully made and very entertaining. I watched it many times and each time I enjoyed it. I certainly recommend it.
The Jungle Book (1967)
All-time classic
I grew up on this animation, and all I can say is that no classical animation-style Disney movie till date, not Lion King, Pocahontas, Hunchback of Notre Dame or any other that you can think of comes THIS close as to compare itself with this all-time classic.
A brilliant combination of wonderful voices, magnificent characters, songs that will keep you humming for weeks this is certainly the peek of animation storytelling. It doesn't get any better than this.
I give this one 10/10 without a second thought.
The Lion King II: Simba's Pride (1998)
Disappointing
The only reason I didn't give Lion King II: Simba's Pride a 1 out of 10 is because it was a good story. The fours years that followed the original Lion King did not help the quality of the animation of part 2 very much. Quality of scenes in which characters are shown from a distance are less than what one would expect from a Disney production.
The songs were awfully written, and the transition from Rowan Atkinson to Edward Hibbert as Zazu the Hornbill was about as smooth as the hide of a porcupine. Zebras and antelope never speak in the original Lion King (and for good reason as you will discover in the sequel), but in this part they sing, dance and more.
The story, however, was very good, just like the voices. They could have made Lion King II a sequel comparable in critical acclaim to Disney and Pixar's Toy Story 2 if they put some more work into it. More like, if they totally rewrote the script and tossed (at least) 1 song out the window, rewrote whatever songs they decided to keep and a little more detailed work on the animation.
Lion of the Desert (1980)
Oscar material
This movie is most definitely Oscar-winning stuff for its time. I wonder where it was in the Academy Awards of that year.
Hats off to H.A.L. Craig for beautifully writing this movie. The dialogue, the action sequences and the incredible chemistry between Anthony Quinn and Oliver Reed (both exceptional actors, and both deceased) are all Oscar-winning material.
The story goes of a Libyan bedouin freedom fighter, fighting against Italian re-occupation of what the Italians believe is theirs (referring to the Romans when they had North Africa in their maps, thus the word 're-occupation').
On horseback with age-old muskets, the Libyans battle against the military genius of General Graziani (played by Oliver Reed) who first put tanks in the desert, and used aircraft for aerial raids.
H.A.L. Craig's writing does justice to the story, and Moustapha Akkad's eye for detail should have handed him (or at least his movie) an Oscar.
What I can't imagine is how expensive this movie must have been, having to shoot on-location, with life-size replicas of World War II era tanks and full-scale armies clashing in the middle of the desert. Truly an accomplishment for an independent movie.