Change Your Image
Sophoclaw
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Life (2017)
An alien organism in the ship.
During space recounter to earth from mars, a spaceship meets another coming from an anonymus planet which unfortunately has been infected by tiny lifeless organism. The pilot succedes on revitalisering and he calls it Calvin, which in no time grows enormously and kills everyone on board, when they arrive on earth. They meet a vietnamesisk fishing boat During space recounter to earth from mars, a spaceship meets another coming from an anonymus planet which unfortunately has been infected by tiny lifeless organism. The pilot succedes on revitalisering and he calls it Calvin, which in no time grows enormously and kills everyone on board, when they arrive on earth. They meet a vietnamesisk fishing boat and Calvin goes and attack him and his family. Calvin goes and attack him and his family.
Downton Abbey: A New Era (2022)
Big is good for film
It was a pleasure to experience "Downton Abbey : A New Era" at the movies, the format definitely makes a difference. Like all characters seem younger and more beautiful than in the small format TV. I understand now why TVs are getting bigger and bigger.
A Quiet Place (2018)
Movie where people make many mistakes
It should seem that the purpose of this movie is to get rid of most people because as you might already know the world by some mysterious reason is full of aliens that kill people by detecting their noises. So in the very first scene the older sister gives a toy airplane to her younger brother In the way home the father walks first in the line and the younger son the last and then it's inevitable that he wants to play with the toy which makes a hell of a noise. It takes too long for the father to react and when he starts to run it's too late. Ask me if I was sorry for this departure? Not at all actually this scene told me how hopeless the whole thing was coming.
The Crown (2016)
Waist, The Crown of Britain is nothing but waist.
And more if one thinks about the difficult times Great Britain is passing through right now, with among others the pandemic of the corona virus, the problematic of the deals within Brexit, the border problem both with Northern Ireland and Scotland, the British people living in Europe, etc. And just think: what is the cost of it all for the British people, not only of the crown, but of the whole British aristocracy. I have to admit, I hate waist, so naturally I had aversion towards the TV series, but in a strange way it helped me to assert my thoughts and feelings about the monarchies, in this case, the British.
I mean there was after all some meaning when monarchs had power and ruled, but after Queen Victoria's death at the very beginning of the 19th century, the British should have realized that monarchy as an effective way of leading a country was gone forever. Instead, they created a rare creature, some virtual being that has only skin but no soul and no body and no brains; something apparent. It's a make believe in for the British. And in a coincidental and accidental way the series succeed in convening this feeling, in that weird way the series are good, unfortunately, that wasn't the intention!
There is no point in mention the many different scenes where this is more than evident; it would've just confirmed my assumptions. On the other side, the atmosphere and background are great, the same can one say about the actors achievements. The photography is also remarkable and most of the historic facts are surely ok, even though I haven't bothered to check because this is not a documentary. The direction has a tendency to exaggerate the personalities of the main characters by trying to evaluate them (or devaluate them) as Hollywood stars; that can be positive or negative, but I assume that for the most it must be a positive thing. I hope that when they see the series they can realize at last that as the Bible clearly suggests: "All men are created equal" and therefore there should be no need for something called aristocracy or "The Crown"
iHuman (2019)
Interesting theme, unfortunately derailed.
Not all the time, but sometimes we Norwegians can become over moralizing. For example in a TV debate recently about the now famous corona virus, a health administrative painted such a grim scenario, that the debate leader had to apologize for her afterwards because the TV channel got overthrown by thousands of phones calls complaining for the apocalyptic scenario that was presented. It is not easy to be puritan and it is even more difficult to be led by one. iHuman has many qualities indeed, but in the long run it just falls short because humans are driven not only by intelligence. Intelligence is just one of the many attributes that we have. Perhaps in the future some company will develop AP Artificial Psychology, or AC Artificial Consciousness, or AR Artificial Religion, etc. for whatever purpose they may have, if any. Undoubtedly for Tonje Hessen Schei, here is a lot of stuff for even more films! My point is that what this film fails to see is that at the end it is humans that have the absolute power. Both as creators of the so called "Artificial Intelligence" and of all the robots, drones, machines, weapons, software that is supposed to lead us into termination or subjugation (in this point the film is quite unclear). And also in the end is up to each person to create her or his own future according to his own personal intelligence, psychology, consciousness or religion, among other attributes of the human mind.
The negative message of the film underestimates human beings. The film takes for granted that humans are completely able to be manipulated by anything that is presented in front of them. While in reality, when I am with Facebook or other media, I am completely aware that is full of not very reliable sources, which is completely normal, like when you are having a conversation with a friend, you cannot rely on everything he or she says because it is not an academic lecture, it is a very informal way of communicating, it is relaxing and supposed to be part of the entertainment that the media can offer. We can perhaps blame the faults of this film to "exacerbating academism", what I mean is that when you are talking to a friend, you don't have a dictionary or the Encyclopedia Britannica or yet easier Wikipedia beside you to check that everything your friend says is completely accurate! That could be awkward and worse, it could end the friendship!
Speaking about manipulation, this film uses itself a quite manipulative, attractive and suggestively interface that if we are not attentive and awake will lead some people to believe that AI is dangerous!
Long Shot (2019)
QUITE REALISTIC
As things are developing this could be the future, that's why this film could be politically prophetic; on those premisses perhaps it's even worth to see it, because it's auguring the future of politics in Washington.
Nevertheless I can't recommend it as entertainment simply because as film, it is very bad indeed. The story is completely superficial, everything is unreal. The story is based on facts that in no way could've happen, after all it is announced as a romantic comedy, not science ficton or fantasy. You could say that it is a political comedy..........that doesn't understand or better said doesn't want to understand how the political forces of America or the world work, which makes the whole film completely absurd and therefore not worth watching at all. Appart from that, there are some sex scenes between Charlize Theron and Seth Rogen which must be the worst ever in film history, it's embarrasing to watch, you can see that there exists zero motivation between the characters and of course no natural attraction. Everything in this film is artificial and that's the problem everything is forced and unnatural. But most annoying was Rogen's unstopable chatting and screaming because unfortunately he has a very unpleasent voice and in this film uses it assiduously and unrestrained!
Game of Thrones (2011)
Why the Hollywood way?
I liked GOT quite a lot until J.R.R.Martin stoped writing the series. It was a very noticeable phenomenon mostly because many of the characters began acting different from what they supposed to be from what Martin had painstakingly developed through many years. Not one of them was a stereotype, that is non of them was what we call a typical hero or a typical villain like in the Hollywood jargon, no, they were more like human, sometimes they made good and great things and many times terrible mistakes, mostly they had a lot of flaws, like they were weak of character, violent, speculative, manipulative, treacherous, sadic, prejudiced, aggressive, vicious, etc. but hey that's precisely why GOT was great! And they killed each other but the series was constantly being replenished with new and exiting characters all the time so that there was plenty to take from and they could continue apparently to the end of time, but there exists another world, the world of reality and real human beings where the series were being created. It seems that Martin could not cope with the tremendous pace of TV and the new authors couldn't find a way, things were rushed, suddenly the world of the realm got smaller, distances and times got shorter, the pace of destruction faster, the wave of new characters stoped, in able to end it sooner than originally intended they changed personality, like they thought it had to end in a "normally" human worldly way, but why the Hollywood way?
A Star Is Born (2018)
AN INSULT TO THE BEAUTIFUL ENGLISH LANGUAGE
I am aware that this is an appealing film for the most; other viewers with reason criticized the structure and mostly the plot of the film. I got confused, but now it is some time I have been in the USA, perhaps things have changed since the last time for the better. I saw this film hoping that it was going to be a clarifying experience. I have not seen the first two versions, but I saw the third with Streisand and Kristofferson and I thought it was great at the time, so I wanted to give this one a shot and compare mostly for the sake of the art of filming. You know like you have seen different versions of certain iconic themes in painting or hearing different versions of let's say the 5th of Beethoven or the Four Seasons of Vivaldi and you find interesting to appreciate the qualities of each of them, while some have certain faults or virtues in certain passages is often theme of discussion with other enthusiasts. While I find this version interesting is mostly because I wanted to find out what was wrong with it. There was something that bothered me and it was certainly not the story because in principle it was the same story as all the other versions, so after seeing it several times, eureka! I found that the script is wrong because it is repetitive, boring and full with clichés that unfortunately all in all give a negative result. I have nothing against the use of vulgarity in drama because that's what we usually do isn't it? At least that's what this film is trying desperately to convey at least among country, rock and pop musicians, and I mean desperately because of the constant use of the F word. I mean I have nothing against the use of the word in drama, but when in a sentence with let's say 20 words, 5 are the F word; that causes some kind of a degenerative effect in the language because it's misleading the real meaning of the plot. My conclusion, the version with Streisand and Kristofferson is still the best.
The Lone Ranger (2013)
Fantastic work by Johnny Depp!
Format: Blu-ray
I have read and heard many bad reviews about this film, so I decided to see it for myself and give it a try. And I must say I don't regret it. It is not the usual western, it's funny! It's more like a comedy in a western costume because it has all the ingredients, bandits, native americans, chinese, silver mines, heroes, villains, beautiful women and of course The Lone Ranger and not to forget Tonto! whose presence makes the film with Johnny Depp playing the role in a most magnificent manner. One can wonder, there has been many films about these two caracters and no one has ever had this fantastic concept of Tonto. It is only the genius of Depp that has had the fantasy and imagination, not to say courage to play Tonto this way. You have to see it to beleive it!
Escape Plan (2013)
Quintessential and entertaining action movie.
At last these two titans of the action film gender meet in a most entertaining movie. Rambo meets Terminator! And if you are keen to action films this will not disappoint you because it's charged with action practically from the first scene. With a quite complex plot in its structure, this movie takes you to an environment where our heroes require sharp thinking, quick, elaborated and many times courageous moves with the strategy of a master chess player in thinking and the skills of a samurai on the plentiful action scenes. I was delighted with the structure of the story where many diverse and apparently unknown elements come together to make the intricate plot so that both Sylvester and Arnold can develop their precious capacity in to the full and entertain us with what they can do best without an empty or boring moment. As extra positive bonus we have the likes of Jim Caviezel who delivers an astounding performance as the main villain of the film impersonated as a cold, calculating, cynical and bloody serious prison director and last but not least Sam Neill as the subdued prison doctor. We also enjoy the excellent performances of Vincent D'Onofrio as a treacherous and misleading agent, Faran Tahir as the religious prisoner and Amy Ryan as Stallone's sexy companion and colleague. This is top entertainment and you will be happy that your money was invested in seeing and enjoying this film.
Dunkirk (2017)
It could've been better.
I saw «Dunkirk» last night. I must say I was expecting something else, something more complete, something more complex, so actually I was disappointed. I was expecting to get to know more about Dunkirk like why it happened, the background, how come the French, Belgian and British armies got surrounded in that peculiar way and why the German army did not finished them off, after all, they only had to drive their tanks some miles forward and bomb them to pieces. Why did this not happen? What was the strategy that left the escaping armies completely defenseless to a powerful enemy? Were the Germans just being kind? I doubt it. Who in the end was responsible for this situation? They could've easily wiped out over 300000 troops. As anyone can see there are a lot of unanswered questions, and this film doesn't help, on the contrary. If the RAF was so infinitely superior to the Luftwaffe, how come the British were surrounded and trapped between enemy tanks and the sea? The film is short in answers and therefore I cannot put it in the category of Great War films. It falls merely as entertainment with shock effects. There are already a lot of critics that have mentioned the lack of character development, the problems with real-time following, and the sudden clipping from one scene to another without relation, so I will not stretch this anymore. But there is another thing that bothers me a bit and that is the lack of knowledge about the enemy. In most Great War films we get to know the enemy so we can be related to whom our film heroes are dealing with. Well in this film the enemy is practically anonymous. The Germans are completely non-existing! This film makes it very obvious the superiority of the great English Spitfire above the likes of the German Junkers-Stuka and Messerschmitt planes which makes it even more demanding to know more about why the British were defeated and pushed to escape in Dunkirk, this film does not make it easy in answers because Nolan insists to see things only from his own navel. This film could've been much better without breaking the budget too much with skipping repetitive scenes and making the enemy more visible. It seems that consequently the director of this film is avoiding getting to know the enemy. This mistake cuts the potential excitement that this film could've possessed. "Stalag 17", "The Great Escape" "The Longest Day", "Saving Private Ryan", "A Bridge Too Far", "Schindler's List", "The Bridge on the River Kwai" all great war films precisely because we get to know the enemy and therefore increase the complexity and interest in the scope of the film. Unfortunately "Dunkirk" is not one of these.
Wind River (2017)
Beautiful winter landscape but missing in the details.
This movie promised a lot. It had very good reviews and the trailer was exciting with beautiful snowy landscapes and nature. But after a few moments I realized that it wasn't what I had expected. The crime story is poorly developed where there is a clash of cultures who don't understand each other and as usual under the lines the Indians are the loosing part because in contrast to the whites they are emotional, erratic, vicious and full of strange believes. And even though there are a lot of potential criminals, the one that did it, you guessed right, it's the Indian! And women are portrayed also in a bad light, the female FBI investigator is naive, slow and clumsy, the two other ladies in the film are completely hopeless, both are self- destructive and the third just disappears from the film in an apparent accidental way. The hunter and hero of the film, kills wolves which obviously must be very old because instead of chasing wild animals as it's natural, they chase lams eating snow. And worst of all and this is the key and perhaps main theme of the whole film, our hero, this kind and warm man, when he catches the guilty murderer, instead of taking him to jail to be judged, he lets him freeze to death in the ice and snow, speak of personal vendetta!
Shall We Dance? (2004)
Unintentionally funny.
I know this film is from 2004, but it just happens that I have just seen it on TV. And it really made an impact on me, because first I thought it was extremely boring and I changed the channel several times, but there was nothing else worth seeing, I mean the alternative would've been the news! God help me, not on this time! So I had to continue watching the film and suddenly I thought it was very funny even though the film is not supposed to be funny, more like a light comedy. Some scenes were so ridiculous that I saw myself laughing both of the scene and the characters and the story. It's; you know like the middle aged professional lawyer that has an extremely boring family and job, he doesn't care for his wife but suddenly he sees a beautiful dance instructor through the train window which motivates him to change all his way of life. He just didn't know that he was a dancing talent like Fred Astaire or Gene Kelly! And this fabulous woman makes him see it just by swinging a little in the floor, and pang! he can dance Argentinian tango, American fox trot, waltz from Vienna, you name it; it was a miracle I was astonished. But I must admit it was a little frustrating that there is no real conclusion, I mean, like, there was this dancing contest that everybody was so interested in
.. and we never see the ending of it so we will never know who won the contest! Oh; I know, they are surely filming a "Shall We Dance II" where we will know who won! So if you are bored go and look at it. Its surely worth the trouble to have your eyes open.
La región salvaje (2016)
Science fiction allegory.
As a Science Fiction film it fails because it doesn't convey to science fiction unwritten rules, where we usually have a scientific explanation of what is going on, like in «2001 A Space Odyssey" by Stanley Kubrick or "Interstellar" by Christopher Nolan. The "alien" similar creature in The Untamed can give a lot of pleasure but can also give a lot of pain and even murder people and it is supposed that it came from an asteroid that no one has heard of or has detected but that on its impact falling, made a small crater which now is full with animals in the act of fornication. There is absolutely no explanation of its origin. We just have to assume that it fell somewhere in earth, in this case in Mexico but surely could've been anywhere in the earth. This "alien" creature as said is some kind of a sex machine that gives pleasure both to men and women and there is a lot of sex in this film, with or without the creature, but without feelings, there is no love, it's a mechanical thing, and likewise the personages are also quite mechanical in their behavior, they lack will and personality, it's like they are imprisoned by the environment and the circumstances. Even when they speak it seems they are speaking to a wall and not to another human being, their voices are low and flat and completely without any sign of will. If Amat Escalante wanted to give us the impression that their characters are some kind of robots driven by the current of things and time, he has succeeded. As a film with a social message it falls short too because the film is so unrealistic that we cannot connect it with a social reality, so I regard this more like a science fiction allegory.
Arbitrage (2012)
This film is a complete failure!
This film is a complete failure! Because the plot doesn't recognize its own roots. It is supposed to be a thriller and a thriller is based in logical thinking, you take that out and the whole thing falls apart. The most important scene to establish this thing as a thriller is an auto crash accident that happens while Robert Miller (Richard Gere) is driving on a highway with his mistress Julie Cote (Laetitia Casta) in the passenger's seat. It so happens that Robert gets injured in the body and head but Julie dies. This crucial scene and the physical happenings tell you clearly that this is an accident. His reactions are rather ambivalent, is he angry? Is he sad? Is he sorry? Is he regretful? Perhaps all of this and none of it. Impossible to tell by his reactions that are all of these and more but cool. Nevertheless Robert gets panic and acts as if he has murdered her and tries by all means to cover up the whole thing. But not only that; the script of the film takes for granted that this is a crime and that Robert has deliberate murdered Julie. Robert appears to be the leader of a huge international conglomerate of very rich companies that require solid thinking and decision making. But no, after the accident Robert acts like a teenager without experience and leaves the scene of the accident in panic because he as well as the director of this film is convinced that he is a murderer. A real guy in the shoes of Robert would've called an ambulance trying to save the life of Julie, now that would've been the normal thing to do, but then you wouldn't have had this film. The result is a film in a created and artificial environment and therefore a failure as a thriller. It would've been better for the plot and the logistics of the film to do just that, be bolder, go for it the whole way, that's when good films are created: let Robert kill Julie. She was pressing him both with money and sentimentally, that would've been enough motives to create a credible crime scene leaving the rest of the film as it is and therefore a much better thriller.
Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials (2015)
Oh no, another "zombie" movie!
I saw the first movie, and then I thought the second could have a potential, but I was wrong. When the first zombies appear, the first thing I thought was "they have got out of original ideas" and that is a pity because it could've become a good film to watch just by following the main principles of the first film.
It just happens that I feel that the zombie concept has been very stereotyped and when you see one you have seen all. There are even several TV series where the main characters are zombies with the same bizarre expressions on the face and the perverse convolutions on their bodies.
Another disappointment is the attitude of the main character that in most scenes has the same expression of awe in control. Strangely enough the director has made these scenes with that same expression unnecessary long which results making the film to seem boring and slow.
Thus the genre of the film perhaps should evolve from science fiction to horror film.
Sicario (2015)
Colombian Revenge Light
This fictionalized story is surely based on events that have been press and news stuff, with more or less successful result from long time ago. And is probably based back in time when the war on drug-traffic supremacy was at its peak, when the Mexican kingpins took the lead in narco-traffic from the Colombian cartels, the traffic exploded in scope, volume and money value, and in consequence many cartels and narco groups were created to dominate each in their own region, with the unavoidable drug wars between these. It is also probable that it is based in more resent events when the Mexican police went tired of these wars and declared war on the cartels. It was a bold an daring action, but with not very good results because this new war actually developed even more crude and the number of deaths did not decrease, it went up on both sides and with negative consequences for the public. Unfortunately none of these issues are taken on the film even if the atmosphere and scenery superficially tells us about drugs and of course killings without even mentioning where and why they occur, they assume we have been reading the news. So in the end what is this film about? For me it was hard to tell, is it a film to show that chivalry and sense of justice among the arms of the law is in jeopardy? Is it a war between CIA and FBI? Or is it a story of revenge between Mexicans and Colombians? I must say it's all these things at the same time, and that's what in my opinion makes this film a little messy and hard to swallow. We see a lot of violence but in most scenes we don't know the motives or the reason for it, the film lacks to go in depth about this and without it, it just becomes another very violent film with some action. The dramatic scenes without action do not contribute to clarify what is going on, on the contrary. US squads are trying to get rid drug traffic from Mexico to USA but we really never know where the drugs are coming from or what kind of drugs. Is it marijuana? No because now it is allowed in many states in the USA and easily available. Is it cocaine from Peru or Bolivia? Is it heroin from Afghanistan? By whom and how came to Nogales? All these interesting questions remain unanswered and the film disintegrates in a personal family feud and vendetta. Which creates another controversy: a hit-man usually doesn't act with personal issues; otherwise the film should've been called "Colombian Revenge Light" The scene when "Sicario" dispatched a cartel boss is just not right these guys don't have 3 bodyguards they have dozens and dozens. The performances of the main actors are ambivalent. Emily Blunt is definitively miscast, and why is Josh Brolin laughing all the time? it doesn't have a reference of what is going on in the film or perhaps the script demanded a contrast figure from Benicio del Toro who is soooo serious all the time? It is a pity that with the resources used both material and human it could've become a good film to watch as long as it had resolved the above mentioned issues, but it's just another very dark, violent and eye shocking action film.
Rear Window (1954)
It didn't work for me, the suspense was missing.
I am aware that many people like this film a lot, and after many years it has indeed become a classic, and that's why I saw it for the first time yesterday. And I found it updated which is not very strange since we are talking about a film made in the early fifties. There is not much suspense in the plot mostly because as the story goes by, it is very obvious who the murderer is. The definition of suspense is: that the spectator should be guessing who the guilty person is, or even better: guessing who the bad guy is. In this film, we do know who the bad guy is, but we don't know if he really did it or not. Real suspense would have been that the guy that everyone thought that did it, in fact didn't, and that the one that looks innocent had done it. Now that would've been a twist! There are a couple of other things that killed the suspense in me. Why a man that is a photographer and tries to convince a policeman that his neighbour killed his wife and has no evidence and is looking through the window with a telephoto camera, doesn't take pictures of the scene of the crime and use them as evidence. And how come that a man that is going to murder his wife and cut her in small pieces doesn't draw down the window blinds so no one can see what he is doing and testify against him!?. But I have to admit, typically Hitchcock, delivers a proffesional job because he makes you see things that only a great director like him can. He will make you believe that Jeff and Lisa are absolutely right and everyone else is wrong just by watching this couple's attitude, created through their acting. And there is the strength of these actors; they are extremely reassuring in their personalities that as such, it impregnates the whole film. Just by the way they pose and sit and look you can almost smell that whatever they do is right. On the contrary, Thorwald hasn't a chance because from the very first scene he is doomed; he is the bad guy almost before the film has started. And I intuitively guessed it and killed all the suspense. I liked "Vertigo" even if some scenes are a little bit slow and long and I liked "Psycho", that's a masterpiece. But "Rear Window" it's too obvious.
The Devil's Advocate (1997)
The Devil as a firm executive!
This film would have been much better without the introduction of the devil as a person and just concentrate in plain common human evil. Then the characters would've been more real and trustworthy and the film would've gain from it because then they would've had no specialization to be identified with. Like, Al Pacino has the role of the devil and acts like one as everyone is expecting, he is the devil and therefore he is evil, there is no surprise in that. But if he would've been a human being (an evil one), that would've been surprising and much more effective to the plot. And then the film would've jump up from horror to drama, a much better account from my point of view. It's a pity it was not like that, because otherwise the acting and directing was superb, but there is always the possibility of making a new film......
A Dangerous Method (2011)
Inconsequent
MMmmmhhh Freud and Jung in the same film, potentially a good start, unfortunately miss the most important issue which is the war of concepts about how to approach psychoanalysis. These two were good friends at the beginning, but became adversaries in the end. Freud stood for a scientific approach to psychoanalysis and Jung for a metaphysical one. There is just one scene where the issue about this is being discussed without any conclusive result. Potentially an interesting "fight" the film doesn't dare to take in full and drowns in details. With characters of this caliber one should have expected to get a more interesting film, after all, these were the pioneers of modern psychology. The performances are though quite good under the circumstances.
Eyes Wide Shut (1999)
Bill is existing but not living, takes the world for granted.
Unfortunately Kubrick didn't have the chance to finish this film. But if he had I'm sure we would've had a chance to grasp its meaning better. My guess, after having watched the film several times, is that Kubrick would've have wanted us to get the following message: Bill (Cruise) is living in a kind of virtual existence and doesn't appreciate what he has or better said what he has inherited as a member of the western civilization. Alice (Kidman) is portrayed as a victim in her role as a member of the woman gender. This comes clear as the film develops when we see how women are treated all along the film. If they are not nice, faithful and obedient housewives, they are hookers that can be bought and misused more or less like animals or slaves. It is their flesh we are interested in. Almost all of the main scenes in this film focus on these concepts. Bill ignores his wife until she confesses some thoughts and flirtations on other men. He reacts as if some of his possessions were about to be robbed and immediately tries to take revenge by being himself unfaithful to her. Suddenly she is real and exists but instead of giving her love, only tries to cheat on her in a miserable and in the end in a failed manner. Now, this is a very difficult theme for a film at any level and Kubrick as a perfectionist as he was, embarked it in an analytical level going slowly step by step, scene by scene systematically to make us understand the implications of the plot. Unfortunately this gives a rather theatric and passive feeling about the whole thing. It seems we are watching a heavy Ibsen theatric play from the 18th century and not a film that is supposed to be modern. This fact is also reflected on the end that is supposed to be a climax after all these steps. It is not, it is tame and disappointedly anticlimax. It is just showing us the indifference or the difficulty about solving the issues this film is dealing with. If just Kubrick had lived enough time to finish it properly.
Apocalypto (2006)
Very revealing about the authors devils.
Perhaps no intentionally, the story has attributes to the glorifying of non conceptual and unhistorical events in the past. The plot feels empty because there is absolutely no development for the events one is looking at the screen. The necessary processes that a good story has are unfortunately missing. We can see that something very dramatic is happening because of the expression and movement of the actors, but it is very difficult to have any identification with them in a manuscript without background, especially in a film that is depicting events from the past and from a culture that is relatively unknown for the majority of the film goers. The film takes for granted in an unusually remarkable way the stories told by the conquerors and colonizers of the ethnic Americans. One can only wonder how a film made by a non colonizer and non catholic would be. Certainly much more truthful and not so biased. To conclude: the film is boring because it is a complete invention from start to end and has nothing to do with Native America. Better and more exciting films about America will come.