InakiArias Reviews

Messer (2013)

Great job in your first full-lenght film, Mr. Antolin.

[7/10 · 2 April 2014]

It's not easy to write a review about a film in which the reviewer itself has been, somehow, involved. It's also difficult trying to be objective when most of the crew of the movie are Friends or acquaintances.

If I were to judge the quality of the product based just on the merits of an entirely amateur cast or in the lack of resources of the production, well, it should be a 10 out of 10 but for respect to everyone I will try to be as objective as I can.

Starting with the plot, it could be said the movie has two different parts and styles. Whilst at the beginning it's hard to find out whether the film is going to be a drama, a thriller or even a comedy, there is a point of no return in which the movie becomes a non-stop action-thriller.

The way the story is told by the writer and director Unai Antolín also has different sides.

Both the direction and storytelling are rather conventional in the thriller-action scenes but without imposture. He knows how to solve them efficiently and with great tact, honoring the classics without losing personality. However, in no-action scenes he eludes the stereotypes and deals with the challenge of giving his personal touch. The result is in overall noteworthy, specially when you have a strange sensation of uneasiness watching a theoretically "relaxed" scene. And vice-versa...

On the other hand there are a few moments of the film which break a bit the rhythm, the pace of the film . The kind of moments which get the spectator out of the film.

Following with the direction work, if I tell you that the movie was recorded with a single handy-cam you probably would not believe me and that is because not only Unai have the talent to place the camera properly in every sequence, there are a lot of moments in which the result seems to be a work of an entire camera crew.

The acting is sometimes irregular, sometimes amazing, a logical thing taking in account the amateurism of the staff, but in overall is quite satisfying. Jagoba Trujillo, as Messer, makes a great performance, specially when his character shows his weaknesses and his humanity. Also keep an eye to Guillermo Landabaso and Eli Jaular's acting. You can say their characters are specially written to fit with their personalities but it's a fact that there is a lot of hidden talent within them .We will see in future productions.

The OST meets the purpose with a rather nice, melodically strong main theme.

In conclusion, if you can forget the extremely low Budget and the unavoidable limitations related with that fact you probably will enjoy a lot with this movie. This is still not a masterpiece, less a flawless film, but it has a lot of strong points and shows a huge potential, specially from his author whom, don't forget, this is his first full-lenght movie.

The Room (2003)

This is not a movie.

[1/10 · 3 March 2014]

This surrealist attempt of movie is disgusting. The worst thing of all time.

Plot less, ridiculously directed, the worst photography ever... everything is so bad that deserve such a under classed review as the one I'm writing in this moment.

There are a lot of bad movies which at the end are funny. I won't expend my time enumerating them. All of you know which those are.

But don't be tricked with this one. This film lets you with a great sensation of emptiness. I felt empty and sad during more than a hour after watching this piece of...

After Reading some reviews and bloc entries about the "cult" status of this "the room" and the iconic shout: "Your are tearing me apart, Lisa!" plus the intriguing factor of Tommy Wisseau I decided to give a chance to the film because I thought that, at least, the laughs would be granted. Wrong.

Not a single laugh in 90 minutes. Not a single emotion more than a progressive change of mood from apathy to depression.

Does it sound overreacted? I'll try to explain the reasons: 1-The acting of the entire cast is immeasurably bad. I don't know how much I going to live (I hope that at least enough to see another 1000 movies) but I'm sure that I'm not going to witness another acting such as crappy as this. 2-Tommy Wiseau. The first I saw his face was in a IMDb's user list and I must recognize that it captivated me. An enigmatic face, worthy of being typical evil troubled villain of a b-series bad movie. But I lost the interest for him in the very first scenes of "the room". The worst thing about his acting is he believes he is a first class performer whilst actually he is... he isn't even funny. It's a shame I can't use a better English in order to describe him 3-Was this nightmare's Budget 6 million bucks? In this moment is when I start to cry and when I feel that I would give a huge hug to Wiseau If I were to meet him someday because he's nothing more than a victim. A victim because the entire crew of the film laughed in his face. With 6000 dollars every user of IMDb with a Handy cam, a microphone, 6 Friends and a PC would have made a better experiment than this.

In conclusion, don't waste your time watching this. This film has nothing to show. Anything to remember. This is not a movie. This is not cinema.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

Perfect in execution, but anything new.

[8/10 · 21 January 2014]

The Wolf of Wall Street can be considered a flawless movie but I left the cinema with a bittersweet sensation.

Lets start with the positive points: Firstly, the direction is outstanding. Scorsese at his best, he can manage the pace of the film to the extreme of not being a bit boring despite of the 3 hours of duration. Every shot, every scene has been done with extreme care and talent.

Secondly, the main star, Leonardo Di Caprio's acting is stunning, absolutely Oscar worthy. Marlon Brando would be proud of his successor. The rest of the cast is great but, in my opinion, not amazing. Jonah Hill is not Joe Pesci, for example.

Finally, production values. The target of this film was to show a luxurious, glamorous and excessive lifestyle of some new (very) rich men and I can swear that this film succeed in that.

Following with the negative points I will start remarking that I feel I'm being a bit unfair. If this film was been made by another director I wouldn't give such importance, but this is a Scorsese's movie and a serious contestant for the best movie's award.

The main flaw of The Wolf of Wall Street is, in my opinion, that the plot is good, sometimes brilliant, but anything special. It lacks of deepness and capacity of surprise. And the storytelling is quite conventional.

I recognize the enormous effort of Scorsese in the way of how he tries to represent the cruelty of the extreme ambition and excesses of Jordan Belfort and his comrades and the visually magnificent representation of the effects of drugs. The ambiguous morality of the film is well received too.

The problem is that there are already a lot of movies that manage both Wall Street and drugs stories in a better way that this movie does.

In conclusion, a technically perfect movie, worthy of watching in cinemas and in the level of Scorsese's last films (which is not a bad thing) but it's sad to say that it seems we can't expect anything from our beloved director worthy of surpassing (or even matching) hits like Raging Bull or Taxi Driver.

Van Helsing (2004)

Epic fail.

[4/10 · 11 July 2013]

Tom Cruise is going to be the new Van Helsing and some of the IMDb's users are so frustrated that they talk about this movie with nostalgia.

OK, even if Tom is hated (mostly in USA) it's impossible that any movie with him inside could be half of bad that Sommer's Van Helsing is.

Van Helsing, Stoker's vampire hunter and, in overall, a mighty character. The promise of the appearance of the greatest cinema monsters of all-times. A solvent director like Stephen Sommers after having directed "The Mummy" and its sequel. Great cast with Hugh Jackman and Kate Beckinsale at the top of their careers and an astronomical budget. This movie had everything to become a big success, but the result was one of the worst movies I have ever watched in a cinema.

I'm a soft reviewer. For me, it's very hard to give something lesser than 5 out 10 to a movie, because I enjoy so much the cinema that is near impossible to get me so disappointed to consider a movie a fail. At least with last 15 years's movies. It's very hard to find a masterpiece but it's also true that it's hard to watch a really bad movie. Furthermore, and to be honest, if the movie has a low Budget or my expectations are not too high my critical capability is inferior than when I'm watching a hyped blockbuster like this.

The movie fails in everything. Bad story, worse script, childish dialogs... those are things that can be ignored in a fantasy movie like this and it would have been a great movie even with those flaws. But, I repeat, this movie lacks everything. Visuals are pathetic for a 160 million giant. Cgis are horrible, and action scenes are poor. Drácula is everything but frightening, Notre Damme's hunchback is ridiculous and Frankestein... Frankestein gave me the best moments of the movie because is absolutely laughable.

With this, it should be enough to consider this film a big fail, but I would give it a 5 out 10 if it wasn't for the ending. The ending is directly the worst and the most ridiculous ending I can remember in a movie. Please note I'm talking about first class, Hollywood made cinema, OK? Crap like "troll 2" or "Aliens vs Avatars" are another, disgusting, thing.

In conclusion, this is one of the ten worst mainstream movies I can remember, tied with "Green Lantern".

The Beastmaster (1982)

One of the best examples of the magical cinema of 80's

[7/10 · 11 July 2013]

Let's start saying that this movie is getting old badly. It is a low Budget film and compared with AAA films of that time like the first Indiana Jones it's easy to appreciate that they don't play in the same league. Cheap scenarios and costumes, poor cinematography... The story is simple, dialogs are plain and some of battle scenes are laughable (of course, in 2013).

However this movie has something that the most of our days films lack: magic, charm and entertaining capability for all the family. This movie is full of magic from the beginning until the last scene. There are a lot of ridiculous scenes or situations which you forget immediately because of the enormous sense of magic and good feeling of this film.

It's very hard to explain, but there is something that evolves you and captures your full attention.

I can conclude saying that this film is as wonderful and great as technically bad, but always worth of your time.

After Earth (2013)

This isn't a bad film.

[5/10 · 28 June 2013]

Thanks to metacritic and rotten tomatoes nowadays it's possible to read a lot of different reviews of the same film. Although there are a lot of different points of view there is an average score which can help you to make an approximate idea of the level of the movie. But, remember, those criteria are subjective and they can only be taken as references. If you follow blindly their opinions you can lost the chance of watching some films like "after earth" which aren't masterpieces but are, at least, enjoyable.

I can't understand why such a big star like Will Smith is throwing away his career dedicating his last five years to promote his family, concretely his son jade and, honestly, I can't stand this last one's "real life" image. However, I have to say that in the three movies I have seen of this child I have to recognize that he has done better than expected and "after life" is not an exception. Not brilliant but more than enough to fulfill his duty as a main star of a sci-fi film. Following with Smith father, although his character is unusual for him, he does a good job.

The story is simple, plain, nothing special, nothing original. It's been written to tell a son-father tale to create a movie for Smith Jr. In this moment you probably are thinking how it's possible to save a sci-fi movie with a poor plot. I'll try to give an answer to this.

And the answer is Shyamalan does a great, exceptional job in the direction of the film. I've rarely seen such a brilliant directing with so Little content. The timing of the movie, the pace of the scenes is extremely brilliant. There is place for tension, emotion... The visuals are superb except for some cgi animals. Forget this director's last movies. Here he's inspired like he was in his beginnings.

In conclusion, in spite of director's great job and father and son's good work this isn't a new sci-fi's great classic nor a superb movie, but it's a very entertaining, enjoyable film, worthy of paying some bucks (euros in my country jajjaaj) to see in the theaters.

Sincerely, I'm getting tired of the reviewers Mafia. After Earth and Man of Steel aren't bad movies. I'm OK if you go to the cinema and you disagree with me but, listen to me, make sure you go to see them and judge by yourself.

Oblivion (I) (2013)

Not a perfect movie, but definitely a sci-fi/fantasy masterpiece!

[7/10 · 18 April 2013]

One of the main problems of the digital special effects or CGI was, and still is, the lack of credibility in some situations. For example, in the Star Wars saga, the use of animatronics achieved much better results than CGI. Better not to speak about the wild humans of Will Smith's "I'm Alive", for me a fact that changed that film from being great to just entertaining.

In this film the use of mentioned CGI is simply flawless. The design of the scenarios, landscape, robots is brilliant, the same as the movements and the sensation of "solidity" (I'm sorry, my English level isn't as brilliant as oblivion's special effects).

I think that thanks to creators like Cameron, Scott and, of course, Kosinski, that technology has reached enough maturity for being considered, at last, as believable as the animatronics are plus the lot of advantages that it carries itself.

Following with the plot and how the story is told, Oblivion isn't a hard sci-fi movie. It can be more considered as a light sci-fi/fantastic movie, nearer of "Stargate" or "Startrek" than "2001" or "the road". But don't get confused. Even if Oblivion bets for the classical action-adventures structure (specially in the film's second part), the first part introduces a story and a setting which invite to think and letting fly the imagination to both average viewers and hard sci-fi lovers.

About the cast and their acting, even if this isn't Oblivion's strongest point, the overall result is satisfying. Jack Harper, the main character perhaps lacks of some complexity but Tom Cruise makes a great acting.In the first act and in the climax of the movie he's enormous. Andrea Riseborough makes a enigmatic and interesting acting. On the other hand, both Kurilenko and Freeman are extremely misused. For me, the worst point of the film.

In conclusion, Oblivion shines and fails in the points that this kind of film has to. And that is the reason for which this movie can't be considered perfect. But, believe me, the shining points are extremely brilliant and the mistaken points are much more forgivable than in the most of this kind of movies. A must see film, fully enjoyable and entertaining (126 minutes never passed so fast) with many details of quality. A reference in technical concepts and a new classic masterpiece of the genre.

P.d. Tom is back!

Stone (2010)

A big farce.

[4/10 · 5 March 2013]

This is the typical movie you watch by chance in TV. There are two great actors (not in their best times) and an interesting actress (Jovovich)and you give it a chance.

After the introduction the spectator at least thinks that he's going to watch an indie, alternative film full of deepness and complexity.

OK, there is none of them. The plot tries to be complex and you spent the whole time waiting for something that doesn't appear. We don't have to mix a strange, non-clear message with a complex one. About the deepness or the finality of the story, the same. A bit of new age, a bit of cheap psychology, a mixture of religious and ethics content, you mix everything and you get a cocktail from which we get this ridiculous movie.

I'm sure that there is someone who will defend this movie because of the characters's ambiguity and something like that, but don't be fooled, the characters personality, actually is very bad written.

Following with the acting, the overall isn't as bad as other points of the movie but it isn't remarkable. De Niro is such a genius that even doing the minimum effort he success in being enigmatic but, on the other hand, he's very far from him best moment. However, after having such a great career it's forgivable for a near to 70 years old man to be just the shadow of what he was. It's worse if the situation is the same, but being only 40 and doing the same performance again, again and again... but worse than ever. Very bad for you Norton, I think if you keep on like this, you're finished. Milla Jovovich, on the other hand makes a unexpectedly solid interpretation, congrats for her.

If you want to watch a solid psychological thriller, this isn't your movie. This is a bad experiment and a big loss of time.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Unexpectedly magical journey!!

[9/10 · 15 December 2012]

One of the main problems of the "star wars" latest trilogy was the difference in time between chapter VI and chapter I. The filmmaking was so different that it was hard getting into that universe again. This time, however, the things are quite different. From the beginning you have the nice sensation of coming back to the same middle-earth that your visited ten years ago.

Photography is great, setting is amazing, visuals are OK, not superb but they do the trick, costumes and makeup are outstanding and the sound and ost are top-notch. In those aspects everything is as fine as it was in the previous trilogy, but there are differences in the story itself and how it is told.

I have never read anything of Tolkien so I can't compare the movie with the book but I can tell you some differences between the first movie of this new trilogy and the old one. One of the things that bothered me of LOTR trilogy was that in such a magical environment, fantastic world, sometimes I found myself lost between so many hierarchical and aristocratic references. It was so "medieval", full of wars that, in my opinion, the story lacked of magic sometimes. In this one, from beginning to the end the entire movie is full of magic. It is so magical, fantastic, epic, funny, ridiculously entertaining... absolutely unforgivable.

Sincerely I think that director Peter Jackson have done what he wanted without restrictions. His filmmaking shares the same mistakes that he made in LOTR, but for me, at least, the direction seems more refreshing, more genuine... I can't explain properly but there is something different and better.

Following with the main character, the only thing I can say is that I love Bilbo Bolsom. A thousand time better that Frodo was, not just the character, the actor too. Martin Freeman makes a brilliant performance and he shows that he's better than Elijah Wood. Ian McEllen plays his best Gandalf (yes, Gandalf was actually a mage and not a mere swordsman!!) and about the dwarfs I just want you to see the movie and make your own opinion about them. I can't be objective, impossible.

In conclusion,the potential of the technical capabilities of our days, a marvelous story, and the magical direction by an inspired director create a totally amazing, classical masterpiece for all audiences. One of this year's movies and one of fantasy-adventure genre's best films of all-times.

One thing: if what you liked the most in LOTR were the never ending battles between large armies, the parts involving humans and their crown, nobility, succession matters or if you are the typical who just love the elves, their immortality, beauty, purity... probably you will find this movie disappointing.

I Want You (2012)

Better than "a tres metros sobre el cielo" but...

[5/10 · 12 July 2012]

If the first movie was an awful "rebel without cause" movie, what can you do if the main character is no longer a rebel? This is a redemption film and, to be honest, that kind of stuff gives the chance to introduce a lot of dramatic and cry making content. But this film has a problem that shares with the first movie, and it's that when the film tries to be serious is when it absolutely fails. Not the plot, neither the characters or the story itself have the capacity to make the spectator anything more than a laugh (you will find out yourself doing more than one face palm with some of the scenes of this movies).

The main character starred by Mario Casas is better in this film than in the first one. He has growed up and his personality is deeper. Mario isn't a superb actor, but he has charisma and he tries his best in order to show different sensations and the result is better than I expected.

Continuing with the girls, Clara Lago, a Spanish revelation who can be seen in a lot of movies in this last years has a great chance to show her acting skills with her character, Gin, but, I'm sorry, she doesn't make the cut. She isn't convincing in the most dramatic scenes, and, this is my opinion, she isn't as cute as some people is trying to convince us. Her character isn't believable at all. The other female main character, Babi, starred by Spanish star Maria Valverde is just, OK, average, well done. Maria makes a plain performance, with the automatic pilot enabled, but she's such a star that even without making an effort steals your attention.

In conclusion, this film is OK if you are only trying to watch a Barely entertaining film in which you can find a bit of romance, fight, friendship, adventure... but don't expect anything more. I should recommend it to every Spanish teenager girl who love Mario Casas and still dream with the bad-ass guy that can be changed with their love.

Super 8 (2011)

Abrams + Spielberg - Spielberg.

[8/10 · 19 August 2011]

This is a great, very interesting and different film.

Original, fresh, valiant, a classic movie concept which grants entertainment for all the family, ironically a concept that was lost in time, at least, 20 years ago. Trust me, this film if full of magic.

What I want to say is that this movie has enough mature content for being considered "just for kids" and, in the other hand, it has the necessary sense of humor and limits in visual violence in order to satisfy the youngest without boring the adults.

The direction is awesome. Everything is well fitted, the camera is always well located, the sense of rhythm is brilliant, but it's in the work with actors, specially with the youngest where Abrams does his best.

In my opinion, casting unknown actors has been a triumph. Elle Fanning actually is an incoming superstar, but the other children are totally unknown for the average public, and all of them do an incredible work. It seems that they aren't acting, trust me.

The setting in latest 70's USA small town is also a good point. Perfect costume, location and make-up that help you getting into the movie.

About the plot... the story is OK, the dialogues are well built, sometimes brilliant and funny, but there are few (always in my opinion) mistakes that didn't satisfy me at all.

As I've said before, this is a great film, but it's not, unfortunately, an immortal, masterpiece, all-time classic, and I'll try to explain why: -First of all, I have to say, that if I were 12-14 years old I would give this film a 10 out of 10, but I actually have 31, and my duty is to be, as much as I can, objective.

-Abrams's work is unbeatable, I can't say anything else, but there is the Spielberg factor. Spielberg is "the master", the director and producer who has never done a bad film, but also an artist with some bad habits that he can't avoid and his touch can be sensed in the entire movie.

Then, if you mix Abrams and Spielberg's magical touch, the result is a true masterpiece, but if you add the last one's bad habits, which are clearly shown in the film's last ten minutes and some story's weak points ( I thinks that it's is unnecessary to spoil anything, just watch it and you'll see that those little flaws are clear) the result is a great film, sometimes outstanding, but never perfect.

In conclusion, an excellent and fresh film, not perfect just for few details, but always recommendable for the entire family. One of this year's best films, much better than the average level of our days filming. And the most important thing: don't forget it, this movie recovers a style from a time where the cinema was magic.

Green Lantern (2011)

I hate you, Martin Campbell.

[4/10 · 4 August 2011]

I've read some reviews before watching the film. More of them are disappointing and they focus in the bad CGI, lack of action and epic, even in Reynold's bad acting."Always the same negative points", I thought to myself, and how many times, after reading some bad reviews I have found out that the film was, actually, amazing. This is not the case, trust me.

Firstly, I love the character. Green Lantern is my favorite superhero, matched with Superman. Secondly, I love the complex story, the characters and its wonderful and plenty imaginative setting

But the film fails in everything. As I've said before, another reviewers focus their angry in details (a lot of them), but the problem is bigger, is an overall problem.

The plot is horrible, how is it possible to tell such a big and epic adventure in this poorly way, I can't believe it! The CGIs aren't good, but they are probably the best of the film.

The dialogs are amazingly stupid, even for this kind of film. The conversations between Hal and Carol, are worse, for example, than the ones of Annakin and Padme in Chapter II, or, even worse than the "romantic" ones of Spidey and Mary Jone in Spiderman.

The acting doesn't make the cut, too! And here comes the worst part: the directing. Stupid direction of actors, the worst sense of rhythm that I have never seen in a "blockbuster" like this. Not epic, not emotion, not laughs, not cries, not screams, not surprise...

If it wasn't Green Lantern and if it was a new for movie created character I would give to this movie a worse note.

4 out of 10, and thanks! (Go to watch it with friends, cause it's the only way to enjoy somehow with this piece of trash)

Law Abiding Citizen (2009)

Entertaining, fast-food movie.

[5/10 · 12 July 2011]

This movie doesn't need a extensive review. It's a typical payback film, like those that Charles Bronson starred in the 80's. The main difference is the bigger budget and a more sophisticating method plot. And this one is that makes this film better than the old ones, and, at the same time, makes it worse.

while Bronson's films were straight to action, extremely violent, without any kind of plot, this one tries to tell us the same history in a more original way. There are some powerful and imaginative scenes, and the film is able to keep our attention during two hours, but it fails in some important things.

The movie tries to explain the complexity of Butler's character actions and there the plot fails, the things are not clear even for this kind of movie. But the worst thing is the ending. An awful, disappointing and fascist ending (the entire movie is fascist, but the ending is the summum).

Butler is OK, in his line, and Jamie Foxx is plane. Easily forgettable acting in overall.

In conclusion, another entertaining action-movie which fails when it tries to be bigger than it can be.

The Last Airbender (2010)

Not very bad movie, but worse than expected.

[5/10 · 9 July 2011]

Please, in first place, forget the fact that Shyamalan is the director of this movie. Lot of people are misjudging this film only for that.

I tried to see it as if I didn't knew anything about the previous TV animation series and the plot.

OK, then, I have to say that as a movie itself it is not as worse as I have read everywhere. Let's start with the positive parts: The story is great. Visuals aren't the best, more after finding out that the budget is around 150 million, but they have, at least, enough level to fulfill their mission. The battles are pretty well done, with some powerful scenes. There are also a lot of awesome landscape images which show us an imaginative fantastic world, fact that help us getting into the movie.

In other hand, even if the story is great, the way that it is told is amazingly poor. No emotions. No epic. No reasons for feeling anything. And this is an epic fail if we are talking about a fantastic/adventures movie. The acting, in overall, is poor, excepting one or two characters. Specially, Dev Patel makes the worst performance I have seen in a long time. He makes me angry every time he appears in scene, but not for the evilness of his character, just for his stupid acting!

In conclusion, I give "The last airbender" a 5 out of 10, as a single movie, but if you compare it with the TV series in which is based, the result would be even worse.