Change Your Image
codive
Apart from that, I just like good films.
'nuff said ;)
Cheers
Reviews
Spaceman (2024)
Loooong. However... kudos to Adam Sandler
Prepare for a loooong movie, and some dialogue that takes forever, howwwwwever. To see Adam Sandler's serious and good acting abilities was a good experience. Also, the whole idea was quite refreshing.
This is not a science fiction film that gives you a satisfying answer at the end, and there are some open and odd details I would like to argue about. While watching I also noticed some missed opportunities for awkward and possibly funny moments. Nevertheless, I wish more creative people would dare and try something like this.
In short: I liked the fact that Sandler and the others did this.
Should these creative people do something off-mainstream like this again, I'll be back for more certainly.
Last nor least: This isn't the first time Adam Sandler works on more "grown up" themes, and what I can see here is that he's getting better and better.
Minor flaws in dialogue, and timing, but a bold move, so that's a seven out of ten from me.
Teleios (2017)
No gaping plot holes and a few surprises
Had this been a 50 million dollar project from a big studio with budget all over the place you'd have stars and perfect lighting, fresh dialogue, a lot of ka-boom, and whatnot, but probably also some really stupid plot holes.
Then I would rant on about some of the camera, some lighting here and there, and some of the acting, but most of all about the plot holes. I have a problem with films that tell me one concept in the beginning, and then trash that ten minutes later, as if I didn't remember.
But in this case, I just have to root for the makers. They only had a million, and came up with characters, and a pretty good story, that does not have the plot holes. So, at no point in the film I felt as if the makers thought I was stupid. On the contrary. The story even came up with a few twists, that I did not see coming.
Is it as intricate and mind-beding as "Primer"? No.
Is the acting as staggering as Sam Rockwell in "Moon"? No.
But if you saw Primer or Moon, and you liked those, I think you'll have a good time with this one.
Or if you like Star Trek.
I would put it in the same league. It stays true to what science fiction is.
Thanks, Ian Truitner! I also hope to see more from him.
Last point: Yes, the acting. They need to work on that a bit, but since I can't act at all, and they really had a limited budget, maybe they just couldn't shoot that take the ten times it takes to get it perfect.
Blame! (2017)
Worth a view
I frequently freak out when it comes to Science-Fiction and nothing makes sense. This film doesn't make sense - in my own perception of science-fiction - Still, I have to give this one a 9 out of 10, simply because of the beauty and style, these filmmakers mastered in such a phenomenal way.
Most of the joy of watching a film depends on your own expectance. I didn't expect anything from this one, and I was blown away. The lighting, the movements, the action, and the drama, worked for me.
I always hated Japanese animated films for the bad frame-rate, and the strange movements, and this film still has that, but now, they added depth-of-field, great sound, some pretty amazing imagery, and epic explosions.
Still, the story is not as simple as a Michael Bay Film. So, the gigantic proportions, and mind-blowing explosions kinda work.
I must say that I did not watch the film in one go, but I stopped it ever now and again, simply to watch the scenery, and admire the artwork.
Japanese art, in this film, is definitely worth a watch if you care for such things as light, boom, silence, and wonderful design.
The story? I usually care, but it's Japanese, and what do I know about that? Nothing. So, 9 out of 10 for this wonderful experience.
Make up your own mind ;)
But watch it! Definitely! Watch!
Transcendence (2014)
The usual... you can skip it
Machines against humans, that's the usual money maker.
This is a well-made movie, but completely fails to get off of the usual "mankind versus something else" narrative.
There are no real questions asked, no depth in the story except a little thinking ahead of where we ourselves already are, but to make it short: Reading about our own tech in the daily news is more exciting than this movie.
If you're into what Hollywood thinks is "Science Fiction", go with it.
If the patriotic, "We're important! It's about MANKIND!" stuff bores you, skip this one.
Nothing new or exciting to find here.
Prometheus (2012)
Doesn't make sense
One point for the visuals.
The rest is nonsense, and fails at anything it promised before, and keeps promising during the film.
I do forgive a lot, but I don't forgive film makers when they demonstrate that they think the audience is stupid.
Now, that I've given it two days to contemplate, I really must say, this is the worst film, I've seen in a looooong time.
And that's all I say. I've now tried several times at listing the horrible mistakes. I give up. Look at other reviews, you will find plenty of them.
The keys to a good film are: characters, acting, and a good story that sticks to the premises it sets, and keeps it up with all consequences.
I can accept time travel, space ships that make a sound in vacuum, androids that express emotions, The Force, a terminator that needs human tissue, or some goo that is doing inexplicable things, even dead people who are resurrected somehow.
As long as you stick to it! I can not accept a story that contradicts itself in so many ways, and leaves plot holes so unbelievably obvious, it makes you cringe, and it's not even unintentionally funny.
I'm not stupid! But the film makers make me feel I am stupid.
Enough said. Don't see it. It's a waste of time, and the more I think about it, the angrier I get.
District 9 (2009)
This IS Science Fiction
Let's be honest: The best science fiction we've ever read or seen does start with an impossible, incredible, at least highly unlikely idea.
Asimov, Bradbury, Clarke, or Lem.
All of them ask you to believe in a very unbelievable idea from the very beginning of their stories.
I've seen District 9, and I've read a lot of the reviews giving it a low rating. Most of these ratings however make a lot of assumptions about what an encounter with an alien race would look like, what an alien race would want, desire, or be able to do. They complain about the unbelievable, the strange, the illogical.
I admit that some parts of the story do indeed seem illogical, but that's EXACTLY what the human race is all about! We ARE very unreasonable, have motives that would be quite impossible to understand from an alien point of view, and our cultures are so diverse that we hardly understand each other.
So, who's to complain about something unreasonable about an alien race? What the heck to WE understand about it? Nothing! I've recently seen Avatar (and I liked it), but in comparison, the cultural and social depth of District 9, the realization of being human, and what that means, what kind of species you're a part of, kicks you in the head with a much more powerful impact.
Naturally, the film is a film and must follow some rules of film making, and only has two hours to tell the story to the audience.
Taking into account, that the film has only a short time, that the subject touches not only technology, but also culture, history, present conflicts of our time, and of course introduces a whole new species, I've got to say it's the best science fiction film in years.
I'm giving it 9 out of 10, because there was indeed one moment of asking myself "What the heck is this?" However, compared to a lot of other films I've recently seen, District 9 still shows them all where to set the standards, what creativity means, what amateur actors can do, how to tell a compelling story, and how to approach a very difficult subject, and get it to work.
I'm very content that I finally saw this film, and I say to any TRUE science fiction fan who is able to admit that real science fiction involves SOME leap of faith: This is a film that I'd really recommend! Sincerely, codive
No Country for Old Men (2007)
Unbelievable... in the negative sense
The only good things I can find in this film are Josh Brolin, Woody Harrelson and the overall camera, atmosphere and pace.
The list of negative things is long, however. Very long.
The characters are hard to believe, the story is laden with unbelievable coincidences and just very, very unlikely events. Also, the filmmakers made some mistakes that are just too much to take in one film.
You might not regret seeing this film, if you just want to see what the Coen brothers have come up with. And, yes, it's something they've never done before.
Then again, if you DO pay attention to details, realism, and overall consistence in a story, you will notice some blatant errors and sheer terrible mistakes in the story itself, but also in the film making.
I was deeply disappointed, and the more I think about this film, the angrier I get.
*SPOILER* Fingerprints didn't exist in the 80s. At least no one cares about them.
Police work consists of drinking milk, looking gloomy, making smart remarks, but in general not giving a damn about anything.
The killer knows how to blow up a car, and how to open doors. He also seems to know who's after him and where everybody is. However, he fails miserably at his job, and kills the wrong people by the dozens.
The police is unable to track down a man leaving behind a ramboesque bodycount of dead people, and fingerprints all over, uses a unique weapon and unique behaviour that witnesses would be able to remember for years.
An unbelievable story with unbelievable characters.