Reviews

27 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Still Alice (2014)
9/10
The keyword is subtlety
23 March 2015
"Still Alice" is, in my opinion, the best of all the films that were in any way in the running for the 2015 Oscars. Making drama that is touching without resorting to effective but cheap movie tropes is not easy. It requires a strong cast, a well-written script and a director with a steady hand, all things this film has. Moore's performance is subtle but convincing: as the disease eats at her character and she begins to recede into herself, Moore has fewer and fewer means of getting the emotional weight of the story across, yet her acting only becomes stronger throughout the film. Alec Baldwin is solid as the dependable husband who is torn between his ambitions in research and caring for his wife, giving one of his rare 'serious' performances. The language used in the script is simply beautiful. Of course, this is to be expected from a film about a linguistics professor, but it's a delight nonetheless. The directing naturally focuses on Moore's performance, but doesn't neglect everything else as often happens with films of this type. The scenery at the beach house is beautifully shot, and the decors are tasteful throughout. If there is a complaint to be made about this film, it's that the supporting cast, i.e. the rest of the Howland family minus the youngest daughter played by Kirsten Stewart, is not really given a chance to flesh out their characters. But that's a minor thing. I am glad that a subtle performance, rather than an over-the-top one as so often happens, has won the female actress Oscar this year.

9/10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Inherent Vice (2014)
7/10
Overambitious
16 February 2015
After two incredible masterpieces, "There Will Be Blood" and "The Master", I was awaiting whatever Paul Thomas Anderson would be doing next with baited breath. However, as it turns out, "Inherent Vice" is a bit of a let down. Based on high-brow literary author Thomas Pynchon's book of the same name, the film has an impressive cast and, as one would expect, interesting dialogue. However, the whole thing gets somewhat bogged down by an incomprehensible plot, and ends up feeling even longer than its already sizable 150-minute runtime would suggest. Perhaps this was just a case of overambition on Anderson's part, a skilled director adapting for the screen a novel whose themes and plot are simply too dense to translate into film. Despite all of this, your time will not be wasted on this film. But make sure you go into the theater fresh and pay good attention, otherwise you may just nod off (as my partner did).

7/10

PS: the film is narrated by my personal all-time favorite recording artist, Joanna Newsom, who also plays the minor roll of Sortilege. I urge everyone who reads this review to sample her music. It will improve your life.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Taken 3 (2014)
5/10
Rushed and flawed
2 February 2015
"Taken 3" is a movie that coasts on the success of its predecessors while moving away from the established template of the series. It is not a modern-western type revenge movie, but an "innocent man on the run" type movie. Neeson's character Byran Mills is framed for the murder of his ex-wife (I won't say who was the real killer here) and attempts to prove his innocence while on the run from the police. The cast, including Neeson, is mediocre all round, and the movie is full of action-movie clichés such as cars exploding for no apparent reason, actors jumping through glass without getting injured, and handguns that never seem to run out of bullets. There is a twist you can see coming from a considerable distance, and as the credits roll you can't help feeling like you were short-changed. "Taken 3" is enjoyable in the way that all predictable action movies are: only on the lowest level, the turn-your-brain-off-and-enjoy level. As such, it is not a worthy ending to a trilogy that started out so full of promise.

5/10
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
"The Imitation Game" trumps its rival
1 February 2015
"The Imitation Game" and "The Theory of Everything" are two uncannily similar movies. They both tell astonishing tales of genius scientists, their monumental achievements and equally monumental hardships. They both feature excellent lead actors who give career-defining, Oscar-worthy performances. However, in almost every aspect, "The Imitation Game" is just slightly better.

Cumberbatch completely disappears into the role of Alan Turing, a genius mathematician who shortened World War II by two years by cracking the Germans' Enigma code along with a team of scientists. It would have been easy, and cliché, to spend a large amount of time on Turing's struggle with homosexuality, for which he was convicted in the early 1950s. But one of the biggest virtues of "The Imitation Game" is that it portrays Turing's attitude to his sexuality exactly as it was: he never struggled with it, he simply accepted it for what it was. He was wholly devoted to his cause, and anything which stood in his way he would remove, to the point of marrying his team's only female member despite his homosexuality, because her parents would otherwise have ordered her to return to them.

Because the movie is a biopic, it is inherently flawed. The reasons for this are that biopics tend to focus so much on the acting and the story that they neglect such things as soundtrack, cinematography, and script. These things are usually rushed and therefore imperfect. However, as biopics go, this is a good one.

8/10
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Entertaining, but Best Picture? No
28 January 2015
Movies in the ever-growing 'biopic' genre tend to focus solely on the lead actor/actress and his/her performance while neglecting important things like a memorable supporting cast, a well-written script, a good soundtrack, innovative cinematography, etc. Which is understandable because the Academy has always focused too much on the acting when awarding their Best Picture Oscar.

"The Theory of Everything" exhibits many of these flaws, but despite this it's very entertaining. Most of this entertainment comes from marveling at Hawking's story and Eddie Redmayne's painfully accurate portrayal of the debilitating effects of his muscle disease. It's certainly not worth a Best Picture Oscar, but your money won't be wasted on it.

7/10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Excellent, but falls short of being a masterpiece
25 January 2015
Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu's "Birdman" is a masterpiece on many levels. First of all, a very unusual camera technique is used to make the entire film feel like one continuous shot, which is very engrossing. Secondly, the soundtrack consists almost entirely of scattered, dissonant jazz percussion, which gives the film an unhinged feel. It really is on a level with the one in Kubrick's "The Shining". Thirdly, all of the lead actors give solid, occasionally great, performances.

But what makes this film fall short of being a masterpiece, oddly enough, is Inarritu's directing and writing. The frequent use of surrealism is intriguing, but it doesn't seem to have much meaning or purpose. The story is thin and exists only in service of the performances. Nevertheless, "Birdman" is an experience you will remember for some time, and I urge you to see it.

8/10
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Blackhat (2015)
6/10
Static acting performances prevent "Blackhat" from being memorable
24 January 2015
Michael Mann's "Blackhat" is a claustrophobic experience, which is due mostly to its cinematography and its soundtrack, two of its biggest strengths. The movie follows a Chinese government cyber specialist and his jailed American college buddy's search for an elusive blackhat hacker whose plan is to flood tin mines and then, as tin prices rise, invest $73 million in tin options. The plot is well put together, apart from the ending, but the movie suffers from one-dimensional characters and static acting performances from nearly all of the lead actors. If those issues had been fixed this movie could have approached the level of excellence of Mann's masterpiece, "Heat", but as it turned out this movie is enjoyable but ultimately forgettable.

6/10
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Chronicle (2012)
9/10
Excellent, transcends the boundaries of 'normal' teen/found footage films
24 March 2012
I really wasn't expecting that much from this. Sure it had had some positive reviews, but how good could another 84 minute teen movie really be? Well, I couldn't have been more wrong. Chronicle is an excellent piece of film-making that is not only entertaining and very well made for such a low budget, but also has a message, something not one of these 'Found Footage' films (read: Blair Witch Project, Cloverfield, etc.) has ever had. It portrays what can happen to people when they are suddenly given a lot of power, be it political power or super power, and manages to bring that message across very powerfully in just 84 minutes. This is one of the few 'short-n-sweet' films that feels like nothing is skipped, like the story is told perfectly within those 84 minutes, and at the end it just feels like it's done, complete.

9/10. A remarkable achievement.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Grey (2011)
8/10
Survival combined with monsters: It works!
13 March 2012
Obviously you can't really watch this without thinking of 1993's Alive, but really, aside from the plane crash and the struggle for survival, this is a completely different film. The basic story: Liam Neeson puts in a great performance as the cold-blooded but good-hearted protagonist, who leads a group of seven (that's himself included) plane crash survivors through the harsh plains and forests of Alaska. Even before they embark on that journey one of them is killed by a vicious (and very large) wolf. During the journey they are killed off one by one (this sounds like a horror film, but it really isn't) by that pack of wolves until just Liam is alive at the ending, which will frustrate you (but I won't tell why).

This seemingly basic story is enhanced by great acting from all the actors, especially Nesson and Grillo, and by the amount of background information we get on the main character. That last thing really makes you feel sorry for him and the hard life he's had, and helps give this film that little bit extra to turn it from a good thriller into a great one. Because that's what it is. Great.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Safe House (2012)
6/10
Disappointing
3 March 2012
I was really expecting more. A spy-thriller with these two playing the lead roles? Sign me up! But I was disappointed. The story, which is fairly generic, could've been enhanced and made more entertaining by the camera-work and the acting performances, but sadly both weren't very good at all. The camera-work is often wobbly, which is acceptable in small amounts during action scenes because it makes the scene more realistic, but in this one it's just used too much and sometimes even outside of action scenes. And the acting...again, I was really expecting more. Denzel Washington is a personal hero of mine, but in this film he either doesn't get enough dialog to display the talent he has, or he has somehow lost it. And Ryan Renolds...well I never really liked him, but I thought he'd be perfect for this part. As it turns out though, someone like Ryan Gosling would've been much better at displaying the emotions that the character of Matt Weston is overpowered by near the end. All in all this film is no more than just another spy thriller, and certainly not something I would ever watch again. Pity.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Solid drama, simple yet complicated
5 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I have been a fan of Alexander Payne since About Schmidt, because I love the way he manages to keep things simple and clearly structured throughout. And this film is no exception. The story is pretty simple: Matt King is owner of a large parcel of Hawaiian land along with his family, as they are the distant descendants of the people who first came to that island and claimed it hundreds of years ago. But that's really just a part of the story. It's mainly about family struggle and mid-life crisis. King's wife suffered a boating accident in the fist few frames of the film and is in a coma throughout it. In her will it said she wanted King to live together with their two daughters Alexandra and Scottie. I won't reveal any more here, but I can say that all the actors, especially Clooney as Matt and Woodley as Alexandra, put in a great performance and their characters are all completely believable. It's been a while since I last saw drama executed this well.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Definite improvement upon the Swedish version
28 January 2012
Let me just start by saying that I have both read the book and seen all three of the Swedish films, so going into the theater I knew what to expect. And I have only positive things to say. Sure, a lot of the scenes in this version resemble those in the Swedish one, but that was to be expected, wasn't it? I mean, both films are adapted from the same novel!

About the film itself: As you might expect from an American remake with David Fincher behind the wheel the film is a lot more action packed and goes through events a little faster than the Swedish version. The cast is superb and very well picked, and the atmosphere throughout is very dense and isolated. As the story slowly unravels it becomes more and more gruesome and mysterious, and it grabs you and doesn't let go for the next hour and a half. Then what seems like the showdown arrives, but the real answer to the great mystery is even more surprising than you think, and it's something you couldn't have possibly thought of, but which, when you think about it later (as I'm doing now) is pretty much the only logical one. As the final scenes, which make the connection with the second book, play out you can't help but feel sad that it had to end so soon.

SUMMARY FOR THOSE WHO DON'T FEEL LIKE READING THE ABOVE: This film is definitely better than the Swedish version, and its mystery has a way of gripping you and not letting you go until the end. You should see it.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
J. Edgar (2011)
8/10
Eastwood has changed. And I think it's just great
15 January 2012
This is, if not a masterpiece, a highly entertaining biopic from the old master Clint Eastwood. It depicts the life of J. Edgar Hoover, the revolutionary who took the FBI and made it great, and who also introduced the now familiar fingerprint system to identify criminals.

Don't expect an action film. I know the trailer was a bit misleading. It made the movie seem a little more exciting than it really is. It's more like a drama. The story is told from J.Edgar's perspective, as he dictates his memoirs for a book at the end of his life. It tells not only of his involvement with the FBI (specifically the Lindbergh case, which was revolutionary because it finally made kidnapping a federal offense), but also exposes his social problems, his struggle with his homosexuality, and his almost romantic friendship with his right hand Clyde Thompson. It depicts him as a man completely dedicated to his work, who has little attention for anything else, including love. It's amazing the way Di Caprio plays all ages of J.Edgar, 20 to 75. There aren't a lot of actors that could play this role. Also amazing is that the film never gets boring (at least, to me: a lot of people here seem to think it does) even though its almost two and a half hours long and almost nothing exciting happens throughout. That just shows how great of a director Eastwood is. The same goes for Gran Torino by the way, which I think is even better than this.

Conclusion: if you're a fan of action/horror films, you will probably not like this one. I would advise you to not waste your money. Everyone else should go see this, don't listen to all the negativity around here. People who dislike something talk more than people who like something, just the fact that this is rated 7.1 should prove that.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Excellent, almost equal to the first one
24 December 2011
I really wasn't expecting this to be this good, seeing how both parts 2 and 3 were so disappointing to me, but this is a very fast and enjoyable ride. The story is very linear with almost no diversions, as it is supposed to be in a mission:impossible movie,the script is well-written, the acting is also well-done (can you believe Tom Cruise is 50 years old?), the action is amazing, especially the scene in Dubai, which I think is one of the best action/operation scenes in film history. The film really pulls you in and does not let you go until the end. But of course there were also some bad points. One of those is the amount of way-too-advanced technology the they just seem to be able to pull out of their pockets so to speak. Also numerous times there is a 'deus ex machina' kind of thing, with people being saved just in time, that stuff. But other than that this is a very, very entertaining piece of filmmaking that any action fan can't miss, and which is almost equally entertaining to people who aren't necessarily action fans.

To conclude: Good points: Good story, good script, good acting, great action,engaging. Bad points: too much too advanced technology, deus ex machina rescues
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Boring at times, but ending makes up for it
21 December 2011
There was bound to be a sequel to the original Sherlock Holmes from 2009, seeing how much money it made, even with Avatar being released at almost the same time. And here it is,although I wouldn't really call it a sequel, because the old story is mentioned nowhere in the film.

The film, like the old one, is full of gags and jokes involving mostly Holmes and an exasperated Watson, who should be on his honeymoon. These are all pretty funny, but the film does get boring around the middle, and you feel like you're just waiting for the climax. But when it does come you are rewarded for your patience. Again, like in the first film, Holmes uncovers Moriarty's plan to wreak havoc on the world, and stops him from executing it by throwing him off a cliff. But Moriarty pulls Holmes down with him. Everyone thinks he died, and Watson writes a book about him, honoring him as 'the best man of the law I have ever known'. I won't tell you the ending, it's a surprise and maybe the best part of the film.

In conclusion, I don't think this is as good as the old one, but it's still enjoyable enough. I suggest you go see it if you haven't already, but don't expect to be blown away. Expect to be amused and entertained, but no more. If you do that, you'll enjoy it.
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Salem's Lot (2004)
7/10
Decent Stephen king adaptation
21 December 2011
This movie was pretty decent, though it did suffer from a relatively low budget. More realistic special effects would have made it more believable. Without the great acting performances though it would have been boring to watch. Rob Lowe does really well as Ben Mears, the writer who returns to the town of Jerusalem's Lot to face his demons, and André Baugher (who by the way also played in The Mist, which is a better Stephen king adaptation than this) also does well as Matt Burke, the literature teacher who becomes involved in the quest to expel the evil from Salem's Lot. One disappointment though was the character of Mark Petrie. It's not as if Dan Bryd doesn't play him well, it's just that he is described totally different in the book (is that right? English isn't my native language). Also the movie skips through some of the best parts of the book relatively fast (I was expecting much, much more from the scene where Mark escapes the Marsten house). I also enjoyed the bits of narration here and there, they weave the story together really well.

To conclude:

Good:Excellent acting,great story (of course),narration Bad:Screenplay adaptation of the character of Mark Petrie,very obviously fake 'special effects', skipping of scenes that shouldn't be skipped.

This movie is worth watching, especially if you're a Stephen King fan. But if you're not, you'll still have a good time. And that, in the end, is what movies are for
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Falling Down (1993)
9/10
wow...every working man's fantasy carried out
16 September 2011
Warning: Spoilers
What a film! 9 is a really high rating for me, seriously, but this film deserves it. Every working man has had moments like this: when they're just sick of it all and they fell like shooting up something, someone, anything really, just to release their anger. Well, this man (played beautifully by M. Douglas) takes that to the next level. He's in his car in a still-standing line at a roadworks site. Suddenly he gets out of the car, and when a police officer yells at him what he thinks he's doing, he says simply 'I'm going home.'And he blasts the things that stand his way out of it with, of course, guns. You see, this is no office worker. This is a man who works secret projects for the U.S. army, so he has access to lots and lots of guns. Every time he sees something that angers him he begins to yell about how society has broken down, Meanwhile the police, lead by detective prendergast on his final workday before retirement, try to track him as he leaves a trail of murders and shooting-ups behind in the city. He is doing all that to get to his ex-wife and children. His ex-wife divorced him because one day he went crazy and beat her up, and so he was given police orders to stay at a distance of at least 100ft from her st all times. Prendergast really understands what this man is doing and why he's doing it. All this leads to an epic showdown at a pier, where he is ultimately shot by Prendergast, which is the end of the film.

Conclusion: Rent this movie and watch it. You will not be disappointed, Pinky-swear.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Sad missed opportunity
16 September 2011
This could've been so much better. A mix of a great western and a great sci-fi with those two men cast in it? Sign me up! At least that's what I thought. But at 20 minutes in I was already thinking 'When's the ending gonna come?'Don't blame the actors though. They're given almost zero space to show their acting talents, especially Harrison Ford, who only talks like ten times. And then there's the ridiculous plot, which isn't really a plot at all, more like a mash-up of Alien and The Good, The Bad And The Ugly. Not that those aren't good films, they just don't fit together. Conclusion: Don't waste your time and money on this film. Watch Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes instead, that's the best movie of the summer.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Very entertaining and with message
16 September 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This is the prequel to the 1968 sci-fi masterpiece, which shows us the very beginning and how the apes take over the world,

It begins with a scientist, Will Rodman, who is developing a cure for Alzheimer's disease, which is made more interesting by the fact that his father has it, too. Anyway, he thinks he has it, but he decides to test it on apes first. It turns out to enhance the apes' brain capacity hugely, and they try to break out. The humans barely contain the breakout and kill all the apes, but one of them was pregnant and a baby ape is rescued by Will and taken home. Over the years Will and Caesar (the ape) grow a tight bond, but Caesar is growing up and when he attacks a person in the street he must be taken to a containment center. Behind the facade of the nice ape-playground there are cruel, small cages in which the apes are kept 23 hrs of the day. This hugely angers Caesar, and because he is almost as smart as a human, he crafts a plan. He manages to steal some of the Alzheimer's cure and give it to the other apes. Meanwhile the researchers find out the Alzheimer's cure is poisonous to humans, and when the apes break out they spread the virus around the world. This is where the movie ends.

Besides being a very entertaining movie and very well acted by the not- so-famous cast, it also bears the message that we shouldn't experiment on animals, because all sorts of things could go wrong. If it's not out of the theater yet where you live, go see it. Whatever your taste, you will not be disappointed. Pinky-swear.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Super 8 (2011)
7/10
Good movie, bad ending
20 August 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I'm writing this about 1 hour after I got out of the theater.

I go to everything that Steven Spielberg had anything to do with, and I haven't yet been disappointed. And that didn't change with 'Super 8'. The story is set in the 1960's, five boys and a girl who are obsessed with making movies are going to shoot a scene at midnight at a train station. As they're shooting a car drives onto the tracks and collides with a passing train, causing a huge explosion. Having survived the crash they go over to the car that caused the crash and find their science teacher, severely injured, pointing a gun at them and telling them no to tell anyone, or THEY will kill them and their parents. This is where the movie takes off.

The acting in this movie is really good given they're all just kids, and the grown-ups also do a good job. It's really noticeable that SS produced this movie, it's all perfectly made. That man has a great talent and I hope we'll be able to see much, much more of his work.

Later in the movie we find out the train was an airforce train, which was carrying parts of an alien spaceship, and that the science teacher stopped the train to help the monster that hides below ground escape. The monster was locked up underground and is very angry, so when he can finally go aboveground he starts abducting random people, including the girl I talked about earlier. The boys (3 of them; one chickened out, the other has a broken leg), of course, go into the alien's lair to save her, which they manage, but then they are chased into a dead end underground tunnel passage. Joe, the main character, then bravely steps forward and convinces the alien to stop what he's doing.

And then comes the bad part. There's just a huge gap of information. How was the alien suddenly able to build a ship when for 5 years he was unable to? That and the ending is incredibly cliché. If not for the ending the movie would have gotten an 8 from me. But don't blame SS, he's just the producer. It's the director's and the writer's fault.

7/10
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Planet Earth (2006)
10/10
Shut up haters
17 August 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I've read positive and negative reviews about this masterpiece, and most of the negative reviewers seem to suggest that there's too much blood and that the series is just about hunting. You could not be more wrong. About the violence, I admit, there is some footage of animals feeding, but really, there isn't as much blood in all of the 10 hours of this series than in the average horror flick. Killing is not against nature, it IS nature. The animals, like cavemen, use everything from their kills. They do not kill for fun, like we do when we go hunting. If you were in the shoes of say a lion needing to feed her cub you wouldn't care about a little blood. And those who say the series isn't scientific enough, it wasn't meant to be scientific. It was meant to be a look at the few places on our planet that are still (almost) untouched, was meant to show you animals in their natural habitat. Bottom line: it's for amusement, not for expanding your mind. I still learned things though. My favorite episode is Caves
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
South Park: Scott Tenorman Must Die (2001)
Season 5, Episode 4
10/10
Simply the best
9 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I'm a South Park fan, and I like EVERY episode. But this... this is the greatest piece of dark comedy ever made. There are more jokes and plot twists in this 20-minute episode than in any comedy movie. The laughing riot begins with Stan's saying 'Cartman, you're so god damn stupid, it's unbelievable', with an expression that is funny because it's unexpected and unique. That expression was never used again. The episode has lots of little jokes that you might miss while laughing, like Cartman being delivered a package and the deliverer saying 'Cart-man' in a funny way, or all the men running from the bushes when Mr. Tenorman finds out Cartman, Jimbo and Ned are hiding there. There is simply nothing better ever made. I've watched it many times and it has yet to become stale. If you like Cartman's horribleness, you could check out 'Casa Bonita' or 'Ginger Kids'or 'AWESOME-O'or 'Die, Hippie Die' or 'Cartoon Wars'. Hell, I could name 20 episodes, but I won't.
14 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Decent. Could have been better.
4 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Being a Stephen King fan, I obviously read the book and I have to say this film does skip a lot of parts. It's like they film everything up to page 200 then skip right to page 400. They missed the Sally Pratt/Lester Pratt bit, they missed Polly's destroying the thing in her azka, they missed how Pangborn's wife and son died, they missed Ace Merrill, The actual store doesn't look a bit like it is described in the book (In the book it's in the middle of the street, in the film it's just standing on its own somewhere), and it would've been nice to see a bit where Gaunt travels to another town, which are the final pages of the book. But King adaptations usually miss out a lot, and that's not necessarily bad. In fact the only faithful adaptations I've seen so far are Misery and Pet Sematary. But the actors all do a very good job. I like von Sydow as Gaunt, I like Harris as Pangborn, the only actors that could've been better were the ones who played Wilma Jerzyck and Nettie Cobb. So all in all a decent job, though it would've been better had it been a little longer and had it contained more of the things that happen in the book.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Godfather (1972)
10/10
What can I say?
16 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I mean, really, what hasn't been said about this film yet? That's right, nothing, and so I'll now write a review that doesn't go anywhere.

There are those that say this (or maybe pt2) is the best movie ever made, but I couldn't agree with that. One of the best, yes, but not the best. And then you have those who say it's overrated and boring. I think those people are just not used to extremely long movies anymore, and that's sad, because these people are missing out on some other awesome long movies (casino, GF 1,2,3, Heat, Once upon a time in the west, etc.) Anyway, back to the movie. It was the breakthrough for several great actors, including Marlon Brando, in the brilliant role of the compassionate but cruel Don Corleone, and Al Pacino of course, in the role of Michael, the Don's son who didn't want to take over the Corleone empire at first but in the end does anyway. When I fist sat down to see this movie it was with thoughts of 'overrated' and 'way too long', but the 2h55 just flew by, really. Though it was the longest movie I'd ever seen, it felt no longer than say Inception, which is 30min shorter and (in my opinion) a really boring movie, and at the end I couldn't wait for pt2, so it was a convenience that I had it standing right next to me in my DVD-rack.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Mist (2007)
8/10
Terribly awesome, one-of-a-kind film
11 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Most Stephen King movies are good, some even awesome (Misery, Shawshank Redemption, Green Mile), and The Mist can count itself amongst those three. If you've read the book, you'll know how close the movie keeps to the book, but that's only good, because the book is so awesome (i'm a Stephen King fan too :). The fact that there's almost no music (apart from some music at the end, but that fits in perfectly) makes the atmosphere tense and makes the characters seem more realistic. The movie, far from being a run-of-the-mill horror flick, shows how people can lose their heads and turn to anyone who promises them savior (Mrs. Carmody). Apart from that frightening idea, there's also plenty of 'regular' horror, with about 3 bloody scenes. That may seem nothing compared to say Saw 3,which is basically one big bloody scene, but if there were too much blood no one would take it seriously, because (forgive me) those "Other dimension creatures" are a bit too fake to believe. But the very best part of the movie is the terrible ending in which **HUGE FREAKING SPOILER** the main character, David, his son of 5, a woman he met at the supermarket, and two old people, one of which is his old elementary school teacher, are sitting in the car in which they had fled, which had run out of gas, and so they know that they're going to die because the Other dimension creatures are everywhere in the mist. David takes out his gun, which has 4 bullets in it but they are with five. He shoots the others, including his 5 year old son, while he really wanted to die himself too. He crawls out of the car, wanting to be killed by the creatures, but then the army come down the road. And the terrible truth occurs to you: he just killed 4 people, including his son, for nothing! With that thought, the movie is over. I remained dead still in my seat for 2 minutes. A masterpiece.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed