Reviews

Surreal, disconcerting, exaggerated, pretentious and crazy, crazy. A mix of rather improvised comics by Harmony Korine. Putting characters in front of the camera, pretending or not that they are sniffing glue, and a madness after another.

We are lucky enough to see a surreal scene in which Harmony Korine sitting on a sofa next to another black boy with dwarfism tries to do something, exaggerating his altered state by alcohol or some substance, in a very shabby way and trying to get his poor actor, who keeps him company on the couch, to improvise without knowing what to do in an erratic way, hallucinating, sometimes without knowing what to say, trying to get the shoot on one take ok and go. I hope that for the poor guy, there was only one shot, because otherwise it would be to die for.

Clöe Sevigny who plays a girl from the suburbs in which crime, unemployment and the streets are the rules to follow. She also serves as the film's clothing designer. It is the most remarkable thing, since everything else is a bunch of different sequences without any sense, a horrible script and the proof that this kid, at 20 years old at the time, after succeeding in "KIDS" he believes he has the right to continue making films. In "KIDS" she did a good job because the success of that film was the actors themselves who were unknown boys and girls on the streets at that time from New York, so Korine signs the script and it was rather the protagonists who gave it to him. Here the protagonists lack soul, personality and he tries to repeat the same thing done in his debut work as a screenwriter. Direct debut without knowing how to direct, he scripts without knowing how to script and puts together something that is forgettable. A disaster movie. A failed attempt, which shows what Harmony Korine is worth, a kid with no talent.

4 stars out of 10.

Bayona tells the story in her own way, without delving into the characters, without dwelling on the protagonists, without telling us things that happened as they happened and also inventing many others. I don't want to make spoilers, so I'm going totry to tell where it goes wrong.

Since 1992, when I was 11 years old, I have been an enthusiast of this story, which is one of the most amazing stories, in terms of the strength and survival instinct of the human being. I have three books, a few interviews and various documentaries.

My favorite book is Roberto Canesa's self-help book "I HAD TO SURVIVE". Since then, I have been informing myself from various points of view and various documentaries such as interviews of different survivors. And it has been from the beginning, at the time of the accident, where it has become a bad copy of ¡Alive! 1993 by Frank Marshall.

It doesn't show the accident in any kind of detail, a pretty crappy CGI, some actors (who, although they resemble the originals in appearance) don´t do a good job, but not because of them, but because of the director. Bad direction of actors. There are things and events that happen that have relevant importance and that they are not told; other things are invented out of nowhere, we cannot empathize with any character: every time someone here speaks, you don't know who he is. The director did not want to tell things as they happened, it is a mistake of respect on his part for the survivors. In Frank Marshall's movie, we empathized with the characters, we cried with them, we were told important things that in this one shine for their absence, and above all it showed with the practical effects of the time, with better resolution and effectiveness, the moment of the accident.

I know that when I found out it was going to be a Netflix production, I didn't like the idea, but when it was Bayona who was going to tell the story, I thought: "this guy is not up to the task of this incredible story." And it is so! It is a hollow, empty film that tells you what happened (with invented things), but since it doesn´t make you empathize with any character, there is no emotion.

I know the story by heart and the only good thing about it are the photos that are identical, and that it is narrated in Uruguayan, with unknown actors. That is, it is not Americanized. But you don't know who the captain is, for many names of the deceased that he gives you, their age and so on, he doesn't tell you who they are, he doesn't tell you the events in the order in which they occurred and he also invents stupid and empty plots. Totally expendable, very pretentious and doesn´t achieve doing justice to this tremendous story of improvement in every sense. Empty, hollow TV movie, sometimes even boring, although the long film passes quickly. Totally failed. ¡Viven¡ fans, stay away from it!

3 stars out of 10.

Badly written, badly acted, poor photography, very poor directing; even makes Antonia San Juan looks like a woden face. They have a lot of story to tell, but instead, they make a boring screenplay, where some actors are dubbed (because director maybe didn´t like their voice). It looks like you are watching amateur acting everytime; something like a cinema student´s first movie. Don´t ruin your time watching this.

I´ve watched a lot of documentaries about it, interviews in different TV shows and different podcasts about it. Here in Spain, it is one of the most important "media TRUE CRIME" case; not at the moment, but yes in 90´s. In Spain crimes prescribe in 20 years, witch it makes boring and redundant talking again and again about it. Everybody knows about the story. There´s been 30 years from that; I think that´s why we want to comment again on it, even if we don´t know nothing new about it. That´s a mistake, becouse you don´t have anything new, and people are starting to get bored about it.

Maybe it is time to tell more stories and forget about taht one. If it would be USA where crimes don´t prescribe it would have sense to e a cold case and investigate more. But here it is CLOSED, lets left it like that please. And if you do something, make it a bit more cinematografically interesting.

1 Star out of 10.

We live in a difficult era for cinema, especially in Hollywood. There is no new ideas, they have to come back to the great films of the 80´s to try to sell something. But they don´t do through the ussual channels, They put DISNEY that has a lot of money but puts his own trademark in a non-Disney film. This is terrible, cause the product that we have here is an old Indiana in his 80 years, doing things that he did when he was 40. Incredible but true.

I knew before watching it, that this was going to be a waste of time, but we have to watch it if we want to have an opinion about it. The conclussion is a terrible writting, good directing, but with the CGI mask on Harrison Ford´s face looks really bad. When he is in front of the camera looks really nice and real but when shadows are applied it fails and more in 4K, when he turns his head one way or another, you don´t know who you are looking, it seems very strange to your mind: your mind tells you that this is Harrison Ford in his late 30´s, but You know that he isn´t. This trick is far away happily to be decent, cause the day we start doing films by A. I. this would be to me, the end of cinema. But one day it will come.

Products like that, trying to find more and more money are a completely disastrous way of making cinema. It even ruins the directing of a good director like Mangold, obviously conditioned in his work by Disney, Spielberg and Lucas.

3 stars out of ten.

Poor story, strange acting; I´ve seing it in castillian Spanish, don´t know if its original languaje is catalá. But I Think so. I found the story of Rabadan quite interesting and fresh in Spanish Tru crime. Something different, because we are allways talking about Alcasser, Alfredo Galán, Alcasser again and again... It makes me bored.

Here I had the opportunity to find out something different, but here I am watching a Spanish or catalan tv show film type that it is done with very poor taste of cinematography and a smell of a poor TV movie. I don´t want to make Spoliers, but if you find something about True Crime, this is not your cup of tea. Nothing why the way he is, nothing about his personality, nothing about the two lifes that they talk about in the title. Only very poor wrtting, screenplaying, directing and acting. Don´t understand the way of making it; It tastes like some cinema students made this as a final exam.

3 stars out of 10.

A great documentation of recordings that were in old discs, and for this time they bring to digital quality to preserve it.

They bring live to the Nurenberg judgements. They do a necessary job, a real good work, maybe too short, it should be done in chapters, cause the trials were very long. But nevertheless, here we have the voice and the footage of the real things that happened those days. We see and hear the voice of the perpetrators of the most horrific murdes that happened in the western culture.

Very important to watch it cause that was what actually happened, and not to repeat it. That´s why we need to see it again and again till we understand that humanity can repeat it any time. Don´t forget it!

Thanks for bringging the footage in black and white and not in colour, cause the colour makes Nazis appear more important an black and white is the way we should see it

7 stars out of 10.

I am Basque, and when I heard about that film I wanted to whatch it. I waited, and then the moment came.

With an interesting start, Filmed in Tenerife (I love Cannary islands), in Galego (the languaje from Galicia) and the nature that involves the movie as a different character, I though it could be a very good movie for me. I personally love the Islandic cinema and I found that this could be something like that kind of cinema with actors from Galicia and told in their languaje with the hot from the volcanic Island of Tenerife. But I was very wrong.

The movie is slow, with poor cinematography and rare acting. The only great thing was the soundtrack, Camilo Sanabria does a great job as a composer, and also the sound crew from the movie is great, recording the soundscapes that involves the movie. But there are a lot of things missing in that drama. It is boring and I felt like I was watching 2 hours movie, instead of 1h and 15 minutes. You don´t know what they are talking about and you feel loosing interest every minute that passes. Finally you are thankfull that it ends. A complete fail for me.

4 stars out of 10.

It has all the ingredients of Shyamalan´s cinema. The mistery, the cruelty, horror and science fiction at the same time. We have 7 different characters, four of them knock on the door 7 times, and those four have each one 7 letters i their names: Leonard, Sabrina, Redmond and Adriane. Too much refference to number 7. I´ve been reading about the film and the importance of number 7 in it, but I haven´t found anything about it. Did someone found something?

Well in the apoclypse there are a lot of refferences to number 7. 7 is the number of God, and the number of perfection. It is also the numbert of entirety. There are 7 deadly sins and other 7 virtues against them (4 cardinal virtues, the four who knock the door, and 3 theological, the ones at the cabin). God has 7 different spirits, represented in the Menorah, with 7 candles. The Heaven is divided in 7 differente levels. So after reading about that I come to a conclusion that the movie has many refferences to The Apocalypse. And here is my input to the movie; maybe someone has also seen it!

I find it quite a good movie, one of Shyamalan´s best. If You love his cinema You will like it. All the characters are pretty good, the actors make a very nice Job, specially Dave Bautista and the child by Kristen Cui; deffinetly Shyamalan knows how to direct children. He does a nice job in the screenplay and creates a great atmosphere with a nice photography and excellent job in soundtrack by the Icelandic music composer Herdís Stefánsdóttir; cellos, violas, double basses and percusion sounding perfect and creating a sound landscape all over the movie that bings us tension, mistery and horror. Really a nice job!

Of course, 7 stars out of 10!

I have to watch the movie in three days in three different chapters, because I couldn't stand it. It was like a torture. Couldn't hear the dialogs, couldn't understand them, couldn't see anything instead a carpet, some toys, some feet walking... Very poor photography, made with ammateur camera, with ammateur lenses and with very bad taste for filmaking.

It is supposed to scare you, but you start to feel sleepy instead. The children in the movie are passing through the camera, rare noises, very complicated shots, with no sense at all.

I don't find the point of watching this. I had to stop it every half hour, and wait for the next day to watch it again,then wait if something happens; but nothing happens! I feel angry after watching this!

1 star out of 10.

What in the world is that? Very very bad movie. A doll transformed into a terminator or a robot prepared to kill. It is really a nonsense, what were the filmakers thinking?

Lets start with the casting, wich is really awful. The principal character is a girl, very poorly executed role. There is her aunt. A wooden faced actress, very bad directed. When she is supposed to be frightened, she smiles, when she is mad she also smiles, when she is upset she smiles again!! That makes me furious! I can't watch her face . The little girl lose her parents and she is forced to live with her aunt, their relationship is surreal. When the aunt should be upset because of the situation, she is happy like a psycopath, and she smiles all the time! I can't stand it! Just awful.

1 star out of 10.

That's how I feel, very dissapointed. The cinematography and atmosphere created with the excellent soundtrack, goes to hell with the poor directing. Skarsgard is quite allright but Cronenbergh junior brings us into surrealist and unreal situations.

I was looking foward to watch it, but everything fails. The atmosphere is really good, mixed with superb cinematography and music, but the screenplay is bad executed.

I love his father's cinema, I am a fan of David Cronenbergh's movies. I though that maybe his son will learn how to make it well, but happens the same that happens with Jennifer Lynch. They are supposed to be good directors but they fail on every movie they make. Cronenbergh junior has a very good taste making movies, but it finally fails when bringing a fresh idea. The visuals and atmosphere are very outstanding, but the screenplay is weak and pretentious.

4 stars out of 10.

Be careful, this movie is a piece of crap. It is a sequel, due to the good reception of the first one. This time the only thing that brings Eloy de la Iglesia to make it was the money. So the artistic interest of the first one is completely lost in this one.

The story is practically the same: young people really using heroin in front of a camera, but there is something new, the principal character goes to jail.

Appart from that nothing interesting. Drugs, more drugs, sex in between, political issues with Guardia Civil fascists.

Eloy de La Iglesia losses completely his film directing freshness of the first one .

If you are a fan of the first movie "El Pico", don't waste your time with that one. I warn you!

3 stars out of 10.

I am from Bilbao, Basque Country. I find that movie really a nice and very convincing tale of what was going on those years with GUARDIA CIVIL, Spanish police, the oppression against anything that was basque and the drugs that were used by the spanish police at that time, as a weapon against people. Against the free will of the basque politics.

Oppresion was shown on both sides of the society.

Young people was into heroin, that make them an instrument of the power, they were more interested in substance than in their freedom. And this is an important thing that is displayed into the movie, because that was what actually happened here. Of course, there was something else and it was the spanish goberment using violence and terrorism against the freedom of basque people. But that was going to be another story, told later on.

7 stars out of 10.

Really boring idea, filming some surfers with nice photography. Very boring to watch.

In the background there is a voice that tells us a story, but we can't hear it because of the NOISE of the electronic music. They tell us it is beyond the noise, but there is no point to understand anything with that horrible narrator. We fell like we are inside the noise. Electronic music is played with some acoustic instruments, making it very noisy.

Don't waste your time, even if it is only 38 minutes. It is better for you to go to the beach and watch surfers with the natural NOISE and SILENCE of nature. You will enjoy more that watching this nonsense.

3 stars out of 10.

When I first started to watch that movie it had more than 8 points from 10. Now it has less than 5. I know why. Terrible acting, bad cinematography, erratic screenplay and boring editing.

There is something new about telling the story at the end of the movie, but it is a mixture of bad heist movies, with very poor acting. I don´t know what else to say, I warn people: be ware of watching this thing. There is nothing about the title You could expect on it.

I am taking note of the name of the director, and then I am not going to watch anything from him again.

Very very poor movie

3 stars out of 10.

Spielbergh is one one greatest directors of all this time, but he talks again and again about him, his family, being jewish (how hard it was in USA), the problems he and his family had...

Well I want to tell that it bores me, it is all the time the same. Steven Spielbergh doesn´t bring anything new to the genere. The Oscar nominations, are surreal; I hope he wont have any award, not for this movie.

There are quite a bit examples in the movie of making artistic cinema, but He doesn´t bring anything new, He stays in a correct storytelling, but nothing fresh. Good performances, but not great, good cinematography but not great...

Spielbergh WAS a great director once...

5 stars out of 10.

Harry is one of the greatest actors of all time and he is been in nearly hundred well known movies. That makes him a legend of actual modern and contemporary film history. From the 70´s till now in 2022.

He and M. Emmet Walsh used to appear in a lot of movies, they were cult classics or well done movies, so the critics told us that if we find a movie where they were acting we will be entertained and with quality filmaking. In my opinion, he deserved an honorific award from the academy, but They didn´t give him. No problem, he will be forever one of the greatest, a reference of good quality cinema and a great character that makes a movie greater than it is. Long live to Harry!

7 stars out of 10.

The mixture of realism of the day after day struggling with death, cold and food that hunters can bring to their town is really great!

They tell us how their everyday is, mixing it with a very good narration and animation that tells us te stories of their culture. Narration fluids from reallity (real motion images) to non reallity (animation). We enjoy very much the story and music with a very well written story.

Those documentaries are very necessary to watch, to tell people that today in the 21st Century it exist people that co-exist with nature in pure harmony, hunting what they need, eating what they need... Everybody should watch it and reconect with nature that makes us what we are: humans; and what we are today: a being that has beenm isolated from nature.

7 stars out of 10.

I love Spanish brand new cinema with ideas that make us believe that Spanish cinema is still alive. This is the case.

A good Thrilling movie very entetaining and a successfull acting make that movie one of the greatest. It is very interesting to know about the characters that are displayed in here. A thriller full of twists that entertain.

We must celebrate a movie like this that brings us into the new Spanish cinema and give us good writting, good acting and cinematography. Very proud of that, but still not enough to consider that Spanish cinema is saved, we need more pictures like that one!

7 star out of 10.

Nothing to understand in that movie. They try hard and harder to make new material out of the digital era; but they are with no ideas. Those directors think that if they do something using new technologies, people will go to cinema and view it, and it is not!

It is more relevant a movie that talks about reallity of people about everyday´s life without technology, than the technology as a subject, as a character. They haver certain clichles that dont fit with ordinary people, and that brings boredom to the audience. No ideas, no new material, no inspiring material, no art...

4 stars out of 10, bad.

I love nature and Iceland, the cinema from this land ; so that was a very good opportunity to watch it. Even it had many nomination a prices. But I don´t found any reason in the argument.

Not solid, very experimental but not worth your time, even it is very fast 1 hour and a cuarter. But you feel like you are watching and endless movie.

I find no point, they speak different lenguajes (not traduced in the subtitles) you don´t understand anything, nothing is explained for you the principle character hasn´t got any personality.

The only thing I could say about that is the beautiful cinematography, but with Iceland as set it is no difficult to shot something bad.

3 stars out of 10.