Change Your Image
HohesC
Reviews
Catwoman (2004)
Still way too many good reviews! It's fun, but it's not a good film!
How can people actually recommend this silly piece of ****?
It's a really funny movie, it's a lot of fun to watch it with some friends and laugh at the miserable performances, the most silly plot you've ever seen in a movie and the hole cheesiness of it.
But there are many people here, who want it to get a better rating and say it is good - and that is, in my opinion, bad for this site. It makes you question the quality of the reviews posted here.
Hally Barry WAS terrible. Most awkward performance i've seen in a long time. The plot is hilarious. The fact, that this isn't the "real" Catwoman does not even bother me that much.. but being resurrected by a campy CGI-cat? That's the great idea they had to make a new Catwoman? And do not get me started on the whole "evil cosmetics company" thing. Did they try to attract little girls with this or what? Ridiculous.
This movie looks like someone gave the producers a couple of millions and said "Here you have the money - now make the worst film you can do. If i see one solid scene in the movie, you won't get a penny!"
Oh..and they even made inside jokes it seems. Sharon Stone plays Sharon Stone. And her super-power? She's a stone!
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Cinema.
There is not much to say about this film, that has not been said before. It is a masterpiece. It was a revolution. It is wonderful.
Why do I even review it? Because I would like to say something about whether or not it is a hype and why people often criticize the wrong things. And how people give the wrong answers toward the criticism.
This movie is not being hyped. Mostly hypes do not last for decades, except you would still call classical music or the beatles a hype today. It just is that good. I was born almost 20 Years after it was released, so i may have seen better special effects. I may have seen science-fiction movies, some of them influenced by 2001, that were way more thrilling or had clearer message. I may not even call it the best film of all times. But thats it. Thats all criticism i can come up with. This film is excellent. It has aged like a good wine. It was a revelation to me, as it was to the generations of viewers who watched it before me. And it is not even about the philosophical themes or the mythology ( that is continued in the much more conventional but yet great 2010 ). It was a revelation about filmmaking and reception. It is one of those rare films that show you intensively that cinema can do more than just tell some stories. That film is more than just a way to illustrate something else.
However, of course not everyone has to appreciate it. That does not mean that it is only for open-minded intellectuals, it is just such an intense work, that you cannot expect, that everybody likes it. As it is in music or fine arts, there will always be things you can respect, but you just do not like.
But if you do not like it, at least show some respect. Do not call it a hype, only because you do not feel the need to spend two hours of your time with this particular piece. Try it and if it does not work just accept that you do not like it and go on to something else. Do not complain about the apes and count the minutes to tell others how boring it is. Because it is not boring. It is Cinema.
The Limits of Control (2009)
Definitely not for everyone, definitely for me.
Long Story short - i love this film. I loved it at first viewing. At second and at third. I think i can say that it will remain one of my favorites for the rest of my life. I can watch it anytime, as long as it is not two times in a row. This movie works like your favorite piece of music. Or music you just hate.
I understand why people do not like this film. I understand, that even intellectual viewers, who appreciate art-house and independent movies do not like it. There is no story. No obvious message. Maybe there is no meaning to all of it at all. There is mystery, that just stays mystery. No revelation. No "answers leading to new questions" and not even a real pay-off at the end. It does not even deliver real symbolism like some experimental movies from the 70ies.
And yet it is a wonderful film. Like poetry, like music, like DADA. It works as a film about filmmaking and as an experience at the same time. It shows you, intended or not, how replaceable every plot line is. How unnecessary answers can be. How little you have to know about a character to follow him around and share his adventure. All the best fiction in the world couldn't make this film any better. It is perfect as it is. It is a kind of purist, concrete filmmaking. It is thrilling, just because it is made thrilling. Not because there is a danger we know of. And it is beautifully made. The cinematography is so fitting and remarkable.
I find this film illuminating, thrilling, satisfying and entertaining - and i cannot even tell why exactly. And that's the point. It's the magic of cinema.
Drive (2011)
Good Film, still overrated.
I did not expect to like "Drive", because i was not in the mood for another retro-crime-whatever-movie and i'm not so much into cars. At first the whole 80ies reminiscence was really annoying, but then i realized how well it was translated into a slick 2011-look. And when i got into the mood of the movie i really enjoyed it.
Ryan Gosling is great in his lead role - what is also the only really good character in the film, although we do not even know his name. When it comes to non-speaking, mysterious, anti-hero lead characters, there have been many more who used such an possibility to show their acting skills. And Isaach De Bankolé for example was in Limits of Control at least as good as Gosling is here. But he carries the film - no doubt - very well.
The movie is highly stylized and focuses, centers, and depends on Goslings Character. The Plot however keeps underdeveloped, some points are not made clear and most of the characters are "just there to get shot" at some point. Not even the Drivers love-interest gets really fleshed out, but her son shares a nice immediate friendship with our male lead.
All in all it is a film about atmosphere, style and a super-hero. And it does a good job.
Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)
Neither masterpiece nor trash, but great pop-art-entertainment.
Kill Bill. I just watched it again, maybe with not enough time having passed by since my last viewing, because i could not enjoy it as much as i thought. But i was well entertained and remembered why i liked the film in the first place. So i went on to have a look at the ratings and reviews on IMDb and i was confused. There almost seem to be only two very different opinions to Kill Bill Vol.1. Whether People praise it as a masterpiece and a rating of 10/10 or they hate it and describe it as an awful movie. Neither one nor the other i can fully comprehend.
I think that Kill Bill, as a whole, is not exactly Tarantinos best film. In terms of putting together details, homages etc. Pulp Fiction may be better, and if it comes to good filmmaking i would always say Jackie Brown is his best film. In my opinion one major mistake was to split the film into two parts. That is probably the reason why so many people complain about Vol.1 lacking a real "plot". To me the two parts only make sense as one film. And i can imagine that it even would have been way better edited if it had been released as one. It could have been a great TV-series of 5 to 10 episodes, too, though. However the more serious and "epic" feel of the second part is a great compensation for the endless crazy-88-choreography, that really bored me to death this time.
Watched back to back this is still a pure Tarantino-explosion, with a great comic-book-like story. Despite all the obvious italo-western and kung-fu influences it feels like Tarantino making a graphic-novel adaption of a graphic-novel written by himself. And that's great - because it seems that this is exactly what it wants to be. And this is by far better than most of the real comic-book-movies, especially the "gritty" ones. I do not really understand people who claim to be fans of Tarantinos earlier work and totally dismiss this one, because it's pure Tarantino. It is pulp and it is fiction. The only difference is it is not about gangsters and idiots, it is about a straight-forward-revenge. So there is less dialog and more blood. But therefore it is bigger and splashier and you can see, that the director did not do that because he is not capable of good writing, he did it because he had great fun with it.
The two different kinds of reviews on Kill Bill Vol.1 reflect the two main views on Quentin Tarantino himself displayed in the comments on this site. While many people praise him to be a genius, others accuse him of having stolen all his ideas from other work and being uncreative. I grew up with his movies. Pulp Fiction was my introduction to more serious, adult and "independet" films. So, i loved it when i was 13. And i still loved it when i was 18 - for different reasons. And when i was 23..you get the idea. So i saw all his films, and the ones he is related to a couple of times. I can say, that i "know" him as a filmmaker. I know what to expect. I know that he's not a genius or a wunderkind. He's not as well educated in terms of filmmaking like a Polanski for example. He never went to a film school, so i think he "steals" from other movies, just like other directors "steal" from their teachers. He makes only the movies he wants to make, and when he has a vision he realizes it in the way he learned it. I do not see him as the visionary-super-clever-genius who is the only one who can deliver great homages to genre-cinema and film-history, but i also can not see how someone can call him uncreative or unoriginal. He is obviously a passionate, highly-creative, uncompromising filmmaker, with great technical and stylistic skills ( By the way, if you think a certain Mr. Avary was more important than Tarantino for Pulp Fiction, just look at the mess that is "Killing Zoe" ) and Kill Bill is another proof for that.
Kill Bill is not as decent and smooth floating as Jackie Brown. And it is not the reinvention of its genre and new found template for hundreds of imitations like Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. But it is a great fantasy-tale about a woman, who wants nothing more than revenge until she finds out that there is something else she needs to have. And it is so great, so big, so well-made, that it is much more than just a genre-homage. That is what all the other zombie- and gore-filmmakers do. Here you have more than that. And a certain amount of quality and style. You do not have to be a die-hard-Tarantino-fan to like it, you do not have to praise him at all. You only have to like what he likes and let him have fun, so you can have fun, too. Then Kill Bill, recommended by me as a whole film, will be a great ride.