There is beauty in the crafting of this movie, but no storyline and very little drama. I spent the first half of the movie just figuring out who the characters were, and the whole mess just felt disjointed. The humour is very lowbrow and focuses on piss, flatulence, masturbation etc. I have no idea why it is considered a "masterpiece". To me, it was mostly boring.
The Friends of Eddie Coyle is a gritty crime thriller from the early seventies with the great Robert Mitchum in a key role. He plays a tired family man in his fifties who is also a veteran low-tier criminal on the side. Due to a past misstep, he is up for time in prison and is contemplating cooperation with the cops in order to get off the hook. There are other shady characters as well, such as the gun-dealing Jackie Brown and the snitching bartender Dillon. You also get the sense that the police is no better than the crooks, ruthless and manipulative. All the actors does a splendid job and the movie is shot in a realistic, low-key way which adds to the suspension of disbelief.
However, the movie tended to confuse me at times and it is shot and written with a certain distance to the characters and their plight, which made it hard for me to really care for anyone, despite the likeable qualities of Robert Mitchum. Nothing really happened that was exciting except for a couple of tense scenes with gunrunner Jackie Brown, who incidentally gave name to Quentin Tarantino's more famous film from 1997. The movie had a depressive vibe to it from beginning to end, and while it is par for the course for this genre of gritty crime thrillers, it didn't manage to hit me on any emotional level. It was slightly interesting throughout, but ultimately underwhelming.
I found the movie pretty entertaining, mostly due to the quirky performance by Daniel Craig, but the ending is so utterly stupid and makes the "heroes" of the picture into awful, despicable people, and that includes Benoit Blanc!
Think about it: They
destroy something invaluable to the human race
just to stick it to a rich dude! What kind of "justice" is that? That ending made me furious! It demonstrates just how shallow Rian Johnson really is - that he did not understand how that ending will backfire in the eyes of most educated people. The movie is slick, but really stupid when you step back and look at it closely.
Arnold and Danny Glover had to outsmart the predator, as they were no match physically. But this strong, female warrior can easily take out groups of 6-7 big, bruly Frenchmen in close combat! Did her character ever learn or practice close combat? Nope ... But she is an awesome woman nonetheless - and the men were toxic so who cares? Also she kicked the predator's butt with brawn and technological wizardry - just as expected from a slim Native American girl. Oh, wait ... it subverted my expectations. That's good, right? No. Woke trash.
Someone in these comments asked for a definition of what "woke" means. This is what the term means to me: Someone who thinks themselves morally superior to everyone else in history and who thinks about other people as part of a group and according to a hierarchy of value - where women and ethnic/sexual minorities are at the top, while white, straight men are at the bottom.
They also want to make movies who display such an utopia. If a movie paints ALL the women and ethnic/sexual/gender minorities as good, smart or powerful, and ALL the white, straight men as either stupid or evil - then the movie is most likely woke. If there is a mix - then the movie is not woke.
@viccc - Wow, so the film takes "secret pleasure" in gunning down black people? Did you completely miss all the white people getting gunned down? And the film is an action/war movie taking place in Africa, so what did you expect?
Also, "colonialist trash" as a label on a movie which advocates for cooperation between people of different color and a future where the people of Africa forgive each other and stop the cycle of hate. They even have a white, racist character who gets turned around and starts looking at black people as equals by the end.
Also, the whole movie is about saving a black person because he is so "good" that he will make the lives of his people better. And the scumbag/villain of the picture is a white dude. How on earth did you arrive at your opinions that the movie is somehow "racist"?
This is one of those films where I ask myself 'do I like it or do I not?'. There are some aspects of the movie that I admire. For instance, the vicious fights between manimals and real f***ing animals like tigers and lions are super-impressive and done for real. It made me think of Roar (1981), except like ... with a storyline and good actors.
That's another cool thing about the movie, the actors. We have legendary Academy Award winner Burt Lancaster in the titular role as well as Nigel Davenport as his gun for hire, but the best performance is delivered by Michael York, who got nominated for a Saturn award for this role. He is actually really, really good! I did not expect that after a somewhat wooden performance in Logan's Run (1976). His work while 'turning' in the cage is especially applaudable. I loved Barbara Carrera in Embryo (1976), so I had high hopes for her here, but she never gets much to do, unfortunatly - and that 'twist' ending could be spotted a mile away, though the idea of it and the implications are still interesting to ponder.
Lastly, I would like to commend the excellent makeup on display. The manimals are brought to life with makeup techniques reminiscent of Planet of the Apes (1968), except even better. It is impressive and certainly preferable to modern CGI. I especially liked 'boar man', though 'bull man' deserves mention for taking down a tiger singlehandedly while unarmed.
One of the first sequels on the big screen. At least one of those with a "2" or a "II" behind the title. The first moive had of course been a hit, both at the box office and at the Oscars. It took home a whooping five Academy Awards! Including best picture and best actor for Gene Hackman!
Yes, Gene Hackman as Popeye Doyle, a great actor and a great character, perhaps even more so in this sequel, despite the lack of prize thropies. Gene Hackman is certainly the greatest thing about this moive, but his french counterpart, Bernard Fresson, delivers an equally gritty and fascinating performance as the French police officer tasked with keeping an eye on Popeye.
Two stunning performances to be sure, but the movie's principal strength is probably its grit and its down-and-dirty, seedy take on the crime genre as well as its fish-out-of-water theme. All set in a very "exotic" European France from the equally "exotic" mid-sIeventies. Dynamically shot and with no unecceassry hand-holding. The viewers have to piece everything together themselves as the plot moves along - something sadly lacking in today's dumbed-down cinema.
All in all, there are many things in this picture totally alien to modern cinema. The feel of dirt and grit, the lone wolf asshole cop hero, the lack of political messaging and not least - the strong sense of something real going on. So much so that it is easy to get lost in the world of this picture.
On the downside - perhaps it gets too dark, too depressing and its main character too much of an asshole. Usually I hate characters like this, but for some reason, perhaps because he goes through so much hell or perhaps because he is so determined, I still rooted for Popeye until the very end. And the ending was just as satisfying as it had to be.
A very good sequel, but a little uneven and with characters that are borderline unlikeable. Still, a pretty good time.
One of the stupidest movies I've ever seen! The characters seemed soooo forced and kind of like ripped from an 80s sitcom with all the heavy moral preaching about family values.
Jokes inserted everywhere despite often being totally inappropriate (like characters making jokes while he/she and the rest of the family is dodging imminent death).
One character suddenly gets superpowers because ... she gets angry? Robots explode in seconds because of a weird-looking dog ... The whole family just happens to have big, chunky screwdrivers in their pockets during the car trip because ... opportunity for jokes. Of course.
The villain builds huge, complicated structures all over the world in hours and the super-clever A.I. considers shooting people into space to die in high-tech rockets as a better plan than just killing them immediatly.
Yeah, it's just a cartoon, but I've seen a ton of cartons. I usually love them but THIS is just plain stupid. Perhaps very young children can get some enjoyment out of all the razzle-dazzle, and some adults will be impressed by the admittedly great animation.
Quite good, though politically incorrect. There are some weird jokes on race/rape and at least two beautiful women receive a pat on the butt). If such content offends you, stay away, but I find It refreshing in the contemporary landscape of woke cinema to dive into an old, obscure gem such as this. The production values are awesome, with a good score by John Williams, fantastic cinematography, breathtaking views from high altitudes, a decent mystery plot and a pletora of intriging supporting characters. All around well acted and well directed, with the ever-squinting legend, Clint Eastwood, at the helm.
A well-acted and well-directed sci-fi thriller to be sure, but the feminist themes presented here are problematic. For most of the movie I was thinking that what the men wanted was far more representative of what some feminists imagine men want, rather than what men actually want from their partners.
Also, the movie conluded that a "men's club" was by definition sexist, which is just weird, as if being able to join any organization or group is a human right, and that the woman should give "permission" for her husband to join such groups.
It was interesting though, to see that such themes were on display in a popular movie in the mid-70s. Some feminists seem to think that such movies did not exist until recently and that any decade of films before the 2010s were overwhelmingly sexist. They obviously never saw "9 to 5", "Working Girl", "Tootsie" or this.
Tedious, meandering and most of all entirely predictable. I enjoy watching movies with sympathetic characters because they make me invested in the plot, they give me someone to care about, to identify with or root for. This movie starred two great actors as two dislikable, selfish pricks which made me not care at all what happened to either of them. Also, it has a framing story (starring Christopher Plummer) which does nothing except give away the entire last act (for anyone able to put two and two together). This kind of storytelling is just plain boring.
20% substance 80% walking up and down stairs or elevator stairs, entering or exiting, walking up or down streets or corridors, standing around or just brooding.
Considering it's been nearly 8 years since I last posted lists of my favourite 80s movies, I feel like I should update it and keep it down to 10. It is weird how time can change opinions. I'm 38 now and have watched and rewatched hundreds upon hundreds of 80s movies since then. Here we go:
1. Blade Runner
2. Back to the Future
3. RoboCop
4. Ghostbusters
5. The Breakfast Club
6. Mad Max 2
7. Die Hard
8. Road House
9. The Terminator
10. The Empire Strikes Back
Honorable Mentions: The King of Comedy, Manon of the Spring, Return of the Jedi, Batman, The Killer, Dragons Forever, Overboard, Three Amigos, Stand By Me, Gandhi, First Blood, Ran, Beetlejuice, The Blob, Castle in the Sky, Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind, Dune, Aliens, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Broadcast News, Three Fugitives, The Naked Gun, Dirty Dancing
Polar feels much like a lesser John Wick, but has a few strong points of its own. Mads Mikkelsen does a great job, as usual, in the main role, and there is a tough, raw quality to the picture, underpinned by its violence and nudity, as well as some amusing pitch black humour. However, the overall product is let down by its dreary third act and a silly main antagonist.
Surprisingly fun and exciting! The Rock vs. a trio of huge genetically enhanced monsters tearing Chicago to bits. Sign me up :-) This movie is for everyone who miss the good old days when iconic monsters such as Godzilla and King Kong roamed the silver screen.
I really loved the source material as a passionate fan of anything 80s, but also because I liked the story and the characters. Anyone talking shit about the book are literary snobs and lack the nostalgia and pop-culture sensibility neccessary in order to appreciate the fun ride.
That said, I was let down by the movie big time. I had my hopes up because I admire Steven Spielberg's back catalog and thought that his quality control would ensure a solid product. Most of this movie is filled with awkward CGI-puppets moving around in a blurry, swirly, shaky, zoomy video game travesty. The camera never stands still or linger on pretty visuals. No flair. No care. No soul. Obviously just a cash grab.
Graphics aside, the story was simplified (or rather dumbed down), characters were flat and boring (except live Samantha and live Halliday, props to those actors), dialogue was cringe-inducing and scene after scene had characters reading up exposition or explaining something, attempt at comedy fell mostly flat and they even explained some references and jokes unneccesary.
Basically they treated the audience as four year olds and I simply took offence. Especially since I think the novel is really good (though aimed at a particular target audience and certainly not for everyone).
Once Upon a Time in America is certainly one of my favourite movies from the decade (and of all time), but there must be 10 years since I saw it now. From time to time I find myself wanting to re-watch it, but it is quite long so I just postpone it and watch something else.
The way I remember it, Roberto De Niro and especially James Woods were amazing in that movie and the scope of the movie just seemed so epic. Sergio Leone is one of just a handful of true director geniuses. I consider him to be at the highest level together with greats such as Charlie Chaplin, Stanley Kubrick, Orson Welles and Akira Kurosawa.
Such flair from directors are sadly missing in modern movies where second unit and the editor does a lot of the work and with CGI and shaky cam further polluting the craft. There are a few with integrity, flair and a personal touch though, such as Quentin Tarantino and Wes Anderson.
I think Gal Gadot oozes charisma in her performances as Wonder Woman, clearly the best part of Justice League, though she was given the same shit to say and do as the other characters in this rubbish movie.
There is something tired and clichéd about superheroes taking on some kind of ultimate evil that is intent on destroying the whole world with the aid of some kind of powerful gizmo. There is also something tired and clichéd about action and fight scenes edited to resemble a chaotic video game mess.
Almost every scene seemed artificial or fake in some way. Sometimes it was the CGI, sometimes some stupid piece of dialogue or bad editing, sometimes just a character entry that made no sense (such as when Wonder Woman was introduced posing on top of a golden statue), or just the fact that Batman can keep up with the others despite having no superpowers.
For some reason, I found myself watching Caddshack for the third time. Finally it clicked for me, and now I consider it a comic gem. It is certainly flawed, but when I could just ignore those parts, I found, that there is so much to like :-)
The first half hour or so snoozes by as a Santa Claus origin story is told without adding nothing of interest to the already established myth. Things only start to pick up when Dudley Moore's elf runs off to New York where he offers his services to a deliciously evil toymaker played by John Lithgow. The ridiculously expensive special effects are interesting, if not impressive, but the plot is paper-thin throughout and culminates in a pathetic and anti-climactic chase scene where an absurdly unneccesary sleigh loop is needed to save the day.
A slice-of-life-movie set in the late 50s with interesting, realistic characters, on the brink of manhood, chewing the fat while offering glimpses of mild drama, amusing humour and well written dialogue. The young cast are splendid, most of who would go on to bigger things later in their careers. The laid-back style and relaxed atmosphere is one of the movie's strengths, but since this also leads to a lack of stuff happening - it could just as well be seen as a weakness.
The exquisite blend of horror and comedy, which where championed by Evil Dead II six years later, are mixed to perfection here as neither becomes too dominant. The London setting and other points of reference reminds us of the classic The Wolf Man from 1941, but updates the tale from Victorian times to the 1980s. Landis weaves magic with suggestive pop music, outstanding special effects work (from Rick Baker), good performances and a terrific script. Delivers the best werewolf transformation scene in movie history and builds up to an excellent climax. A classic!
The thick London dialect and confused plotting does occasionaly step in the way of an otherwise superb gangster flick with Bob Hoskins turning in one of the best performances in his distinguised career. The plot is clever, though overly convoluted, but interest is kept high throughout thanks to the brilliant ensemble cast and the movie's high energy and style
Comments 1 - 25 of 341
Movie comment on Amarcord
Zeltaebar
There is beauty in the crafting of this movie, but no storyline and very little drama. I spent the first half of the movie just figuring out who the characters were, and the whole mess just felt disjointed. The humour is very lowbrow and focuses on piss, flatulence, masturbation etc. I have no idea why it is considered a "masterpiece". To me, it was mostly boring.Movie comment on The Friends of Eddie Coyle
Zeltaebar
The Friends of Eddie Coyle is a gritty crime thriller from the early seventies with the great Robert Mitchum in a key role. He plays a tired family man in his fifties who is also a veteran low-tier criminal on the side. Due to a past misstep, he is up for time in prison and is contemplating cooperation with the cops in order to get off the hook. There are other shady characters as well, such as the gun-dealing Jackie Brown and the snitching bartender Dillon. You also get the sense that the police is no better than the crooks, ruthless and manipulative. All the actors does a splendid job and the movie is shot in a realistic, low-key way which adds to the suspension of disbelief.However, the movie tended to confuse me at times and it is shot and written with a certain distance to the characters and their plight, which made it hard for me to really care for anyone, despite the likeable qualities of Robert Mitchum. Nothing really happened that was exciting except for a couple of tense scenes with gunrunner Jackie Brown, who incidentally gave name to Quentin Tarantino's more famous film from 1997. The movie had a depressive vibe to it from beginning to end, and while it is par for the course for this genre of gritty crime thrillers, it didn't manage to hit me on any emotional level. It was slightly interesting throughout, but ultimately underwhelming.
Movie comment on Glass Onion
Zeltaebar
I found the movie pretty entertaining, mostly due to the quirky performance by Daniel Craig, but the ending is so utterly stupid and makes the "heroes" of the picture into awful, despicable people, and that includes Benoit Blanc!Think about it: They
Movie comment on Professione: reporter
Zeltaebar
Pretty to look at, but slow, boring and pointless. The very definition of style over substance.Movie comment on Prey
Zeltaebar
Arnold and Danny Glover had to outsmart the predator, as they were no match physically. But this strong, female warrior can easily take out groups of 6-7 big, bruly Frenchmen in close combat! Did her character ever learn or practice close combat? Nope ... But she is an awesome woman nonetheless - and the men were toxic so who cares? Also she kicked the predator's butt with brawn and technological wizardry - just as expected from a slim Native American girl. Oh, wait ... it subverted my expectations. That's good, right? No. Woke trash.Someone in these comments asked for a definition of what "woke" means. This is what the term means to me: Someone who thinks themselves morally superior to everyone else in history and who thinks about other people as part of a group and according to a hierarchy of value - where women and ethnic/sexual minorities are at the top, while white, straight men are at the bottom.
They also want to make movies who display such an utopia. If a movie paints ALL the women and ethnic/sexual/gender minorities as good, smart or powerful, and ALL the white, straight men as either stupid or evil - then the movie is most likely woke. If there is a mix - then the movie is not woke.
Movie comment on The Wild Geese
Zeltaebar
@viccc - Wow, so the film takes "secret pleasure" in gunning down black people? Did you completely miss all the white people getting gunned down? And the film is an action/war movie taking place in Africa, so what did you expect?Also, "colonialist trash" as a label on a movie which advocates for cooperation between people of different color and a future where the people of Africa forgive each other and stop the cycle of hate. They even have a white, racist character who gets turned around and starts looking at black people as equals by the end.
Also, the whole movie is about saving a black person because he is so "good" that he will make the lives of his people better. And the scumbag/villain of the picture is a white dude. How on earth did you arrive at your opinions that the movie is somehow "racist"?
Movie comment on The Island of Dr. Moreau
Zeltaebar
This is one of those films where I ask myself 'do I like it or do I not?'. There are some aspects of the movie that I admire. For instance, the vicious fights between manimals and real f***ing animals like tigers and lions are super-impressive and done for real. It made me think of Roar (1981), except like ... with a storyline and good actors.That's another cool thing about the movie, the actors. We have legendary Academy Award winner Burt Lancaster in the titular role as well as Nigel Davenport as his gun for hire, but the best performance is delivered by Michael York, who got nominated for a Saturn award for this role. He is actually really, really good! I did not expect that after a somewhat wooden performance in Logan's Run (1976). His work while 'turning' in the cage is especially applaudable. I loved Barbara Carrera in Embryo (1976), so I had high hopes for her here, but she never gets much to do, unfortunatly - and that 'twist' ending could be spotted a mile away, though the idea of it and the implications are still interesting to ponder.
Lastly, I would like to commend the excellent makeup on display. The manimals are brought to life with makeup techniques reminiscent of Planet of the Apes (1968), except even better. It is impressive and certainly preferable to modern CGI. I especially liked 'boar man', though 'bull man' deserves mention for taking down a tiger singlehandedly while unarmed.
Yes! I actually liked it, just about.
Movie comment on French Connection II
Zeltaebar
One of the first sequels on the big screen. At least one of those with a "2" or a "II" behind the title. The first moive had of course been a hit, both at the box office and at the Oscars. It took home a whooping five Academy Awards! Including best picture and best actor for Gene Hackman!Yes, Gene Hackman as Popeye Doyle, a great actor and a great character, perhaps even more so in this sequel, despite the lack of prize thropies. Gene Hackman is certainly the greatest thing about this moive, but his french counterpart, Bernard Fresson, delivers an equally gritty and fascinating performance as the French police officer tasked with keeping an eye on Popeye.
Two stunning performances to be sure, but the movie's principal strength is probably its grit and its down-and-dirty, seedy take on the crime genre as well as its fish-out-of-water theme. All set in a very "exotic" European France from the equally "exotic" mid-sIeventies. Dynamically shot and with no unecceassry hand-holding. The viewers have to piece everything together themselves as the plot moves along - something sadly lacking in today's dumbed-down cinema.
All in all, there are many things in this picture totally alien to modern cinema. The feel of dirt and grit, the lone wolf asshole cop hero, the lack of political messaging and not least - the strong sense of something real going on. So much so that it is easy to get lost in the world of this picture.
On the downside - perhaps it gets too dark, too depressing and its main character too much of an asshole. Usually I hate characters like this, but for some reason, perhaps because he goes through so much hell or perhaps because he is so determined, I still rooted for Popeye until the very end. And the ending was just as satisfying as it had to be.
A very good sequel, but a little uneven and with characters that are borderline unlikeable. Still, a pretty good time.
Movie comment on The Mitchells vs the Machines
Zeltaebar
One of the stupidest movies I've ever seen! The characters seemed soooo forced and kind of like ripped from an 80s sitcom with all the heavy moral preaching about family values.Jokes inserted everywhere despite often being totally inappropriate (like characters making jokes while he/she and the rest of the family is dodging imminent death).
One character suddenly gets superpowers because ... she gets angry? Robots explode in seconds because of a weird-looking dog ... The whole family just happens to have big, chunky screwdrivers in their pockets during the car trip because ... opportunity for jokes. Of course.
The villain builds huge, complicated structures all over the world in hours and the super-clever A.I. considers shooting people into space to die in high-tech rockets as a better plan than just killing them immediatly.
Yeah, it's just a cartoon, but I've seen a ton of cartons. I usually love them but THIS is just plain stupid. Perhaps very young children can get some enjoyment out of all the razzle-dazzle, and some adults will be impressed by the admittedly great animation.
But I hated this movie.
Movie comment on The Eiger Sanction
Zeltaebar
Quite good, though politically incorrect. There are some weird jokes on race/rape and at least two beautiful women receive a pat on the butt). If such content offends you, stay away, but I find It refreshing in the contemporary landscape of woke cinema to dive into an old, obscure gem such as this. The production values are awesome, with a good score by John Williams, fantastic cinematography, breathtaking views from high altitudes, a decent mystery plot and a pletora of intriging supporting characters. All around well acted and well directed, with the ever-squinting legend, Clint Eastwood, at the helm.Movie comment on The Stepford Wives
Zeltaebar
A well-acted and well-directed sci-fi thriller to be sure, but the feminist themes presented here are problematic. For most of the movie I was thinking that what the men wanted was far more representative of what some feminists imagine men want, rather than what men actually want from their partners.Also, the movie conluded that a "men's club" was by definition sexist, which is just weird, as if being able to join any organization or group is a human right, and that the woman should give "permission" for her husband to join such groups.
It was interesting though, to see that such themes were on display in a popular movie in the mid-70s. Some feminists seem to think that such movies did not exist until recently and that any decade of films before the 2010s were overwhelmingly sexist. They obviously never saw "9 to 5", "Working Girl", "Tootsie" or this.
Movie comment on The Man Who Would Be King
Zeltaebar
Tedious, meandering and most of all entirely predictable. I enjoy watching movies with sympathetic characters because they make me invested in the plot, they give me someone to care about, to identify with or root for. This movie starred two great actors as two dislikable, selfish pricks which made me not care at all what happened to either of them. Also, it has a framing story (starring Christopher Plummer) which does nothing except give away the entire last act (for anyone able to put two and two together). This kind of storytelling is just plain boring.Movie comment on Der amerikanische Freund
Zeltaebar
20% substance 80% walking up and down stairs or elevator stairs, entering or exiting, walking up or down streets or corridors, standing around or just brooding.Group comment on The 1980s
Zeltaebar
Considering it's been nearly 8 years since I last posted lists of my favourite 80s movies, I feel like I should update it and keep it down to 10. It is weird how time can change opinions. I'm 38 now and have watched and rewatched hundreds upon hundreds of 80s movies since then. Here we go:1. Blade Runner
2. Back to the Future
3. RoboCop
4. Ghostbusters
5. The Breakfast Club
6. Mad Max 2
7. Die Hard
8. Road House
9. The Terminator
10. The Empire Strikes Back
Honorable Mentions: The King of Comedy, Manon of the Spring, Return of the Jedi, Batman, The Killer, Dragons Forever, Overboard, Three Amigos, Stand By Me, Gandhi, First Blood, Ran, Beetlejuice, The Blob, Castle in the Sky, Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind, Dune, Aliens, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Broadcast News, Three Fugitives, The Naked Gun, Dirty Dancing
Movie comment on Seems Like Old Times
Zeltaebar
Probably the worst ending to a movie I have ever seen. So painfully stupid, silly and pointless.Movie comment on Polar
Zeltaebar
Polar feels much like a lesser John Wick, but has a few strong points of its own. Mads Mikkelsen does a great job, as usual, in the main role, and there is a tough, raw quality to the picture, underpinned by its violence and nudity, as well as some amusing pitch black humour. However, the overall product is let down by its dreary third act and a silly main antagonist.Movie comment on Rampage
Zeltaebar
Surprisingly fun and exciting! The Rock vs. a trio of huge genetically enhanced monsters tearing Chicago to bits. Sign me up :-) This movie is for everyone who miss the good old days when iconic monsters such as Godzilla and King Kong roamed the silver screen.Movie comment on Ready Player One
Zeltaebar
I really loved the source material as a passionate fan of anything 80s, but also because I liked the story and the characters. Anyone talking shit about the book are literary snobs and lack the nostalgia and pop-culture sensibility neccessary in order to appreciate the fun ride.That said, I was let down by the movie big time. I had my hopes up because I admire Steven Spielberg's back catalog and thought that his quality control would ensure a solid product. Most of this movie is filled with awkward CGI-puppets moving around in a blurry, swirly, shaky, zoomy video game travesty. The camera never stands still or linger on pretty visuals. No flair. No care. No soul. Obviously just a cash grab.
Graphics aside, the story was simplified (or rather dumbed down), characters were flat and boring (except live Samantha and live Halliday, props to those actors), dialogue was cringe-inducing and scene after scene had characters reading up exposition or explaining something, attempt at comedy fell mostly flat and they even explained some references and jokes unneccesary.
Basically they treated the audience as four year olds and I simply took offence. Especially since I think the novel is really good (though aimed at a particular target audience and certainly not for everyone).
Group comment on The 1980s
Zeltaebar
Once Upon a Time in America is certainly one of my favourite movies from the decade (and of all time), but there must be 10 years since I saw it now. From time to time I find myself wanting to re-watch it, but it is quite long so I just postpone it and watch something else.The way I remember it, Roberto De Niro and especially James Woods were amazing in that movie and the scope of the movie just seemed so epic. Sergio Leone is one of just a handful of true director geniuses. I consider him to be at the highest level together with greats such as Charlie Chaplin, Stanley Kubrick, Orson Welles and Akira Kurosawa.
Such flair from directors are sadly missing in modern movies where second unit and the editor does a lot of the work and with CGI and shaky cam further polluting the craft. There are a few with integrity, flair and a personal touch though, such as Quentin Tarantino and Wes Anderson.
Movie comment on Justice League
Zeltaebar
I think Gal Gadot oozes charisma in her performances as Wonder Woman, clearly the best part of Justice League, though she was given the same shit to say and do as the other characters in this rubbish movie.There is something tired and clichéd about superheroes taking on some kind of ultimate evil that is intent on destroying the whole world with the aid of some kind of powerful gizmo. There is also something tired and clichéd about action and fight scenes edited to resemble a chaotic video game mess.
Almost every scene seemed artificial or fake in some way. Sometimes it was the CGI, sometimes some stupid piece of dialogue or bad editing, sometimes just a character entry that made no sense (such as when Wonder Woman was introduced posing on top of a golden statue), or just the fact that Batman can keep up with the others despite having no superpowers.
Group comment on The 1980s
Zeltaebar
For some reason, I found myself watching Caddshack for the third time. Finally it clicked for me, and now I consider it a comic gem. It is certainly flawed, but when I could just ignore those parts, I found, that there is so much to like :-)Movie comment on Santa Claus: The Movie
Zeltaebar
The first half hour or so snoozes by as a Santa Claus origin story is told without adding nothing of interest to the already established myth. Things only start to pick up when Dudley Moore's elf runs off to New York where he offers his services to a deliciously evil toymaker played by John Lithgow. The ridiculously expensive special effects are interesting, if not impressive, but the plot is paper-thin throughout and culminates in a pathetic and anti-climactic chase scene where an absurdly unneccesary sleigh loop is needed to save the day.Movie comment on Diner
Zeltaebar
A slice-of-life-movie set in the late 50s with interesting, realistic characters, on the brink of manhood, chewing the fat while offering glimpses of mild drama, amusing humour and well written dialogue. The young cast are splendid, most of who would go on to bigger things later in their careers. The laid-back style and relaxed atmosphere is one of the movie's strengths, but since this also leads to a lack of stuff happening - it could just as well be seen as a weakness.Movie comment on An American Werewolf in London
Zeltaebar
The exquisite blend of horror and comedy, which where championed by Evil Dead II six years later, are mixed to perfection here as neither becomes too dominant. The London setting and other points of reference reminds us of the classic The Wolf Man from 1941, but updates the tale from Victorian times to the 1980s. Landis weaves magic with suggestive pop music, outstanding special effects work (from Rick Baker), good performances and a terrific script. Delivers the best werewolf transformation scene in movie history and builds up to an excellent climax. A classic!Movie comment on The Long Good Friday
Zeltaebar
The thick London dialect and confused plotting does occasionaly step in the way of an otherwise superb gangster flick with Bob Hoskins turning in one of the best performances in his distinguised career. The plot is clever, though overly convoluted, but interest is kept high throughout thanks to the brilliant ensemble cast and the movie's high energy and styleShowing items 1 – 25 of 341