Opiniones de gogoschka-1

I recently watched ROAR for the first time. Boy oh boy this film got to me!!! Not because of the story (it's got none beyond a near nonsensical plot), but you instantly realize what you see is real, and all the "actors" (though only Tippi Hedren and Kyalo Mativo qualify as such) are in danger of being eviscerated alive by giant and not exactly predictable cats in every scene.

This film may try to tell your head it's a comedy, but it won't fool your natural instincts: I was breaking out in cold sweats after a mere ten minutes. Thankfully, nobody died during the making of the film (at least that we know of, since no remains of actors or stuntmen were found and none were reported missing) but after watching it I still felt as if I had accidentally watched some weird sort of snuff movie.

In the long and varied history of irresponsible filmmaking and dangerous vanity projects, this has to count near the top. It's some crazy shîte lemme tell you! But once you get over the fact that everyone you see is in constant mortal danger, it's also a ton of twisted fun. Truly a one of a kind movie. I highly recommend it (just don't forget to pick up your jaw from the floor afterwards ;-)

As far as Stephen King adaptations go, Mike Flanagan's DOCTOR SLEEP undoubtedly has to count among the small - but distinct - group of excellent ones. For a director to achieve this is a rare feat - as any Stephen King fan can sadly attest to after dozens of mediocre to downright terrible adaptations over the last four decades - and what's even more impressive is that it marks the second time Flanagan managed to pull this off, since he already knocked it out of the park with his Netflix adaptation of King's previously considered to be unfilmable novel GERALD'S GAME.

Now the reason why those two films work so well is actually quite simple: like Frank Darabont and Rob Reiner before him, Flanagan gets that the most intriguing aspect of King's stories is not the horror. He's the rare director adapting a story by the writer who gets that it's not the supernatural, not the gory thrills or creeping chills that make those books so immersive and so well loved (though of course those are elements that we King fans also greatly enjoy): it's the meticulous worldbuilding and the deeply human characters.

King's novels - and Dr. Sleep is no exception - are so immersive because they're usually less about the horror itself and much more about the journeys he sets his characters on in confronting that horror, the world they inhabit and the people they meet along the way - and the strong bonds and friendships they forge. So in order for the adaptations to work on screen, it's crucial to retain the warmth and the humanity the writer infuses his protagonists with. The director's cut of DOCTOR SLEEP (which is the only cut I've seen), perfectly captures that aspect of King's writing. It has that special "King tone" - for lack of a better word - which so rarely survives the Hollywood treatment of his works.

My only - minor - gripe is that Flanagan focused his considerable talent on what I consider to be a somewhat mediocre book. If latter-day King is what he had to choose from, I wish he had picked BAG OF BONES or DUMA KEY instead, as his storytelling instincts would have been perfectly suited for both of those (admittedly also flawed) novels. There's some great stuff in there that could make for fantastic, haunting, beautifully Gothic genre films if a writer/director with Flanagan's old-school approach to storytelling and deeply humanist sensibilities were to tackle it.

But never mind my nitpicking; DOCTOR SLEEP is a treat for King fans as well as genre fans in general, and it's a shame it wasn't a bigger success at the box office. The movie is beautifully photographed, the cast - especially Rebecca Ferguson, Kyliegh Curran and Zahn McClarnon - are wonderful, and the deliberate pacing works perfectly for the story. So let's give it up for Mike Flanagan (who's apparently already busy adapting King's Lovecraftian novel REVIVAL); in the absence of Rob Reiner and Frank Darabont, he's perhaps the greatest hope for us King fans.

Describing what Alex Garland's DEVS is about would be spoiling it, which makes it a show that isn't easy to sell or advertise. And indeed, judging from the votes and reviews here on IMDb, it hasn't quite found its audience yet - and that, my friends, is a shame. This show, or rather this mini-series (consisting of 8 episodes), is excellent. Though granted: it's not for everyone. Some have described it as slow, but I'm not sure I agree. Moody perhaps, and there is an almost "ethereal" quality about it (for lack of a better word), but there is so much going on and it's such a thematically rich narrative that I was mesmerized throughout.

Also, there's a lot of understated humor in this compelling tale (if of the darker sort), and it would be a pity if people were turned off by certain reviews because they thought this was some bleak and depressive slog. What is true though is that if you don't find the central themes and ideas around which this show is built fascinating, there's a chance you won't like it (again: finding out what the show is about is part of the fun, so I won't give it away).

But even if DEVS' most satisfying thrills lie more in the concepts presented and less in spectacular action scenes or special effects, its structure is still that of a violent mystery thriller, and the production values are great. Every frame in this show looks gorgeous; the cast - especially Nick Offerman in an unusual turn (whose casting was simply a stroke of genius) and Zach Grenier (in a darkly funny role also playing against type) - is fantastic, and the show's unique, almost transcendent atmosphere is enhanced by a beautiful and haunting musical score by Geoff Barrow, The Insects and Ben Salisbury.

Admittedly, I'm a sci-fi nerd - and one who loved all of writer/director Alex Garland's previous work at that - but as far as I'm concerned, the creative mind behind such films as SUNSHINE, EX MACHINA or ANNIHILATION has once again crafted a beautiful and compelling piece of science fiction that confronts the viewer with fascinating ideas and philosophical questions (btw. if you want to check whether my taste in films generally aligns with yours or not, just click on my name at the beginning of this review and you'll find a list of my fifty favorite films).

DEVS may need a little more time to find its audience, but this mini-series is simply too good to be ignored. I'm positive it won't be for long.

I'm a Romero nut (for those among you who don't know the name George A. Romero: that was the genius writer/director who single-handedly created the modern zombie film and who also wrote and directed the original 'Dawn of the Dead' in '78), so you may believe me when I say I wasn't impressed when I heard there would be a remake of the zombie maestro's famed horror classic. Truth be told, I was absolutely determined to hate this new film when it came out - but boy, was I in for a pleasant surprise!

As it turned out, Zack Snyder's remake isn't just a re-hash of Romero's film but offers a very different take on the material and deserves to be recognized based on its own merits as one of the most entertaining entries in the particular horror sub-genre that is the zombie film. The James Gunn script is hilariously funny throughout - in a pitch black kind of way - and there is simply not a dull moment in it.

Furthermore, the cast consists of great character actors who are totally game (Sarah Polley, Ving Rhames, Michael Kelly and Ty Burrell among others); the gore effects are insane and the zombie makeup is the best pre-'Walking Dead' in any zombie movie by far. I'm inclined to believe that had this film been made by a less divisive director than Snyder, it would have since gone on to be regarded a B-movie horror classic for the ages.

It's true that the scathing social commentary which elevated the original "Dead Trilogy" above simple gore-fests is largely absent from the remake, but I don't see this as a flaw in the new film. The political subtext in Romero's films was effective in part because it was so subversive at the time; a remake repeating those same beats more than two decades later simply wouldn't have the same impact (which Romero himself actually went on to prove with his far from bad but oddly dated "New Dead trilogy" consisting of 'Land of the Dead' (2005), 'Diary of the Dead' (2007) and 'Survival of the Dead' (2009) ).

What 'Dawn of the Dead (2004) does brilliantly instead is focus on the characters. Every single player in the remake is fun to watch; even the supporting characters are colorful and more than "one-note" and have their own arcs. I would also like to point out that while Gunn's script is lighter on social commentary than Romero's, it's far from dumb, and the story beats are interesting and unpredictable enough to keep you invested throughout.

To sum it all up: While I love Romero's film for its clever subtext and critique of consumerism, its impact on the horror genre and its entertainment value, I love Snyder's version for the pitch black humor, the great cast as well as the pure spectacle and non-stop thrill-ride it provides. As far as action-horror films go, it actually doesn't get much better than this: Dawn Of The Dead '04 is simply an A+ genre flick that deserves to get more recognition.

About this review: tastes in film obviously vary greatly, so if you want to get a better reference if mine generally aligns somewhat with yours, I created a list of my 50 favorite films on my imdb page which should leave you in no doubt about what kind of stuff I'm into (just click on my name if you're interested).

I got interested in 'Utopia' when I read that David Fincher was going to direct an American version of this British show for HBO. While that apparently didn't come together, I actually doubt even a master like Fincher could have improved upon the original: it's absolutely perfect.

The visual style of the show, the amazing, crazy soundtrack (which fits the crazy conspiracy story so well), the fantastic characters and the wonderful cast and the pitch-black humor - I could go on and on. It all comes together to create one of the most unique and most original TV shows I've seen in a long time.

The only thing I know that would be kind of comparable among the current shows is 'Orphan Black' - but 'Utopia' is even crazier (and a LOT more violent), has much weirder characters and makes for a more cinematic experience due to its stylish, Technicolor drenched photography.

The only downside to this show is that the finale of the second season sets the stage for a third season, which, sadly never happened (for reasons I do not comprehend, the show got cancelled). But nearly all the loose ends are tied up, and the two existing seasons of 'Utopia' make for a fantastic watch. Highly recommended: 9 stars out of 10.

Well, I'd always avoided WAR HORSE because the premise sounded terrible to me. I expected a sentimental tear-fest about a horse, and I only started watching the film because it was one of the few Spielberg films I hadn't seen (and I generally do love me some Spielberg). As it turned out, the maverick director used the horse and the premise of the children's book the film is based on more as a plot device, almost a "McGuffin" so to speak, to lead the audience through a number of small, very human stories about a period in history contemporary Cinema has neglected a little as of late - the early 20th century and World War I - which happens to be a period I'm interested in quite a bit.

To my surprise I found this film to be a beautiful - in a sad kind of way - portrait of an era, a war and the generation that suffered through it, told through many different perspectives. It may not be the legendary director's most spectacular work (and it IS quite a bit sentimental, this being Spielberg after all, and him doing an adaptation of a children's book at that) - but I connected with these sad little tales (or anecdotes) of war about simple English, German and French people more than I expected. All things considered, I would definitely call it a good film, and the great cast as well as the beautiful cinematography and epic John Williams score alone are enough to make it absolutely worth seeing.

I had already seen - and loved - Aronofsky's debut film PI (1998), and so I went into this with high expectations. The film managed to exceed them by far; it's a masterpiece that manages that rare feat where the impact of the dead serious subject matter (substance abuse) is enhanced, not subverted, by the director's choice to offer a truly cinematic, stylish and visually exciting experience. A sad, beautiful work of art that features a career-best performance by Ellen Burstyn; an uncompromising - and often shockingly graphic - depiction of a downwards spiral that leaves no viewer unaffected.

This delightfully trashy piece of pulp Cinema was an unexpected pleasure! I was lucky enough to attend the premiere, and it was obvious the filmmakers put a lot of heart - and skill - into the film. The plot doesn't make a lick of sense, but it isn't really meant to; the film is mostly an homage to seventies pulp Cinema and doesn't take itself seriously for a second. The acting ranges from great to hilariously bad, but the racy soundtrack is fantastic throughout, and at only an hour long 'Züri Zoo' offers perfectly paced entertainment from Switzerland for fans of weird little genre flicks. Seek it out if you can, this little gem is worth it! 9 Stars out of 10

Jean-Pierre Jeunet had already established himself as a cult filmmaker with a very distinct visual and narrative style after he co-directed the two surreal, darkly funny 'Delicatessen' (1991) and 'La Cité Des Enfants Perdus' (1996) with his buddy Marc Caro, and he had even briefly ventured into Hollywood (to mixed results) with 'Alien Resurrection' (1997) when he hit his stride and found unexpected mainstream success with the amazing 'Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amélie Poulain'.

'Amélie' is a wonder; it's a firework of clever ideas, beautiful cinematography and a love letter to the city of Paris. In my opinion it's not really a mainstream film though, with Jeunet retaining his black humor as well as the surreal elements and distinct color grading from his previous films. But unlike in his two features with Marc Caro and his American movie, there's a warm, beating heart throughout the whole film, and the resulting mix of magical realism, comedy and romantic love story proves just irresistible.

On a pure filmmaking level, 'Amélie' is a masterpiece. The cinematography is gorgeous and consistently inventive, the pacing perfect, the score beautiful and the fantastic cast of actors a joy to watch - especially Audrey Tautou. This is the kind of romantic comedy that even nerds like me can geek out about and without a doubt one of the best films of the first two decades of the new millenium.

P

Film is - obviously - a visual medium, but if I had to pick one piece of Cinema that exemplifies that like only few other movies do, it would be HERO. The film is all images, all movement, all colors; it's all show - not just tell, and it demonstrates just what the art of visual storytelling encompasses when a maverick director such as Yimou Zhang does it at the peak of his game. Here he paints with celluloid like a master painter would with a brush, and the result is a movie of such breathtaking beauty the audience is often simply left in stunned awe. There are stories within stories in HERO, each with a different narrator and a slightly different perspective, and each storyline has its own color palette until all all the stories merge into one epic, multicolored tale. A masterpiece of Cinema, plain and simple, and one of the most outstanding films of the last 20 years.

P.S. (for new IMDb users): In case you don't know whether to trust this review or not, because you have no idea what my tastes in film are, just click on my username - gogoschka-1 - and you'll see a list what my 50 favorite movies are.

This is a personal favorite of mine, and I'm actually convinced it's Disney's most underrated animated movie. I guess the main reason I like this film so much is that it features the most sincere depiction of a relationship between siblings in any Disney film. For once, we get real, flawed (and therefore all the more lovable) people - not the usual perfect Disney princesses. But it's also incredibly funny and spectacularly entertaining throughout (not to mention that it has one of the most hilarious intros in any sci-fi film ever). I simply adore this movie, and I'm not ashamed to admit it makes me cry every time I watch it. This and Sanders' and DeBlois' other masterpiece, the first HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON, are the cinematic medicine that get me through my darkest days.

The look of the film is very distinct and refreshingly different from Disney's previous animated features. And the visuals are gorgeous; the backgrounds are painted in beautifully faded watercolors, and the 2-D animation is an example of artists at the peak of their craft. Every scene is jock-full of original ideas and a virtual demonstration of Chris Sanders' and Dean DeBlois' seemingly limitless imagination (the film also features a ton of clever references to sci-fi and monster films). Simply one of the best animated films - and one of the funniest sci-fi comedies - of the last 20 years.

P.S. (for new IMDb users): In case you don't know whether to trust this review or not, because you have no idea what my tastes in film are, just click on my username - gogoschka-1 - and you'll see a list what my 50 favorite movies are.

As a true film nerd and genre geek I naturally knew who Peter Jackson was when the news broke he would adapt one of the most beloved fantasy books of all time. I remember how excited I was; somehow, despite the different nature of his often gory - and with the exception of HEAVENLY CREATURES - very funny previous cinematic outings, me and my circle of nerdy film fans never doubted that he would try everything to do the revered fantasy epic justice. It seemed only natural to us that he would bring the same talent, passion and attention to detail to Tolkien's world that he had demonstrated already in his meticulously crafted low budget genre films.

And boy did he deliver. It's hard to understate the impact the first part of the LOTR trilogy had; it instantly became the gold standard for a tonally faithful adaptation of a beloved literary work (an almost impossible feat considering how violently protective we nerdy fans are of our prrrrecioussss favorite works ;-). Along with succeeding at making the millions of fans of the book happy, it managed to elevate the fantasy genre into the ranks of the so called "respected" films and kick off a whole wave of big budget genre fare (as well as New Zealand tourism ;-)

The film is magnificently shot, beautifully scored, perfectly cast and manages an adherence to the source material that's almost uncanny. The grounded, "realistic" approach and insane attention to almost every little detail of Tolkien's worldbuilding result in a cinematic experience that is nearly unmatched in its immersive quality; the film comes as close to an actual trip to Middle Earth as any film fan (and fan of the book) could ever have hoped for. An outstanding achievement.

P.S. (for new IMDb users): In case you don't know whether to trust this review or not, because you have no idea what my tastes in film are, just click on my username - gogoschka-1 - and you'll see a list what my 50 favorite movies are.

GLADIATOR is a masterpiece of polished pulp Cinema with all the right ingredients: visceral fights and battles; a beautiful, mysterious woman; a villain you love to hate and a hero with a code of honor (and arms like tree trunks); it has all the drama and heartbreaking betrayals and tragic deaths of a Telenovela and as much blood and testosterone as you'd find in a Rambo movie. It's simply glorious, spectacularly entertaining filmmaking - all delivered straight to the gut and without a shred of irony.

And boy is this violent revenge tale and journey to ancient Rome beautiful to look at: every shot is framed like a painting; it's one of those gorgeous looking Ridley Scott films where every landscape becomes as much a protagonist of the film as the actors in it. As for those actors, they are never less than magnetic to watch, and especially Joaquin Phoenix and Russell Crowe stand out; they bring an intensity and all-in approach to their roles that garnered them both Oscar nominations (Crowe won his).

I sometimes hear the argument by certain self-professed film critics that GLADIATOR is too pulpy to really be considered a good film. I couldn't agree less. This is one rousing adventure and one beautiful movie with a fantastic cast - and it knows exactly what it wants, and it achieves it to a degree of perfection. It's about as cinematic an experience as film can offer, and it's as watchable today as it was nearly 20 years ago.

P.S. (for new IMDb users): In case you don't know whether to trust this review or not, because you have no idea what my tastes in film are, just click on my username - gogoschka-1 - and you'll see a list what my 50 favorite movies are.

Perhaps the ultimate romantic comedy for nerds of any kind. The film features whip-smart, often outrageously funny dialog, fantastic performances - especially by John Cusack - and it serves as a loving homage to nerd culture as well as a clever comment on male life and the male perspective on relationships with women. It's beautifully directed, and there is simply not a single line wasted in the film; it's one of those movies that are instantly destined for cult status, because it seems to resonate with anyone who is deeply immersed in - and passionate about - pop culture (in other words: nerds like me ;-). Certainly one of the best comedies of 21th century and one of my favorite films of the last two decades. 9 Stars out of 10.

P.S. (for new IMDb users): In case you don't know whether to trust this review or not, because you have no idea what my tastes in film are, just click on my username - gogoschka-1 - and you'll see what my 50 favorite movies are.

Everything I saw, read and heard about 'Aquaman' before it came out had me convinced it wouldn't be my cup of tea. My impression was that this would be yet another bloated studio tentpole with cheesy dialog, a generic story and artificial looking CGI. However, once it opened, a passionate film fan I respect a lot started spreading so much obviously genuine enthusiasm for the movie that I eventually got over myself and watched it.

I think it was the moment when Nicole Kidman swallowed a goldfish that I started to suspect I might actually enjoy this movie. That suspicion, however, turned out to be wrong, because I didn't just enjoy it: I ended up ADORING it. The weirdest thing: the film DID contain all those elements I had feared - and yet none of that seemed to matter. It just works. It shouldn't, but it somehow does, which is why I've since come to the conclusion that director James Wan is some sort of genius wizard filmmaker. Don't let the generic superhero tropes and cheesy dialog fool you into thinking this was a typical mainstream movie (though I DO suspect those things managed to fool the studio executives into thinking exactly that: which is probably how James Wan got away with it), because in truth, this is the least generic, most bonkers big budget studio flick I've seen in ages. It's the film 'Valerian' wants to be. It's crazy; it's over-the-top; it's beautifully designed with incredible attention to every little detail in every frame; it doesn't take itself seriously for a second, and yet it fully commits to - and loves - its characters and the world they inhabit.

I was awed, literally awed by the design of the Atlantian society and technology; the worldbuilding and visuals are so distinct and original - which caught me completely off guard, because I didn't expect that in a 200 million studio picture for the masses. When the music score went into full synthesizer mode as "Aquabro" and Mera arrive on the collapsed bridge leading to the underwater city, and the screen virtually explodes with the most colorful creatures and underwater vehicles imaginable, I had a stupid grin on my face out of pure joy and adoration for this stunning display of artistic vision (the stupid grin stayed on my face for the remainder of the movie). And the film didn't let up. 'Aquaman' never loses steam; there's no weak third act (at least in my opinion); the wondrous discoveries and beautiful, unexpected designs and creatures keep coming until the very end. Although it has a very different tone, I was actually reminded of watching 'LOTR: The Return of the King' for the first time.

It's true, 'Aquaman' delivers the typical, clichéd, cheesy superhero tropes in spades, but those generic story beats - some of which were probably demanded by the studio - seem to be all surface; they're not what James Wan (or his characters) are really interested in. It almost seems to me that the director only used those tropes as camouflage to sneak in nods to every film of every genre he ever loved and get really creative with the worldbuilding. His biggest accomplishment, however - the film's greatest strength - is something that only few blockbusters ever achieve: he successfully combines a genuine sense of wonder and awe with complete, unabashed fun.

So, to sum up this review: against my expectations, the superhero film I least expected to like managed to do what not a single superhero movie so far had done for me; it filled me with an urge to immediately see it again, because I was so in love with its bonkers, "everything-but-the-kitchen-sink" approach to filmmaking. Naturally, I now hope James Wan will also direct 'Aquaman 2', as I'm sure if given the chance, next time not even the kitchen sink will be safe.

P.S. (for new IMDb users): In case you don't know whether to trust this review or not, because you have no idea what my tastes in film are, just click on my username - gogoschka-1 - and you'll see what my favorite movies are.

Warning: this beautifully animated tale is highly addictive! As soon as it's over you'll immediately want to watch it again. I'm a grown man, but somehow this movie managed to ignore all the layers of cynicism and fake toughness we grown-ups tend to build around ourselves to cope with life; it cut right through to the wide-eyed, adventure-loving boy in me, right through to the heart. It's impossible not to fall in love with this movie, with these characters - especially if you love wild animals. This beautiful story of a very unlikely friendship between a boy who's a bit of an outcast and a dragon is just so well done; it's never cheesy, yet full of passion, and there's simply not a dull moment in it.

And although it's very funny, this really isn't just an accumulation of gags and one-liners loosely held together by a paper-thin story: this is a great adventure and touching coming-of-age tale where the protagonist has an actual arc; it tells an intelligent and compelling story about people who are not just one-note characters, and they're wonderfully realized through the great voice-work of such actors as Jay Baruchel, America Ferrera, Gerard Butler and Craig Ferguson. The animation is fantastic, and there's so much playful creative energy at display in the design of the characters - especially in the design of all the different dragon species - that it's simply a joy to watch. 10 stars out of 10.

This was one of the most enlightening documentaries I've seen in recent years; it was also one of the most disturbing films I've seen in a long time. I had no idea how far into the age of cyberwarfare we already are, and how serious the consequences of this kind of conflict already can be. If you're a conspiracy theorist or otherwise prone to paranoia, don't watch this - but if you want to learn some of the darker secrets most government agencies try to shield our fragile little minds from, and if you want to know some hard truths about what's possible and what's already happening in terms of cyberattacks, I highly recommend this excellent documentary. 9 stars out of 10.

Favorite films: IMDb.com/list/mkjOKvqlSBs/

Favorite TV-Shows reviewed: imdb.com/list/ls075552387/

Lesser-Known Masterpieces: imdb.com/list/ls070242495/

Favorite Low-Budget and B-Movies: imdb.com/list/ls054808375/

I remember what a raw shock of creative energy this film was when it came out, and I still marvel at what an imaginative way the director found to tell this crazy, immoral tale. The superb cinematography; the amazing cast of young actors (who have all gone on to become hugely successful in film and tv since); the iconic soundtrack: it all just fits together perfectly. 'Trainspotting' is as hilarious as it is deeply disturbing, but most importantly (and unlike many other films concerned with addiction) it's one hell of an entertaining flick and doesn't drag for a second.

We all know drugs are bad. The problem is, they can also be fun - at least at the beginning, which is one of the reasons people are drawn to them. 'Trainspotting' is the first movie I remember watching that actually conveyed that seductive quality of drugs and managed to honestly portray the reckless, hedonistic lifestyle a part of my generation - the so called "Generation X" - fell victim to. It's an amazing achievement, in every regard; not only does it manage to be true to its serious subject matter without resorting to moralizing, it's also masterclass filmmaking and a milestone of British Cinema. 10 stars out of 10.

Favorite films: IMDb.com/list/mkjOKvqlSBs/

Favorite TV-Shows reviewed: imdb.com/list/ls075552387/

Lesser-Known Masterpieces: imdb.com/list/ls070242495/

Favorite Low-Budget and B-Movies: imdb.com/list/ls054808375/