Opiniones de RagingR2

Horror-comedy can be a very entertaining sub-genre. I can be a big fan of it. But... it can be the very best, or it can be the very worst. This film 'Chillerama' is the very worst, and not in a good way. I had this title on my Watchlist for quite sometime, because seeing the poster, the title and the description, I thought, that HAS to be something that I'm gonna love. Well, as it turns out, that is not a guarantee.

This is definitely not my kind of Horror/Comedy. A good Horror/Comedy in my opinion, first of all should be a decent watchable film. Just because you are doing the potentially fun and pretty crazy combination of comedy and horror (for some people not the most obvious combination of atmospheres) doesn't mean you can get away with everything. Just because you are making a parody of something, does not mean you can throw all seriousness overboard. In all reality, you are combining two genres in their own rights, something that the makers of Chillerama do a magnificent job at misunderstanding. You're combining Horror and Comedy, two potentially great genres, maybe even the greatest ones for a lot of film fans out there. But just because you are combining a genre that takes itself pretty seriously with a genre where apparently everything goes, does not mean you can get away with doing everything in a bad way. Campy does not equal bad. And parody does not equal being ridiculous. Good comedy is a serious business.

The 'cringe' is so strong here as to make the film totally unwatchable. You literally want to look away at how campy and unfunny everything is. You start questioning your own sense of humor, looking at how much fun the makers apparently had creating 'Chillerama', while you find yourself unable to produce even a single smile.

The segments in this anthology were just the worst combinations of bad taste, far-fetched plot, generally unlikable characters, cringy acting and unfunny jokes. Some of those elements can work well when done right, sometimes even combinations of them. But you have to see this film if you want to find out how they can NOT work in the most spectacular way.

Generally I think a Horror/Comedy works great if they manage to keep the fun, enticing subjects of a horror film and the exciting, spooky atmosphere, and combine it with genuinely funny jokes. Jokes that seem to be up for grabs when looking at horror, because let's face it, in general it's a pretty crazy genre with lots of clichés and elements that are easy to poke fun at, while still doing it in a way that respects the genre and the characters. Bus as with everything that seems easy and up for grabs, it generally isn't...

Also, a good Horror/Comedy should be more exhilarating than the average non-horror comedy film (because hey, there's monsters, suspense, murder, spooky locations and what not), while having such a great atmosphere that they can measure themselves with, even be an homage to the great films of the Horror genre. Besides not being very funny, this film lacks any kind of horror atmosphere that makes you love Horror. The Horror atmosphere is totally lacking. Yeah, it's superficially there because there's blood and screaming, but literally everything is done so badly that... it just doesn't work on any level. Instead, it manages to make you hate both Comedy AND Horror at the same time.

That's just my opinion, my attempt at putting into words what makes this Horror/Comedy genre work, potentially. All I'm sure of is that whatever the X-factor is, it is NOT to be found here, but there are plenty of genuine masterpieces in the genre to be found elsewhere.

If I may recommend some Horror/Comedy films that DO work: * Shaun of the Dead * Killer Clowns From Outer Space * Zombieland * Young Frankenstein * Dracula, Dead and Loving It * Return of the Living Dead * Fido * Once Bitten * The Little Shop of Horrors * Mad Monster Party * Nightmare Before Christmas * Corpse Bride * Rocky Horror Picture Show, which I guess you could call a Horror/Comedy crossover.

... and let's not forget films like Ghostbusters and Beetlejuice!

As others have pointed out, this documentary provides a 'peek' into the past of the Netherlands. But as with most peeks in the past, they tend to get idealistic and nostalgic. With this documentary that's very easy, because the whole point of the documentary was to provide an optimistic view on Dutch life; something that was pretty necessary in Western Europe in this post-war era when the economic and social effects of World War II could still be felt all around. As a result, this documentary shows you only the beautiful, the innocent, the pleasant side of life. The most nasty thing you get to see here, is a couple fighting in the park. As long as you're aware of this however, it is a beautifully made work of art. This was also one of the first documentaries (at least in the Netherlands, but maybe even globally) which made extensive use of candid cameras. Pretty much the whole film consists of people being filmed without them being aware of it, or at least without their consent. This is also an interesting element of the film because it is a thing that you could never properly repeat nowadays. Bert Haanstra invented the candid camera as a way to show people in a vulnerable and innocent way. Camera's weren't all around in the public sphere; a lot of people didn't even have a TV yet. Nowadays, people are aware that everywhere, anytime, you could be filmed, especially when something unexpected happens out on the street. So if you were to repeat this experiment, you'd probably get quite different results; in all probability people would act much less vulnerable/natural the moment they notice they are being filmed. This was not the case then, so if only for that reason, this film is a unique document of both life and filmography.

From the first episode I found the narration of this series slightly irritating. Excuse my European point of view, but after watching numerous other nature series (mostly by David Attenborough) I was really disappointed with the level of ignorance and misplaced pseudo-nationalism here. Granted, officially the series is about North America as a continent and not about the USA as a country, but every time the narrator said " 'Murica..." I couldn't help but feel the narrator wanted to convey his pride of the U.S.A. 'Muricans are tough, and so are it's animals -- or something like that. I really felt disgusted how they managed to turn an otherwise beautiful nature series into what felt like right wing propaganda 101. How do you turn footage of a rodent gathering flowers to survive winter into a piece of right-wing propaganda? Watch "North America", and Tom Selleck will show you!

Halfway through the second episode I found myself thinking: seriously, if that guy is going to mention "only the strongest/toughest" one more time, I think I'm gonna break something.

After a quick Google search I found that the series is narrated by Tom Selleck, who in completely unrelated news is a right-wing NRA-member, and I found myself thinking: geee.... why the heck am I not surprised?

Not only do his cheesy one-liners give you an atmosphere of misplaced nationalism that really doesn't belong in a series about a subject so politically neutral as 'wildlife'; it is also filled with blatant lies. "Only the toughest survive." ...? and "Only the strongest deserve the right to call 'Murica HOME." ...? Apparently someone did an excellent job at misunderstanding how nature works, and raping Charles Darwin's "survival of the fittest" at the same time. For those of you who don't know: FYI, that is NOT what "survival of the fittest" means, or in any case not how modern day biologists would explain evolution or the way competition and survival in nature work. Not EVERYTHING in nature is about strength, toughness, physical power, or even absurd notions such as "courage".

Because the way the narrator 'personifies' animals with human character traits is another thing that started to irritate me more and more. Seriously, couldn't they have found a narrator who could bring a little more scientific neutrality into this? This kind of human projection on a 'tough' animal of your liking, is the kind of propaganda that would put the USSR to shame. The fact that the USA has chosen the bald eagle as it's symbol, does NOT mean that the bald eagle also chose America as it's home because it liked that particular country's "tough guy" image. But that is the kind of bullshit thing that you constantly get the feeling Tom Selleck wants to make you believe.

Newsflash: other countries in the world are ALSO home to supposedly 'tough' animals like mountain goats, eagles, bears, etc. But Tom Selleck wants you to believe that the 'magnificent' continent of North America is the only place where these "champions of nature" live, and so much as makes the claim that North America is the toughest natural environment on earth, which creates the toughest animals anywhere. While I think that claim is highly debatable, most of all I think: what a disgusting thing to turn a nature show into a schoolyard 'toughness' contest.

Instead of using nature to teach people as a species some humbleness, here it is used the opposite way and nature is abused as the supposed background that your imaginary god must have created to illustrate (North American) people's awesomeness? If you think I am exaggerating, watch two episodes of this series and see what you think of the commentary...

The imagery is beautiful, and the things you see are of course value- free; they are factual things that are actually happening in nature, simply captured on film for us to see. But the narrator does a perfect job of showing how a little narration can steer this value-free content into a certain direction. His narration forces you into a stunningly one-dimensional understanding of nature. And that may be the greatest flaw of all in this series that would otherwise be a beautiful and educational show.

So purely based on the stunning footage, I would give this show an 8 out of 10, but because of the way the narration ruins the entire thing, I really can't give it more than a 6. If you really want to learn something while you are looking at stunning imagery (instead of loosing 5 IQ points with every episode), I would recommend watching something from David Attenborough's huge oeuvre.

I consider myself to be well above average intelligence and well above average film viewing experience, but I seriously struggled to understand more than just the basic plot (well I got that after reading the plot outline beforehand). If you would have asked me directly after the film "Give me a summary of what happened there, and who was who and who did what.", I really would have struggled to come up with a sensible answer.

In the end it reminds me a lot of films directed by George Clooney like Syriana. New characters, semi-connected events, snippets from conservations, new locations and different points in time come racing by so fast that it makes your head spin. In hindsight the details of the plot and how everything is connected become (a bit) clearer, and some things made me go "oh of course, that was connected to this or that". But because of the rate in which these elements pass by and the seemingly haphazard and minimalistic way in which supposedly logical steps in the plot are portrayed, I really couldn't keep up with it while watching the film.

And much like the film Syriana, this film gives you the feeling that the sense of chaos caused by how intricately complicated things tend to be in a geopolitical/economical setting (Syriana) or an espionage/intelligence setting (Tinker, Tailor, Soldier Spy), seems to be exactly the effect that the film is deliberately trying to achieve in it's viewing experience. Well if their intention was to convey a sense of chaos, congratulations, they succeeded masterfully at that. But that really isn't my definition of a film as a worthwhile viewing experience.

Don't get me wrong, the cast was really impressive, the music and the locations were beautiful and the acting excellent. And I'm really not suggesting that every film has to come in bite-size chunks. But if an intelligent person with an advanced film viewing experience (and I wasn't the only one) is struggling to keep up with the plot, there is definitely something wrong with the film as a 'film', i.e. as an overall viewing experience.

Thoughts that come to my mind are:

• Wouldn't it have been possible to convey the message or thought that they were trying to convey, with a film with half the number of characters (maximum) that were in this film now?

• Could we introduce some sort of warning label for films that have as one of their main goals to convey a sense of the chaos and intricateness of the events and relations that form its setting, so next time I will be able to avoid them?

• Or should writers who don't know how to select, compact, trim and condense so to speak, maybe be prevented from trying to make a book into a film?

By the way, one might reason that the film might be a easier to follow after one has read the book (which admittedly I didn't), but I have heard from several people that the book is at least as difficult to understand as the film, and what's more, doesn't guarantee at all that the film will be easier to understand then.

Well shoot me for trampling on the impressive achievement that a lot of people seem to think this film is. But as I said, I judge a film by the end results; a film is a viewing experience, intended for viewers; to be viewed, and I suppose also understood by them to a certain point, although apparently I might be mistaken on that last bit. Anyway that's just my opinion, and in the light of the above I really can't give this film more than a 4 out of 10.

If this review makes the blood boil (or worse) of people who loved this film than so be it, but I hope my review will at least serve to warn some other like-minded film viewers before going to see this, just so you know what to expect...

I like the Muppets a lot, but on some points this film didn't quite deliver. I enjoyed it, but it wasn't completely the comeback I had hoped for.

What I liked about it is that a lot of the muppets that we know from the films and series are in it, as opposed to some of the older films which I seem to remember were mainly Kermit, Fozzie, Gonzo and Ms. Piggy. Too bad though that the collective Muppets have so little screen time in this film, or in any case a lot less than it could ideally have been. There were several moments where I thought "just show me Muppets for crying out loud!"

The human companions are a given in any Muppet production, which is fine if they are funny or entertaining to watch, or if they are merely creating the setting for showing us funny Muppet situations, like would so often happen with the many celebrities that visited the Muppet TV-series. Amy Adams is lovely and at times funny, but I have yet to discover the merits of Jason Segel as an actor. He isn't compelling to watch, he really isn't a great actor and he certainly isn't funny. It were especially (but not exclusively) his parts that felt like a drag. If a Muppet, for instance Kermit or in this case Walter, sings a melancholy song it is funny or lovable, but when humans, especially Segal sings it, it just looks kinda ridiculous and besides it feels like it's wasting precious potential Muppet screen time. Even Jack Black's part wasn't seriously funny or properly exploited for the potential Muppet "magic" that I was hoping for.

The story itself was fine, not more than that, and anyway it only serves as a vehicle for showing as much Muppet craziness as possible... which I think was pretty meager in this film. They managed to squeeze in a lot of the famous Muppets, and even a few good jokes, but to me it felt like they left open a lot of opportunities to squeeze in even more.

All in all I'm happy the Muppets are back, especially if this potentially means we could expect more Muppet films in the future, hopefully even better and funnier than this one. I enjoyed this film, but it certainly wasn't great. It's the first Muppet film in years, but that fact alone really isn't enough to earn it more than a 6 out of 10.

The visual style of Tartakovsky is of course stunning. Every scene and every shot is like a piece of art. The action is presented like Asian martial arts, the scenes follow each other almost like a dance.

Content-wise however, frankly I must say I found the series a little disappointing. When I watched the pilot episode, it seemed to promise a little more than the rest of the series could offer. I liked the historical setting and the mythological story of the first episode. I also liked the the future setting of the rest of the series. However, my complaint is that the plots of the episodes seem a little trivial. Every episode a new enemy is battle, with little connection between the episodes.

Still, visually it's one of the most stunning animated series I have seen.

Syriana paints a disturbing picture about what happens behind the scenes of the oil industry, on a geo-political level. At least, I guess it does. Because frankly, as a film I find it hardly watchable. New characters pop up every minute, and they hardly (if at all) get introduced. It's all so confusing you can hardly keep track of what's happening. I watched this film with 3 University schooled people who have a fair knowledge of international politics, and above-average experience in watching 'intelligent' and 'non-Hollywood' films. But neither of us could really say he understood the entire story and who was who. If it was the goal of the film to portray the story with all it's characters as cloudy and confusing as these geo-political processes tend to be, then it would be a good film in an arty pretentious kinda way, but I doubt that's the case. Maybe it's described in the film script who's who, and then maybe it would be a good idea to offer that film script accompanying the film next time. Because, I suppose Syriana wasn't supposed to be solely an essay on the oil industry and international politics. Maybe a book would have been a more suitable medium for that. I just assume Syriana was also supposed to be a watchable film, and on that level I really can't give it more than a 6 out of 10, and I think I'm being very forgiving.

As may be expected of Susanne Bier, and as may be expected of Scandinavian films in general if you ask me, this film is really great. The acting is so good it's hard to call it acting. Mads Mikkelsen (Jacob) puts up a terrific performance with acting that is as credible as it is subtle. Not the over-the-top stuff that we are familiar with from Hollywood, but acting that actually makes you think "yes, this is how real flesh and blood people would react". I was also pleasantly surprised by Sidse Babett Knudsen (Helene). She has a lot of scenes with little or no dialog, but the way she tells everything with subtle face expression is simply mind blowing. And let's not forget Rolf Lassgård (Jörgen) and Stine Fisher Christensen (Anne), who both remind us what real flesh and blood emotions look like in a way that really hits you in the face.

Anyway, I'm a fan of Scandinavian films for reasons mentioned above, and I'm almost ashamed to say that in that light this film was really nothing new, and luckily so: just more of the same wonderful stuff! What really stuck with me about this film however is the story. It is so ...human in all aspects. I won't reveal any spoilers, but as the story unfolds, it just gets so much more complex than you expect at first. In the first 15 minutes, I expected the movie was mainly going to be about the struggle between Jörgen and Jacob. The struggle between these two "stereotypes" really... one being the cool business man who solves everything with money, and the other being the idealistic but clumsy social worker. I was pleasantly surprised however that it got even better after that. What I mainly like about the movie, is that it doesn't offer any simple solutions. In the end, there are no perfect happy endings that solve every puzzle; the main characters have to make decisions, but it's not all black and white like we see in a lot of other movies. People have to do things they might not have done initially, but in the end, there may be upsides as well. You know... that sounds an awful lot like real life, and that's a good thing for a film if you ask me.

First of all I'd like to say I thought this movie was a wonderful piece of art. Beautiful images, beautiful music and good actors.

However I do feel that the use of "Shakespearean English" in a movie is somewhat problematic. I'm sure you can get used to it with it's extremely long sentences, strange grammar (at least for modern standards) and at times extra-terrestrial word order, but for someone who hasn't read a Lot of Shakespeare's work, it was quite exhausting at times to keep up with the dialogue and understand what they're exactly saying. Especially since the dialogue density is quite high throughout the movie (and in my opinion, much too high for a movie).

Film is a modern medium and I think the makers should have kept that in mind a little bit more. Everything has to be squeezed in around 2 hours, so hey, you need to trim down certain things a bit. When you're watching a movie you need a little space to breathe every now and then, a few seconds to think about things. When you're reading a book you can take that time yourself, whereas a movie needs to have that space built in. I don't know, maybe making a movie and keeping up all the characteristics and virtues of Shakespearean dialogue are just two things that don't mix that well. And... oh well, maybe just keeping the dialogue density just a little lower would have done the trick altogether. But right now I feel like I've been running a mile or two, while all I wanted was to watch a piece of art.

Still, as I said, it was a beautiful piece of art, so a grade 7 out of 10 is justified.

This film certainly has a few things to offer. Beautiful images, a sense of 'darkness' and mystery, and the folk myth about a Shaman that the story apparently evolves around. However, in the end I thought this movie was pretty long-winding and far from an easy piece of visual entertainment.

The film basically consists of two distinguishable parts which both last about an hour. The first half takes place mainly in the city and the second half is mainly jungle. Now this may be a problem on my behalf, but I'm not really sure I completely understood the link between first half and the second half of the film. I see the metaphor of the traditional versus the original, and I quite like the idea, but filmwise the link betwoon both parts was messy and unclear, if there was a link at all.

The way I see it, the lack of much dialogue or other information to clear things up, and the presence of a lot of scenes of which I didn't really understand the relevance, didn't really help. Don't get me wrong, I kinda liked the slow pace of the story with some silent moments built in, and of course the beautiful imagery of the jungle. But I really think it was a little overdone here. There was a lot of dead wood on this tree, so to speak. By dead wood I mean the several scenes where things happen of which it was quite hard to understand the relevance to the central story line, and of course the several pretty long periods in the film where nothing really happens at all. Instead, some more 'structure' and some more elements to give the viewer a little more grip on the film in order to understand what the writer meant would have been more than welcome.

You really have to like this kind of movie. The film mainly depicts the boredom and isolation that a teenager in a tiny distant village finds himself in. This will naturally result in a story where nothing really spectacular happens. This is of course necessary to depict the situation in a realistic way, but a lot of films in this genre tend to get boring themselves.

At least this film had plenty of entertainment to keep the viewer's attention. To begin with there's the magnificent imagery of the impressive Islandic landscape. But I'd mainly recommend this film because of the perfect mix of beautiful realism and tragicomedy.

All together a much more colorful result than many would expect from this kind of film and setting.

This film depicts an average day in the life of three young men in Montevideo (Uruguay) in a very funny way.

The adventures of these guys are bound to entertain you even though, or more likely because they are adventures on a tragically small scale. Even when our heroes are bored a few laughs are just around the corner. The array of sympathetic, hilarious and strange characters that crosses the screen is so colorful I almost forgot that I was watching a film in black and white.

And besides that, the realism that comes to your screen is a refreshment in the Hollywood-dominated world of film.

I wasn't expecting this movie to be much more than a cartoon movie from 1978. I have no problem with "primitive" movies, and the word "dated" is meaningless to me where it comes to movies. I mean, newer animation movies aren't necessarily better than old movies I think, and sometimes that "dated" animation even has it's own charms. But I think this movie had some serious flaws that have nothing to do with it's year of origin, or the state of technology that was present and available at the time it was created.

To begin with, a pity is of course the fact that although the crew's initial intention was to make a cartoon version of the *entire* trilogy, after the battle of Helm's Deep they ran out of money and decided to let the end credits roll down the screen. But I'm afraid this incompleteness is not the biggest flaw of this movie. Note: I heard an even worse and rarely known sequel was made in the 80's, to cover the remaining part of the story.

Let me go into a little more detail concerning my opinion on the movie as it exists, despite the incompleteness of it. There were a few things I surely liked about this movie. First of all the story of course (be it not completely covered), but I guess Tolkien should be credited for that and not the crew of this movie. Secondly, I like to see as many as possible interpretations of this great and beautiful world created by Tolkien, because I hate my imagination to become biased by any single interpretation of what any of the characters or locations look like. This movie is just another visual interpretation, and I like it for that, even regardless of quality. Third of all I liked the drawings (background, etc.), at times that is.

Let me declare why I say "at times": The partially beautiful, colorful and charming cartoon parts in this movie are all too obviously interwoven by low-budget camera scenes of flesh and blood extras with a frequency that increases as you proceed through the movie into parts of the story with more action. Either to save money or because the crew thought this made the action scenes look cooler, the crew made the pittyful decision to record scenes of flesh and blood actors, and overlay them with a 4-color palette in a failed attempt to let these scenes match with the cartoon scenes. This could remind you of crossover movies like "Who framed Roger Rabbit", but with this movie I assure it's totally different. Rather than a tasteful combination, in this case it's obviously a failed attempt to *hide* the fact that some parts aren't really drawn cartoon scenes. The with this is that these scenes are, mainly because of the 4-color-palette, so ugly they made me think that this is what it must look like when you're looking at reality through a thick layer of mud.

Additional problem caused by this: the result is that this movie is a mixture of two differnt "styles" that don't fit together at all in my opinion. To begin with, the cartoon parts are mostly beautiful and the other parts were, as I said, very ugly. But apart from that and maybe even more important, the stiffly moving but charming cartoon drawings of Gandalf and the hobbits just don't fit with the smoothly moving but awfully colored Nazgul or the Orcs, for instance. In comparison, those latter suddenly appear to have extremely un-cartoonish physics and locomotion which of course perfectly reveals the fact that you are looking at flesh and blood actors, even when through 4-color palette to make it look more primitive. Needless to say I preferred the stiffly moving but colorful animation of the cartoon parts.

Another thing I really hate is the "casting" of the cartoon characters. It seems the drawers didn't spend a lot of time thinking about how they were gonna draw the characters. Aragorn looks extremely unfriendly and unsympathetic, more like a bully than like a mysterious but well-meaning stranger. Gandalf and Saruman look exactly alike which was very confusing. Boromir looks like a Dwarf, Elrond doesn't look like an Elf, Legolas looks kinda like an Orc with blond hair and Sam looks like a retard which I think is an insult to his very important character in the story. Frodo is at least one head taller than his three fellow Hobbits, which kept disturbing me, and at the end of the battle of Helm's Deep finally, it got even worse when what I assumed was Gandalf riding his horse, appeared to be Theoden.

Conclusion: As a devoted Tolkien fan, I really wanted to see this movie, and I'm glad I did. But I really feel no urge to view it again any time soon. As said and explained before, I think this movie has a lot of serious flaws that are not the result of that fact that it was made in 1978, little more than 25 years ago.

This movie struck me as very interesting.

To begin with, it's really the kind of acting I like to see: acting that becomes so real you can hardly see it's acting.

I think there were a few credibility flaws in the movie, but these concerned only minor plot turns. The acting on itself, and especially the dialogue (which the movie almost entirely consists of) were very credible. Some movies constant leave me with a feeling of "Why didn't he say this or that." With this movie that was totally different. A lot of times during the movie, I got a feeling of satisfaction when one of the actors said something. They actually said things that made me feel like "Of course, I would have said/asked the same thing..."

I also found the plot of the movie very interesting. It makes you wonder what you would do in the same situation, and it makes you wonder about ethical issues aswell. Are some people more ethically correct than others, or are we all cut from the same wood and are we only pretending to be different?