Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings550
maramezani's rating
Reviews4
maramezani's rating
Gholamreza Takhti, the person, is one of the most prominent characters of his time. Whether or not you agree with his worldview or his opinions, you cannot deny how he influenced the Iranian culture of his time. Still considered the symbol of chivalry and sportsmanship for many, this real-life manifestation of Rocky remains one of the most celebrated athletes in Iran's history.
But let me be clear: You cannot abuse his renown to shield a bad movie from criticism. A bad movie about a great person is a terrible movie, and probably a worse insult than if it was about a normal person. You're doing a disservice to people that admire him and choose him as their role model.
So, where should I start? Any person that could see through the pretentious veil of unnecessary "artistry" should see that black and white shots and empty vain dramatic poses of a troubled character, hopping monotonously from one location to another, does not a great movie make. Seriously, were you aspiring to be the next Elephant Man? The next Schindler's List? Those movies work because they have something else to offer than music and narration.
And I hit the nail on the head now, didn't I? There is a recent wave of wannabe artistic movies in Iranian cinema which fail to be much more than narration. I cannot tell if it's a reaction to overly sensitive grading authorities, but what it results in is inoffensive, incredibly boring, documentary-like "movies" that tell you all the interesting stuff and show meager scenes and dialog like extra hot spice on ice cream. It's a nice cop-out to spending movie budget as well, so why not? It's not like we actually care about the audience, they can take whatever we throw at them.
That pretty much sums it up. Someone should carve with hot iron, on the walls of production studios, big "SHOW, DON'T TELL" signs. That should be a good guideline. If I turn off the sound, what remains should be more than the supposed Takhti actor staring expressionless at the ground or at the ceiling throughout the entire movie as if that's going to add weight to his character, while the narration completely dismisses entire championships with "oh, he came on second, by the way". (That's true, by the way, there are not even seconds of screen time for any of the major plot points in the second half of the movie)
Did I mention the narration is no Morgan Freeman? Oh well, I guess I talked about this movie more than it deserved. I just hope this so-called cinema industry stops setting the alarm to snooze, and starts making movies that have something to say.
But let me be clear: You cannot abuse his renown to shield a bad movie from criticism. A bad movie about a great person is a terrible movie, and probably a worse insult than if it was about a normal person. You're doing a disservice to people that admire him and choose him as their role model.
So, where should I start? Any person that could see through the pretentious veil of unnecessary "artistry" should see that black and white shots and empty vain dramatic poses of a troubled character, hopping monotonously from one location to another, does not a great movie make. Seriously, were you aspiring to be the next Elephant Man? The next Schindler's List? Those movies work because they have something else to offer than music and narration.
And I hit the nail on the head now, didn't I? There is a recent wave of wannabe artistic movies in Iranian cinema which fail to be much more than narration. I cannot tell if it's a reaction to overly sensitive grading authorities, but what it results in is inoffensive, incredibly boring, documentary-like "movies" that tell you all the interesting stuff and show meager scenes and dialog like extra hot spice on ice cream. It's a nice cop-out to spending movie budget as well, so why not? It's not like we actually care about the audience, they can take whatever we throw at them.
That pretty much sums it up. Someone should carve with hot iron, on the walls of production studios, big "SHOW, DON'T TELL" signs. That should be a good guideline. If I turn off the sound, what remains should be more than the supposed Takhti actor staring expressionless at the ground or at the ceiling throughout the entire movie as if that's going to add weight to his character, while the narration completely dismisses entire championships with "oh, he came on second, by the way". (That's true, by the way, there are not even seconds of screen time for any of the major plot points in the second half of the movie)
Did I mention the narration is no Morgan Freeman? Oh well, I guess I talked about this movie more than it deserved. I just hope this so-called cinema industry stops setting the alarm to snooze, and starts making movies that have something to say.
It saddens me when people play into the stereotypes of cartoons not aiming or being able to convey deep mature emotional themes.
I now have this magnificent bundle of joy and heart to direct such people to. Thank you, Nicole.
I now have this magnificent bundle of joy and heart to direct such people to. Thank you, Nicole.
My rating is not based on the movie's historical accuracy, but its own merit as a standalone movie.
Che tries to hint at the darker sides of fascism and war. It starts out as very promising, but right up until the very underwhelming end it just seems to be starting out.
Ambitious, but heavily toned down from what horrors it aims to project at the big screen. The dialog could have been done much better. It sounds more like parts of The Matrix that pretended to be philosophical, but were really copies of tired 90's cliches. They were far and few between, and they just ended up adding to the spice of the movie. Che is all spice.
My reason for the stars I left is the impression it left on me in the beginning. I thought perhaps this is the right direction for movies to go, but I soon discovered at later watchings that it's not your morally relativistic bundle of bittersweet joy for when you can take a heavy film, it just pretends to be. Much better than the cartoonish depiction of the horrors of an uneven war, but nothing revolutionary.
Falls shorts of even Hatamikia's standards.
Che tries to hint at the darker sides of fascism and war. It starts out as very promising, but right up until the very underwhelming end it just seems to be starting out.
Ambitious, but heavily toned down from what horrors it aims to project at the big screen. The dialog could have been done much better. It sounds more like parts of The Matrix that pretended to be philosophical, but were really copies of tired 90's cliches. They were far and few between, and they just ended up adding to the spice of the movie. Che is all spice.
My reason for the stars I left is the impression it left on me in the beginning. I thought perhaps this is the right direction for movies to go, but I soon discovered at later watchings that it's not your morally relativistic bundle of bittersweet joy for when you can take a heavy film, it just pretends to be. Much better than the cartoonish depiction of the horrors of an uneven war, but nothing revolutionary.
Falls shorts of even Hatamikia's standards.