Change Your Image
raidatlanta
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
OVNI(s) (2021)
Incredibly bad!
I started watching this excited about sci-fi, retro sci-fi, aliens, and what I was hoping would be an original exciting French show.
What is it thought?
1) if they wanted to rip off the X-Files, they either could have done a better job at hiding it, or could have copied it more directly. If they had copied it directly, it would have felt like "yea, okay, they wanted to copy the X-files. This isn't original, but it's still entertaining". Here, you have a clear rip off - government official sent to some cooky government side project that isn't respected and studies UFOs - but you have NONE of the entertaining parts. You have the big bad men in black, but there is none of the build up. Or rather there is no build up. At all. Everything falls flat. The only thing they keep on "building upon" is the main character's failure from the opening of Ep.1. They bring that up SO MUCH that you very much want to slap everyone, and tell them to shup up about it.
2) a clear rip off of "anything sci-fi craze". For example bringing up Schroedinger's cat as an example in physics. YO SCRIPTWRITERS - The Big Bang Theory wants its plot elements back.
3) A clear rip off of anything they could dig up in pop culture. I could count references they ripped off in North American content. For example, where they ripped off the series Wild Wild Country was so blatant, so obvious - at one point almost line by line - that it just drove me nuts. How unimaginative can the show's creators be?? And I don't even watch that many series - I can only imagine what a more in-depth reading would look like.
4) The cliches! Jesus, the cliches!
5) The anachronisms! This might not be applicable for people who don't understand French, but for example, they are sometimes using nowadays slang, nowadays thinking, etc. In the time period context. For example a 40 year old dude in that time says "un pins" for "a pin". He would not. He would have said "une épinglette". My theory is that the people who wrote and checked the script grew up in Paris and don't know French beyond the slang they commonly use. Not knowing language is only one way to be a bad writer (scriptwriter). There are other examples... too many of them.
6) SO DULL. Holy goddam is there so little going on in this series. You barely get anything more weird than stuff disappearing.
BUT the scriptwriters did one thing well enough - placing a hook at the end of each episode making you think that something interesting might happen. HEADS UP - it doesn't. Each hook only leads to more dullness. More boredom. Then you get invested and you want to keep watching only in the sad delusion that maybe, maybe all the time you wasted watching this show wasn't for nothing.
Why is this show so well rated? Maybe the people who were tricked by those hooks into watching the series didn't want to admit they saw something bad? Maybe people have no taste? Maybe people saw high production value and decent acting, and gave a good note based off of that? I don't know.
But my friendly advice? Don't watch it. It's not good. It's rare that I say "I really hope this show gets cancelled so that a decent project can get funding".
The scripts are bad, the plots are dull, the characters are flat, most of the content is ripped off... do I need to keep on going?
Oh, and also, a note for the script writers - it's nice to have one or two characters with a fondness for play on words. But tone it down. When everything everywhere can become a C- pun... tone it down, guys. Also, go read a novel and learn how to plop out a decent plot. You learned how to put in hooks, but hooks in boring stories are just that - hooks in boring stories.
We Are Zombies (2023)
Decent idea horribly executed
This movie is on par with its zero-brainer title.
Though it starts off with a decent idea; a different vision of zombies that don't eat people, etc. Zombies taking up a place in society - this could be read (this isn't a spoiler) like the people who work 80 hours a week in terrible working conditions just to get a job more than the next poor schlub, etc. This idea quickly falls out next to the cheapest "humor", bad dialogue and an apparent inability to build up plot and have some actual story telling.
The movie looks like it is partially Robot Chicken style inserts, within a mediocre plotline, and well... yea, it doesn't really come out like something you are interested in watching. They added cheap slapstick style gags and "bellow the belt, haha this is funny because it is making fun of political correctness" at every turn, either hoping it would cover up for the b-series acting, the dull set up, the... well, I suppose everything.
I really can't imagine anyone that isn't stuck in an "antisocial teenager" phase finding this movie either funny or entertaining - maybe that's the target audience? If it wasn't enough, the people who worked on the colors and lighting must have taken a bunch of b-series horror films as an example - everything is shot in the dark, unengaging, almost can't see sh** half the time. Yea, shooting in the dark may work sometimes, but not when you have no atmosphere, dull scenes, cheap comedy and less than desirable acting.
As a note though, for any writers out there, this movie is a great example of why "show don't tell" is a thing. Because you can't see sh**, but they sure do spell out EVERY plot element and detail for you.
The basic ideas in this movie deserve a rip off, but this film deserves to be forgotten.
Riddle of Fire (2023)
FUN
First thing - I know I would have LOVED this movie as a kid. It has children with strong will, acting independently, not being undermined as "just kids". I think as a kid, I would have watched this film dozens of times.
Secondly, as an adult, I still enjoyed this movie. A kids movie that also works for adults? As a parent, let me tell you, those don't come so easy.
Thirdly, the mix between video-game plot elements, aesthetics, structure, etc. Were delightful. The sets (I had to google where it was filmed - Wyoming I think?) were beautiful, and took us out of the usual "seen this a million times" aesthetics.
Fourth, I think the actors (kid actors) were very natural and did a great job. At no moment in the film did I cringe from acting, even though some film critics didn't seem satisfied (yes The Guardian, I'm thinking of you).
In general, this movie is original and atypical. I actually WANT to reccoment it to people, and feel like I want to keep an eye on the director's future creations. Maybe the reason why critics didn't enjoy it so much is because it neither fits into the festival-film aesthetics, nor the commercial film aesthetics. Why? Maybe because this is an actual Auteur film. The movie conveys a personal sense of reality and fantasy, crosses borders, does its own thing without so much a bother of if it fits into a category or another. It doesn't shy away from scenes that can seem a bit ridiculous, for the purpose of the magic and fantasy of the story and what it conveys.
I give it a big A+ - highly reccomended.
The Big Cigar (2024)
Brilliant series
This show is brilliant. It has all the great elements in terms of events (action, romance, suspense); above that, it's brilliantly written (you can tell that from the dialogues), and it's reasonably historically accurate - in any case, in terms of highlighting the Black Panthers. This show does justice to history.
Why does it have such bad reviews?? Beats me. Is it too smart? That's a possibility - most series are mindless nowhere stories, while this actually has a point, and historical background. Is it because most of the people reviewing it can't cope with the facts that a poor minority was actually more progressive and accomplished more things than the majority what conspired against it? Maybe Americans just still aren't ready to accept all the messed up stuff their country / government / nation / etc. Did.
In any case, this show is absolutely fantastic, and it puts the finger right where the booboo's at. As far as I'm concerned, I'm recommending it to everyone, and I'm sure it will get more recognition in the future.
The Candy Tangerine Man (1975)
One of those "could be worth a remake" movies
The plot is not bad, and to some degree, imaginative. It was funny at times, and when there was action, it wasn't badly executed at all (stunts, explosions, etc.). The main actors did a good job too (not all the side actors did, but hey, even in big money blockbusters you don't always get great acting). You also get a good dose of boobage, which, hey, I'm not going to complain.
In general though, the pacing was bad. Some dialogues were too lengthy - not badly written, it just killed the rhythm of the movie. Some of the going-ons didn't always seem like they made a whole lot of sense when they happened, etc. The camera work was also DULL (in capital letters), maybe due to budget restrictions, maybe due to the directing, maybe both. In either case - the visual part could have used some work.
In general it's a good movie if you aim to cook or clean while watching it, but if you'd have to sit down and watch it from start to finish, you'd get bored despite its qualities. Would be worth a remake with clearer action, better pacing, more imaginative camera work, etc.
Fehér isten (2014)
Disney - okja crossover failure
This movie was describe as some super dystopic thing, but what it really is, is a strange and uninteresting crossover between Disney dog movies like Homeward Bound, and actually dystopian films (but realistic) like Okja. This movie hits neither marks - it's not some cute kids movie with animals, and it's not a thought provoking dystopian film.
This movie hit me as someone trying to fit as many plotlines as possible into one movie.
You follow a teen girl who has problems with her father and plays in an orchestra (I don't know what that has to do with anything since I was unable to finish the film). You have something about crossbreed dogs being taxed or banned, while "hungarian breeds" (oh, the many many hungarian dog breeds) aren't (but just where the dad lives? Apparently not everywhere? Why did the kid bring her dog if her dog wasn't allowed in the city? Are cross-breeds allowed in the countryside? Does the kid normally live outside of Hungary??). You have the dog being left outside, and street dogs doing their thing. You have some sort of statement (?) with the father working in a slaughterhouse and approving animals for slaughter (?).
On some level, all of this mixes together in what seems like ordinary life. Okay. Congrats for "boring realism", only "boring realism" isn't a genre I want to watch.
After watching half the movie, my wife and I were asking ourselves what the point was. Were cross-breed dogs supposed to be a parallel with refugees? That seems racist on it's own, and it also falls flat, because a teen girl wouldn't bring her pet refugee to stay at her dad's. Is it supposed to be a statement about animal cruelty? That would make more sense, but then what's the point of the whole plotline with halfbreeds being taxed and all?
Sadly, this flic was too dull for us to keep on watching and see if the movie does have a point (it's a long movie!).
About the cinematography also, we can see it was influenced by the 2000's trope about having shaky hand-held style cam for everything. Thank god that trope is over. In this movie you have this kind of shaky cam for EVERYTHING. Shots like the girl sitting down in a calm and quiet room. Shaky cam in that kind of shot doesn't add action or drama, it just makes you a bit queezy. Shaky cam for bike shots, dog running shots, dogs outside shots, sure, justified. For shots at home, quiet shots, etc? Nope. And this hand held shaky came is present nonstop. Yikes.
Pinball: The Man Who Saved the Game (2022)
A very good standard-ish movie
Maybe like a 7.5? The acting is good, the story is solid and interesting (you even learn things, historical elements, etc.), the movie making is good, and there's awesome 70's styling.
What really makes the movie a lot better than what it would have been should it have had standard story telling, was self-derision, making fun of itself, correcting itself, and inserting historical snippets. The movie includes a lot of small clichés, though makes fun of those clichés at the same time. There are some other clichés that were left unattended, but I guess that's okay.
On top of it being a generally good movie, I don't really see what there is to say. Should you watch it? I recommend it. Are there flaws in the movie? None other than small clichés, etc. Does it feel like one of the many "success story" films? Yes, it does. Maybe it's the slight lack of originality in the "success story bioflick" genre that lowers the score for me, but then again, what they did with the material, they did really well, and the story is certainly worth a movie.
I hesitated a long time between a 7 and an 8. In any case, you get the just that it's a good movie, though not that it will necessarily blow your mind or change your life.
The Nest of the Cuckoo Birds (1965)
Would be worth a remake!
The premise for this film was really interesting. The result is a sort of hazy, but not really satisfying dream-like blurb of overly theatrical acting, tv-banal camera work, and at times an obvious lack of budget.
This being said, the film still gets you going. You want to know what's going to happen, nothing is really predictable, which I liked. The heat. Sweat, nigh time, and thunderstorm filled ambiance was real fun. Ambiance is a thing too often neglected in films nowadays, where more attention is placed on cheap tension.
There are a lot of unexplored themes, or themes that are barely present, which got me wondering, are some parts of the film missing? Then again, it might be voluntary, to add more suspense. The plot goes into some kind of texas chainsaw massacre meets jesus camp thing. Overall, this movie would deserve a good remake. The one thing a remake should really imitate though is the music. I found the slow surf guitar, drums, and occasional choir chanting to be really awesome. Even the half-cheap sound quality of some of the music present just added to the mix really well. Sometimes switching in music wasn't well timed, but eh, oh well. In general, the music really added to the film.
Orly (2010)
Ennuie mortel
D'un ennuie mortel ; compilation de dialogues pseudo-philosophiques, clichés à mort. On peut avoir mieux et plus vrai en allant prendre un pot au zinc du coin. Les dialogues sont offerts sans conviction (pas surprenant que les acteurs aient pu avoir du mal à recracher ces banalités creuses ; ou mauvaise direction, ou les deux), les éléments de pseudo-suspense (attendre 20 minutes pour savoir quelle est "la décision" du premier type) sont ne piquent pas la curiosité et servent à rien. On dirait une mauvaise caricature, ce film.
Tenet (2020)
Good film... you could chop 20 minutes out of it
This movie had some cool premise, some not-bad acting (for an action movie), some ok subplots, some poor subplots, a lot of predictability, good filmmaking...
In the midst of all that, I really ended up being bored and wishing the movie would just move forward or end already. I think none of it was due to the predictability, and so on. I think it's mostly due to the fact that i could easily find minimum 20 minutes that I could chop out of this film without it losing any content / substance / ambiance / aesthetics / etc. On top of the really useless bits we could cut out, there are also the poor-scriptwriting "let me spend 5-10 minutes to explain how this pseudo-technology works even though no one cares because it's a movie-made up pseudo-technology" scenes that got on my nerves. To be honest, while rating this film I just lowered my vote by a star. Jesus I was bored when I saw this in the theaters.
Le dernier voyage (2020)
absolutely uninteresting
One extra star for visual effects. That's essentially it.
You get the feeling french film makers wanted to make an American road trip movie with pseudo action-based sci-fi plot. Except why would we want French cinema to copy American cinema? This is neither a road movie, nor an action-based sci-fi film. It's just a cheap imitation, that fails to entertain in absolutely every way. Filled with mindless clichés and the likes.
I couldn't finish this.
Avril et le monde truqué (2015)
Quelle déception!
Ce film, c'est un peu la preuve que si on a de bons animateurs, de bons acteurs, mais une histoire qui tient pas debout, avec des trous dans l'histoire, les résultats ne sont pas fameux.
Franchement, quand on a la chance d'avoir Philippe Katerine qui joue un chat, on devrait faire mieux. Déjà dans les premières 5 minutes le film part dans une espèce de réalité alternative mais qui a conscience qu'elle est alternative... quoi? Oui, on commence à la veille de la guerre franco-prussienne 1870, sauf que "bam", elle n'a pas lieu. Ah... on sait ce qu'elle est même si elle n'a pas lieu? Donc du coup, on est conscient que nous regardons un film qui se passe dans une trame historique qui n'est pas la nôtre, mais qui se compare à la notre. Ok, on peut faire mieux comme vraisemblance. Et en plus la façon que ça explique "Einstein, Plank, nous ne les connaîtrons pas". Mais... alors pourquoi on nous les mentionne si dans l'univers du film, on ne va pas les connaître? Pour nous faire dire "mon dieu! Pas de Einstein?! J'aurais pas deviné, dans un film steampunk!" ou pour nous rappeler que dans notre monde, il y a eu Einstein, et que nous regardons un film médiocre?
Ensuite le nombre de clichés. L'inspecteur de police merdique qui reste pendant tout le film même si on en a rien à foutre, le grand-père génie qui comprend tout même s'il voir la technologie pour la première fois (je vois un avion pour la première fois de ma vie - chouette, maintenant je sais comment le réparer!), une maison immergée dans la seine (comme elle est profonde la seine!!), la jeune génie qui concocte le remède miracle avec un équipement pourrit dans une planque alors que tous les génies de l'histoire de l'humanité depuis 1870 n'y parviennent pas... c'est trop! Et à la fin (SPOILER) quand le monde caché est en dessous de Paris (même pas loin en dessous, du genre, à la profondeur des égouts). Là, c'est juste con.
Ensuite le nombre de trucs qui ne tiennent pas debout... Pourquoi les "gros méchants" gardent leur plan secret? Ils ont évidement la technologie pour dominer la terre à l'heure qu'il est. Au lieu, ils ont laissé crever toutes les forêts d'Europe "juste parce que"? Et le père, il était emprisonné parce qu'il était en désaccord avec le plan de préserver la vie dans l'univers?? Ses motivations, son désaccord, ne sont jamais expliquées. Ça reste un énorme trou. Et l'Europe et l'Amérique qui vont aller en guerre pour les forêts du Canada ; attend, la Russie en a pas de forêts? La Sibérie, tout a été rasé?? Et l'Afrique elle est où dans tout ça? J'imagine que des Européens qui en ont rien à foutre de l'Afrique, ça peut peut-être passé comme seul aspect réaliste. Le film pue surtout une espère de fantasme occidento-centrique qui, même pour un enfant, laisse plein de questions sans réponses. L'enfant qui regarde ce film, à moins qu'il soit neuneu, se demande pourquoi y'a plus de forêts dans le monde entier autre qu'au Canada (apparemment).
Si les voix sont bien, et que j'ai adoré l'esthétique du film... mon dieu, ça a fait mal. Note au directeurs et directrices de l'animation ; lisez le scénario la prochaine fois, vous méritez mieux.
Barb Wire (1996)
Just a good action movie
Firstly, I give 8/10 in regards to action movies. What do you want in an action film? Actors who act like they own the place, a plot that holds together, explosions, fight scenes, and if you can get some sexy stuff, then that's a plus. This movie has all of this.
People say Pam doesn't act well in this? Do the same people give good grades to films with Steven Seagal or J. C. V. D? Let's be honest, I love Stalone and Schwarzennger, but we can't say Schwarzzy acts better in Terminator, Conan, or most of his movies.
The only reason why people criticized this film, and Pam's acting, is PURE SEXISM. People are willing to accept that Rambo can take on half the soviet army with only a bow and a handful of grenades in the afghan desert, but people aren't willing to accept that a gorgeous big breasted blonde would be able to tear them a new one, ride a motor cycle while shooting down 50 guys, and screw over the whole legal and criminal establishment.
I think this is the only reason why this movie has such a bad mark on here, and why it was so badly received. Pure sexism. In 1996, people were not willing to accept a woman as an action movie star.
By all means, I found it more fun to watch than Predator. Half of predator was just watching big muscle men crawling in the jungle, acting all tough. Here you have stuff happening. Could there have been more gunfights? Hell yes. Could there have been more Pam kicking ass? By all means yes - you can't have enough Pam kicking ass. Does the ending get to be a bit cliché? Yes.
I liked this movie more than the average action film, not just because I think Barb Wire is a great character, and Pam does her super well. I liked that this movie had ambiance. Filthy streets, crummy buildings; something between sci-fi and Film noir. Ambiance is very important for me when I watch a movie, and this one has it. Finally, YES, I did enjoy all the crude nudity, sexy lingerie, and so one - though I enjoyed all this while the movie set badass empowering female characters.
I think there is still time to make a series of these - I would gladly watch the next ones in the movie theatres.
Lethal Weapon 3 (1992)
Good actors, big action, bad movie
This movie goes to show that even with good actors, and good characters, you can make a really bad film. Maybe the political content from Lethal Weapon 2 was "too real" for Hollywood so they made this instead. This movie is nothing but a mish-mash of semi-incoherent action and cheap comedy scenes. There is virtually no plot (and if you try to think "does this make sense?", you will realize there is no plot at all). It's easy to see that here, they wanted to give only easy humour, and big explosions. If you don't get annoyed at how poorly the scenario is written, it can make for a good movie to watch among friends, when everyone talks during the movie. Don't watch it alone, you'll pull your hair out saying "but the first two were so good, how could they do this?". Watching this, I got a bit of the same feeling I had when watching Police Academy IV.
Tove (2020)
Too bad, could have been good
I wish they could have found more subject matter, to make a film about a great artist and author, than to shove as many "bohemian artist drinking", "look at me, I'm dancing", and lesbian sex scenes, into this film as possible. It gets unfortunately dull pretty quick.
Nova Lituania (2019)
What were those last twenty minutes?
This movie starts off very strong - good actors, beautiful decors, interesting plot, events, etc. One of my friends even told me they did a great job on working on the accent of Kaunas from that time period (I read the subtitles).
Though the main plot is excellent, and would suffice for the whole movie, the director or script writers decided to add a bunch of sub-plots. Some kind of work. The main sub-plot is horrendous though, and kind of ruins the whole film. I couldn't really describe what this sub-plot is, because nether I nor my friends could really understand what it was, should represent, what was happening, etc. I can only - no spoilers - describe it as "protagonist's personal family drama". I had no idea what was going on - no idea what his relation to his niece is (were they building up something? Where does she disappear to at the end of the film?), who the hell "Antanas" is at the end of the movie, what that last apartment shot is supposed to be, etc., etc. There are tons of unintelligible hints at non-explained and non-existant backstories (and I usually love elements that I don't fully grasp), and so on. Not only useless, but kind of ruining the rest.
It would be well worth it to re-cut the film, and cut out that whole sub-plot. Just cut it all out, no regrets. Also, it's easy to tell that the director love the "over the shoulder walking behind the main character" camera shot. It becomes a little repetitive. A few of those could be cut out as well.
Other than that, the photography is beautiful.
The Corporate Coup D'État (2018)
Political schizophrenia as propaganda film
This is a bad propaganda film. This being said, I have to say that I am very left wing - probably more than the people who made this film, so this isn't an "I don't share their views so I'm accusing them of propaganda" kind of deal. It contains a the traits of propaganda ; lack of factual argumentation, incoherent jumbeling of scenes, usage of emotional rather than thought provoking footage, etc., etc. I won't mention more, though the list could easily go on.
This film is also what I would describe as Schizophrenia on film. It contains mixed footage of a lot of different things without there being any clear link between them. It contains no factual or clear ideas either. After seeing this film i wondered for a while - along with my friends with whom I had seen the film - what it was that the film makers might have meant. what was their message. "that love is going to save us?". This is more or less what we could conclude from it. It starts off as an interesting political statement for the first 5-10 minutes, about how corporations have taken over political power. It then goes into corporatist states and Mussolini - which has really a limited link to what we are seing now. Another propagandist trait - the usage of specific vocabulary to produce an emotional reaction (fascism = bad, so by associating what we are against with fascism, you will have feelings of sympathy for our message), and mixed images of Mussolini and Trump, creating a comparison between the two (though the average American probably has no idea who Mussolini was). It goes downhill from there. At first it focuses on Trump being pro-corporations. It then accuses the Obamas and the Clintons of doing the same thing, but even bing worst than Trump. It goes from being left-wing anti-corporations, to being some sort of right-wing pro-trump anti big government film. It goes on saying about how big government ends up protecting corporations and allowing their power (this is of course a big sum up).
It makes no sense, it goes in every direction without ever really saying anything. I really have no idea what the point, or anything of this film is. This is why I can only describe it as, on top of being a bad propaganda film, it is completely schizophrenic, and makes virtually no sense.
I have to add, finally, that it is totally incomprehensible to anyone who doesn't know the USA to a good extent. It makes heavy usage of all the American political acronyms (DRA, EPA, etc.), it uses in its propaganda, all the American focuses (segregation, institutional racism, etc). I wonder how this film could ever be shown (first of all), but be shown outside the USA, as it makes virtually no sense for people who don't know the USA well.
Portrait de la jeune fille en feu (2019)
An example of what cinema should be
This film is an example of what cinema should be.
Yes, the plot isn't so "thick", it's a rather slow film.
Why I say this is what cinema should be, is because it has as it's base images. Its images speak louder than word ; you see what you have to know.
Everyone involved with this picture seems to have done an astounding job - may it be through directing, the actresses, the set, the photography, the costumes - everything is astounding and very well done.
When we saw this in theatres with my colleagues - mostly male -, we came out speechless. At the end of the film, there was a girl crying in the same row as I - the first time I see anyone crying to a movie (really crying from bing moved). With my colleagues, we walked out, and none of us spoke or said anything for at least 5-10 minutes, as we all obviously were affected by the nostalgic beauty that the picture captures. Finally someone broke the silence with the only thing that could break the spell - a banal exclamation "it was well done", as the only thing to be done after such a film is "a return to banality". This is a film I will gladly see again.
Monos (2019)
Columbian Lord of the flies rehash
In this film where you can guess a link to FARCs and so on, you don't get what you would be expecting. While you await something that shows the realities of conflicts, or ideologies, of combat, etc. What you really get is just a lord of the flies rehash - with a few very obvious references. Most of it is also quite predictable.
You barely see combat, you have a very limited view of child soldiers and how they are handled, treated (mistreated) and scared by their butchers. You don't see the agony of how child soldiers are brutalized, what you have is a bunch of teens with guns with loose orders and essentially no disciplinaries.
While the film is visually stunning, making good use of landscapes, visual effects, of sound, etc. and though the actors perform well, it falls short as quite empty. Instead of learning anything about reasons for their "indoctrination" (to what, we do not know - the end offers more of a "evil perpetrates evil" moral, as an out-of-control nonsense spiral ; of which the Columbian conflicts were not, and still aren't), we only get a conclusion along the lines of "some can be saved, and some have been broken".
This movie isn't bad, it just falls short in any plot development, contextualizing, etc. Instead of being the realistic, brutal and shocking film it was expected to be, it's essentially just another psychological thriller.
The Song of Names (2019)
Sad history and emotional heartstrings, short to make up for cheap screenwriting
I saw this movie and had the chance to discuss it with Girard at the 2019 FIN Atlantic film festival while covering it for the radio where I work. I honestly did not expect much from this simple fact : the description made of the movie from anything I could read did everything except say what the movie was about. It said "beautiful saga across three decades and four countries" or "story of friendship, family, etc. etc." but no plot description. When this happens, it's usually because you have a weak plot.
The plot though, was not as cheap as the screenwriting. The plot is another ww2 holocaust drama (for some reason, we can't seem to ever make positive movies about jewish accomplishments, etc., only stories about the holocaust. This is an important topic, yes, though it has been treated in the multiple hundreds of films on the topic), with as an "original" twist, a musical background. This isn't bad, and makes up most of the scenes. It leads to the first and only interesting thing in the film - SPOILER - the use of song (the type in jewish liturgy) to memorize the names of people who disappeared during the Shoa. Though the music is beautiful, we aren't treated to any of the real "memory songs". we get a composition for the film score.
The shape of the story solidly bothered me. It's absurdly cheap - we've seen it all time and time again. Someone disappears, later it becomes a sort of "detective story" in order to find the person who went missing, etc. All you get is again "Protagonist goes to some place. Asks questions. Looks for person. Goes to next place, asks questions, etc.". Not only is it a cheap and very common way to structure a story nowadays, but the realism of it hangs by a thread.
Nonetheless, the actors are remarkable, aesthetically the film is extremely well done, musically it's very nice. You might be moved by some parts, but overall this film is nothing you're never seen before, and you might not remember it later on. Watch it on Netflix, where it's bound to end up.
Fargo (2014)
How do I rate this?
I don't know how I would rate this show.
The first season is marvellous. It watches like a multiple hours long Cohen brothers film. I didn't like the ending so much - it felt like the script writers were out of imagination, and it didn't really feel coherent with the epic-ness of the beginning.
The second season has a good story in itself (though I would have expected more bloodshed), though the editing (or directing, or both) were horrible. It lost all the gripping strange and quirkiness of the first season, and felt like "any other tv series". It was edited with long "emotional" shots, with random "seemingly emotionally fitting" music, and had way too many dialogues. The problem isn't only the dialogues, it's the "characters talking about what they might do but aren't doing". Less talk, more action. In the fist season, if someone wants to shoot someone, they just shoot. In the second season, people talk at ends before actually doing something. I'd give example of what I mean, but that would b a spoiler. Anyone who has seen the show, though, I think, will understand what I mean by long slow shots with music, that are supposedly emotionally charged, but that turn into a long bore where you wait for something to happen. I enoyed the story, and the link to the first season, but most of the time, I just couldn't wait for the characters to shut up.
The third season is horrible. I'm only half way through now, but I'm thinking about giving up. Strangely, halfway through you get some editing or directing similar to the first season, but in all the episodes before that, not one scene goes by before you get the feeling you're watching a music video. For half the episodes, nothing happens, just music and shots of, more or less nothing. I was also able to predict essentially everything that was going to happen from the start. but not in some weird 1st season "that's not really going to happen, is it?" way, more in a very common "oh, ok, that's going to happen. Jesus, couldn't have they thought of something less predictable, and of less caricatural characters?" way. So far, a lot of nothing is happening, a lot of dull dialogue, no link whatsoever to the other seasons other than Minnesota (which one could ignore if it were good).
I could give a 8-9 for the first season, 5 to the second season, and a 2-3 to the third season. I won't be watching more of it if I decided to finish the third season.
The Sitter (2011)
Unwatchable
This movie was so bad, that halfway through we had to stop. Instead we watched "Bloody pit of horror", which was much better.
Bad, uninteresting, unoriginal, poorly acted, poorly thought out and simply not funny wanna-be shock comedy run through this unwatchable flop.
Leviafan (2014)
Cliché upon cliché
This movie starts off well - you have about half an hour of interesting material. An innocent man is victime of corruption, and one of his friends, who is a lawyer in Moscow, comes to help him.
Nonetheless curruption is in the way, etc. etc. etc.
Then, out of the blue - contemporary art cliché #1 - the innocent man's wife starts an affair with the lawyer. Of course this is completely out of the blue, and has no previous link to anything, nor does it really make more sense than "hum, i guess people are horny".
The movie, from then on, goes on a downward slope. All the interesting elements from the beginning disappear, and all you are left with is a bad rewrite of Jobe's story, with a lot of biblical references all over. It was a mix of very predictable, and "crippled with plot holes".
The actors were quite ok, the scenery was beautiful, it was filmed ok, nonetheless, a poor and weak script, filled with clichés, upon clichés of déjà vu, doesn't do much for me, even if it's put in a Russian context.
In this film you have about 30 minutes of interesting material. The rest is a waste of time, an absolute bore. After having seen this movie I was filled with annoyance at having wasted time seeing this very forgettable film, which for some reason was celebrated by an artsy-fartsy clique.
Jurassic Park III (2001)
Why all the hatred?
Why all the hatred indeed?
Did people not like it because they thought it would be as good as the first one? I obviously wasn't going to be, especially after the atrociously horrible second one (to which I gave 1/10, for reference).
Why would anyone say that this is worst than the second one? Did they actually see the movies? Watch them back to back - I dare you - watch them back to back, and when watching this one, I bet you will feel a surge of relief that this one is actually decent, whilst the second one makes you want to... well, makes you want to turn it off as fast as possible. If you can sit through the whole of the second one, I'm willing to bet you that, as with me, you will feel a great deal of pain.
Ok, so in this one there is a certain amount of non-science (as in the first one - velociraptors are actually quite small, and covered in feathers). Ok, so there are a few things that make you go "hunh?" - they are nothing compared to the major gaping plot holes that exist in the second one. No, it's not a masterpiece, no it's not the first one, but you know what? It's fun, it's got good action, decent acting, the script actually holds together (unlike the second one). I don't know why some people rant saying that it doesn't - dear god, and the second one does? And let's admit that even in the first one, having a single, sketchy fat guy who complains about not being paid enough as the only person working with security systems, debugging, etc. is not InGen's finest idea, and could be seen as weakness in the plot.
I'll stop ranting, and I'll stop comparing it to the other ones. Let's just put it this way ; this film is an adventurous, action packed, basic Hollywood movie, with some good humour, decently well made, and if you expect more from it (the third in a series that grossed millions, of which the second was a fiasco), then don't watch it. But if you want a movie that's simply fun, easy to follow, and brings you back into the universe of Jurassic Park, this film does it quite well.
The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)
How can this film have a good note, I do not understand
I remembered from my childhood that of the three Jurassic Park movies that existed at the time, this one was the only bad one. In my memory I had three scenes in mind - all of them were action scenes.
Having re-watched it now - perhaps 15 years or so after having seen it for the first time - I think this happened because the plot to this one is so incredibly weak. In french there is a word, "décousu", which means "un-sowed", like it wasn't properly sown together, and it was just a bunch of ideas jumbled up into fast-paced action scenes made to impress the public. But the actors are terrible, the plot is weak, and everything is so predictable, that you wonder how anyone could have been payed to write it. I feel like anyone could have easily drafter the plot line to this film on their kitchen table, thinking "Hm, what could happen after the first film?".
I think this film has a good "grade" on here in part due to the film being made by Spielberg, and most people wouldn't give a bad note to a big celebrity like him. Maybe, also, it's because they tried to like it very hard, only because the fist one was so good. Maybe they are trying to fool themselves only not to wonder "why did I lose two hours of my life". Or, finally, maybe it's because people who put in a good note like films with Vince Vaughn. When I saw he was in this movie I thought "this is going to be a bad movie, because every movie with Vince Vaughn is a bad movie". So it was, and therefore, maybe the positive feedback on here only come from die hard Vince Vaughn fans, who enjoy his brand of over-acted badly put together cheap action films.
I wouldn't watch this film again unless I were well payed to do so. Everything about it is bad from beginning to end. Plot holes, cheap effects, and bad script writing never stops, from beginning to end.