maxdest
Joined Aug 2006
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews9
maxdest's rating
As someone whom has never read the graphic novel, I read a few of the reviews here and was afraid that I might find the plot incomprehensible. I am glad to say that I understood pretty much everything, and it was good.
Just like '300' and 'Sin City' the visual imagery in Watchmen is outstanding, with many scenes of breathtaking beauty, however unlike the aforementioned, Watchmen also makes excellent use of symbolism and repartition which enhance the impact of a storyline already laden with some deep examination of a range of human values. In places this is very subtle, and may be missed by those whom are used to a pure action fest, no more so than the impact and amazing irony present within the finale. In many ways Watchmen is like an art-house movie with a Hollywood budget... amazing.
That is not to say all is good. Whilst Jackie Earle Haley as the moral-psychopath Rorschach gives a performance that will surely yield an academy nomination, and Jeffrey Dean Morgan gives us a likewise consummate Comedian, the other characters are found lacking to a greater of lesser degree.
In addition, the film is nearly three bottom-aching hours long, which would be fine if there was no-nonsense. But with many extended ultra-slow gore shots and an unnecessarily long sex scene or three I think at least 15 minutes could have been chopped off without any loss, and they might have got a lower rating.
Some people moan about the soundtrack, but I thought it was used to a decent effect, and provided some (intentional) gallows humor in a film that is otherwise of an extremely dark tone.
All in all, a good film that could have been great if only for better casting and a shorter cut.
Just like '300' and 'Sin City' the visual imagery in Watchmen is outstanding, with many scenes of breathtaking beauty, however unlike the aforementioned, Watchmen also makes excellent use of symbolism and repartition which enhance the impact of a storyline already laden with some deep examination of a range of human values. In places this is very subtle, and may be missed by those whom are used to a pure action fest, no more so than the impact and amazing irony present within the finale. In many ways Watchmen is like an art-house movie with a Hollywood budget... amazing.
That is not to say all is good. Whilst Jackie Earle Haley as the moral-psychopath Rorschach gives a performance that will surely yield an academy nomination, and Jeffrey Dean Morgan gives us a likewise consummate Comedian, the other characters are found lacking to a greater of lesser degree.
In addition, the film is nearly three bottom-aching hours long, which would be fine if there was no-nonsense. But with many extended ultra-slow gore shots and an unnecessarily long sex scene or three I think at least 15 minutes could have been chopped off without any loss, and they might have got a lower rating.
Some people moan about the soundtrack, but I thought it was used to a decent effect, and provided some (intentional) gallows humor in a film that is otherwise of an extremely dark tone.
All in all, a good film that could have been great if only for better casting and a shorter cut.
The chase scenes were interesting, the dialog was snappy and as always with Tarantino the cinematography and soundtrack was excellent. The trashy 80s movie touches like the somewhat cheesy acting, unexpected cuts and random bad production added to the fun.
Kurt Russell as 'Stuntman Mike' was the show stealer, but all the women accounted for themselves pretty well also.
But, perhaps because I watched the stand alone version rather than the grind-house double-bill Death Proof seemed to drag a little. Ultimately it felt about 30-45 minutes too long.
Overall a 6/10, but probably a whole lot better as it was originally intended.
Kurt Russell as 'Stuntman Mike' was the show stealer, but all the women accounted for themselves pretty well also.
But, perhaps because I watched the stand alone version rather than the grind-house double-bill Death Proof seemed to drag a little. Ultimately it felt about 30-45 minutes too long.
Overall a 6/10, but probably a whole lot better as it was originally intended.
Better than Lord of the Rings? Yup. Whilst the former had awesome special effects, great acting and a fun plot it was mainly action-centric, with other elements taking a seat on the back burner.
Stardust is much more of a mix. Romance, Knowing Humor, Action and plot, there really is something here for everyone. And the result is a film that although plainly fantasy, ends up feeling really human. There are only a couple of other films that I have felt this way about being Big Fish and the Shawshank Redemption.
As such, and despite the occasionally wonky special effects, and horrible Gervais 'cameo' any film that manages to draw me in to such an extent gets a 10.
Stardust is much more of a mix. Romance, Knowing Humor, Action and plot, there really is something here for everyone. And the result is a film that although plainly fantasy, ends up feeling really human. There are only a couple of other films that I have felt this way about being Big Fish and the Shawshank Redemption.
As such, and despite the occasionally wonky special effects, and horrible Gervais 'cameo' any film that manages to draw me in to such an extent gets a 10.