diafora17
Joined Oct 2012
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.
Reviews7
diafora17's rating
Take a brilliant concept that reflects some possible future scenario - inspired by the marvelous Aldous Haxley's 'Brave new world' - add a twisted 'matrixinian, hunger games' wanna be variation from Veronica Roth - and finally make a Hollywood film out of it; what do you have? An insult to human intelligence.
The first 5 minutes of the film, focused on the essence. They where great. The rest of the long 2 hours where a bad mixture of the hunger games without the hunger, the matrix without mr Anderson, star treck without the stars, and dumb running, kicking, fighting, agonizing for no reason what so ever mambo jumbo.
Overall quality? No better than a B class TV series. So why 7.4 in IMDb? Surely can't tell (paid reviews I presume). So I give a one star to balance things out.
What is the message? In a future where mankind faces serious identity issues, where individuality is replaced by casts, where society is a threat to humanity... then what does one do??? Learn karate, pick up a gun and shoot the hell out of the bad guys!!! Wooaaoou! Totally mature and intelligent! I seriously prefer swangeneger's philoshopy 'Destroy da planat and get da hell oder heeer'.
Hollywood's intention: Insult humans to the degree they begin to like it. Make ridiculous films so that every one turns into TV shows. Then keep serving them insulting TV shows... they won't mind... they are 'brain dead' to quality and originality. Thank's Hollywood, I'll pass (next time at least, cause I wasted 2 hours+ watching this crap).
The first 5 minutes of the film, focused on the essence. They where great. The rest of the long 2 hours where a bad mixture of the hunger games without the hunger, the matrix without mr Anderson, star treck without the stars, and dumb running, kicking, fighting, agonizing for no reason what so ever mambo jumbo.
Overall quality? No better than a B class TV series. So why 7.4 in IMDb? Surely can't tell (paid reviews I presume). So I give a one star to balance things out.
What is the message? In a future where mankind faces serious identity issues, where individuality is replaced by casts, where society is a threat to humanity... then what does one do??? Learn karate, pick up a gun and shoot the hell out of the bad guys!!! Wooaaoou! Totally mature and intelligent! I seriously prefer swangeneger's philoshopy 'Destroy da planat and get da hell oder heeer'.
Hollywood's intention: Insult humans to the degree they begin to like it. Make ridiculous films so that every one turns into TV shows. Then keep serving them insulting TV shows... they won't mind... they are 'brain dead' to quality and originality. Thank's Hollywood, I'll pass (next time at least, cause I wasted 2 hours+ watching this crap).
Nope. Yes that's right, a big no no for this one.
How can a floating ark filled with $125 Million not sink? Lose the budget please, and those crappy digital effects that resemble student projects in Maya. PI (First feature film by Aronofsky) was a masterpiece - at $60.000 budget. Look at what money does to talent... oh my, it's a sure bet each and every time.
This film was surely a huge FLOOD. Gladiator that protects flowers but slays men; Rocky crappy digitized monsters with deep and serious voices to portray fallen angels; some thousand species marching towards the arc without ONE SINGLE CLEAR shot at them - they just seemed to be a swarm of 'something', or replicas of clay, crawling towards the arc. At some point you can distinguish something that resembled an Elephant...equivalent to the one that comes up if you type "Elephant 3D Maya tutorial" in YouTube.
Remember the Fountain, The wrestler, Black Swan and so on? Great films right?. OK, then you want to already forget this one. Don't mix up the previous filmography with Noah - the film is a disappointment to both the original story and to the great actors involved in it. Oh, yes, the actors. Was there any good acting involved? Hmm... let me put it this way: I think the actors where told they where making the planet of the Apes 4 right after being attacked by rocky transformers (they were obviously going to add the Apes digitally at post production). Then there was an apocalypse... it was not planet of the Apes, it was Noah. Did it make a difference? Nope.
If they kept the actors in the desert, portrayed no arc, showed no digital rocky monsters, no armies, no flood, but had them talk between themselves and to themselves - then perhaps, Aronofksy could stand up to the name he has built so far. But money, like sugar is always a sweet temptation - one that adds a certain weight around you and inside you. This burden of a flooded title.. never leaves a directors mind.
Clint Mansell, such a great music maker, what on earth was this? Did you just use your signature on the contract for this soundtrack? Even if you where inside an ark and everything was sinking around you you couldn't tolerate such Hollywood-ed flat, noisy, boring music. Come on!
Everyone is watching TV series those days. Standards are way to low. It's similar to supermarkets and fast food. Quality does not matter, only quantity. Our brains absorb any type of junk thrown into our consciousnesses. This perhaps marks an era similar to the one portrayed in the film. The decline of Hollywood. I presume each one of us must build his own arc, an arc of consciousness and protect whatever is precious to oneself. One must not lose ones identity and essence inside this flooded society of ours. One must preserve the quality of the thing that makes us great living beings (not just human beings).
How can a floating ark filled with $125 Million not sink? Lose the budget please, and those crappy digital effects that resemble student projects in Maya. PI (First feature film by Aronofsky) was a masterpiece - at $60.000 budget. Look at what money does to talent... oh my, it's a sure bet each and every time.
This film was surely a huge FLOOD. Gladiator that protects flowers but slays men; Rocky crappy digitized monsters with deep and serious voices to portray fallen angels; some thousand species marching towards the arc without ONE SINGLE CLEAR shot at them - they just seemed to be a swarm of 'something', or replicas of clay, crawling towards the arc. At some point you can distinguish something that resembled an Elephant...equivalent to the one that comes up if you type "Elephant 3D Maya tutorial" in YouTube.
Remember the Fountain, The wrestler, Black Swan and so on? Great films right?. OK, then you want to already forget this one. Don't mix up the previous filmography with Noah - the film is a disappointment to both the original story and to the great actors involved in it. Oh, yes, the actors. Was there any good acting involved? Hmm... let me put it this way: I think the actors where told they where making the planet of the Apes 4 right after being attacked by rocky transformers (they were obviously going to add the Apes digitally at post production). Then there was an apocalypse... it was not planet of the Apes, it was Noah. Did it make a difference? Nope.
If they kept the actors in the desert, portrayed no arc, showed no digital rocky monsters, no armies, no flood, but had them talk between themselves and to themselves - then perhaps, Aronofksy could stand up to the name he has built so far. But money, like sugar is always a sweet temptation - one that adds a certain weight around you and inside you. This burden of a flooded title.. never leaves a directors mind.
Clint Mansell, such a great music maker, what on earth was this? Did you just use your signature on the contract for this soundtrack? Even if you where inside an ark and everything was sinking around you you couldn't tolerate such Hollywood-ed flat, noisy, boring music. Come on!
Everyone is watching TV series those days. Standards are way to low. It's similar to supermarkets and fast food. Quality does not matter, only quantity. Our brains absorb any type of junk thrown into our consciousnesses. This perhaps marks an era similar to the one portrayed in the film. The decline of Hollywood. I presume each one of us must build his own arc, an arc of consciousness and protect whatever is precious to oneself. One must not lose ones identity and essence inside this flooded society of ours. One must preserve the quality of the thing that makes us great living beings (not just human beings).
I often ask myself: Why do we watch movies in the first place? What do they offer us? That question arises usually after a really good movie, or after a really bad one. This movie, unfortunately for me was a bad one.
I got carried away and watched it because other reviews called it a masterpiece. Come on, please, a masterpiece of depression, ugliness, loneliness, moodiness and boredom this was. You must be sick in the mind and in the heart to like this film, moreover call it a masterpiece.
Disturbing? Yes, in a sick way. Everything was ugly, dark, dead, without essence, a journey to the abyss of decay and misery. Why watch such images? Are people so disturbed to even tolerate films like this for entertainment? Or should we not call it entertainment, see it as depiction of reality, embrace the ugliness and so on? Because if one wants to be disturbed by reality, there are plenty of really disturbing stuff happening in the 'real' world around us everyday. So what is cinema? An escape? From what? Isolate oneself in a dark room and absorb all these images in one's consciousness; why, why does it have to look dark and ugly and violent to shake our minds?
Boring? Yes. Although the cinematic views and camera angles where really interesting (EU cinema fans will appreciate it), the plot was really slow, explained nothing and did not escalate. If one has not read the book or a synopsis, one would really find this whole moving around rather boring and without reason.
Acting? Hmm, let me put it this way: It was perhaps interesting to see such a beautiful actress being transformed into this depressing being that did not seem human. But if it was not for the famous name, the character was flat.
Filming style? Badly tried to resemble the 80's. The thing is that in the 80's, movies turned out to look cheap and B rated because of lack of budget, bad equipment, lack of acting potential, bad directors and so on. Why film like that today?
Music? Creepy but sophisticated. Synced nicely with the moody scenes.
Why give it a 2? Because by no means this is an 7.2 rating movie. It is more like a 4. Also because it polluted my consciousness with disturbing images that offered nothing to me. Ah, yes, and because it was boring and wasted 2 hours of my life watching this 'decay' of the human species.
Conclusion: Have you watched the Black Swan by Aronofsky? Because that was also dark and depressing but a real masterpiece, because it had essence, it talked to the heart. Under the skin was not a good movie (if you are a normal person and not sick in the mind).
I got carried away and watched it because other reviews called it a masterpiece. Come on, please, a masterpiece of depression, ugliness, loneliness, moodiness and boredom this was. You must be sick in the mind and in the heart to like this film, moreover call it a masterpiece.
Disturbing? Yes, in a sick way. Everything was ugly, dark, dead, without essence, a journey to the abyss of decay and misery. Why watch such images? Are people so disturbed to even tolerate films like this for entertainment? Or should we not call it entertainment, see it as depiction of reality, embrace the ugliness and so on? Because if one wants to be disturbed by reality, there are plenty of really disturbing stuff happening in the 'real' world around us everyday. So what is cinema? An escape? From what? Isolate oneself in a dark room and absorb all these images in one's consciousness; why, why does it have to look dark and ugly and violent to shake our minds?
Boring? Yes. Although the cinematic views and camera angles where really interesting (EU cinema fans will appreciate it), the plot was really slow, explained nothing and did not escalate. If one has not read the book or a synopsis, one would really find this whole moving around rather boring and without reason.
Acting? Hmm, let me put it this way: It was perhaps interesting to see such a beautiful actress being transformed into this depressing being that did not seem human. But if it was not for the famous name, the character was flat.
Filming style? Badly tried to resemble the 80's. The thing is that in the 80's, movies turned out to look cheap and B rated because of lack of budget, bad equipment, lack of acting potential, bad directors and so on. Why film like that today?
Music? Creepy but sophisticated. Synced nicely with the moody scenes.
Why give it a 2? Because by no means this is an 7.2 rating movie. It is more like a 4. Also because it polluted my consciousness with disturbing images that offered nothing to me. Ah, yes, and because it was boring and wasted 2 hours of my life watching this 'decay' of the human species.
Conclusion: Have you watched the Black Swan by Aronofsky? Because that was also dark and depressing but a real masterpiece, because it had essence, it talked to the heart. Under the skin was not a good movie (if you are a normal person and not sick in the mind).