Considering I watched Blue Ruin just recently and my opinion towards it was pretty positive and the acclaim this film has received, my expectations were very high, and I usually try to keep them meassured to avoid any possible disappointments. And although I didn't find Green Room to be a masterpiece, it's still a very good film, although slightly inferior to Saulnier's previous film. The first reason for this is that Blue Ruin 's story carried more thought-provoking implications than the increasingly savage fight for survival that Green Room ultimately becomes, and unlike the subtle and well-constructed characterization of Dwight Evans in that film, the characters here aren't particularly interesting, with the exception of Patrick Stewart's main villain, Darcy.
Stewart gives a very effective and understated performance, although it's a shame that Saulnier doesn't explore his character further. Rather intelligently, he uses his trademark mellow voice with opposite effect, providing Darcy with a mumbling, soft spoken tone that ultimately makes every methodical order he provides throughout the film to sound extremely sinister.
Much has been spoken about the film's use of graphic violence, and Saulnier definitely maintains the same fatalistic atmosphere carried over from Blue Ruin as well as its sudden bursts of violence. There are two particular moments so unbelievably graphic they're impossible to forget soon enough. Another aspect I like is how Saulnier incorporates a lot of material into a 95 minutes film, despite the fact that this and Blue Ruin both suffer from pacing problems in their second act. Saulnier makes expert use of Chekov's Gun throughout the film in a way that feels organic and at the same meticulously planned.
Probably Spielberg's best film since Munich, Bridge of Spies is a restrained and reflective film about the tense political climate of the Cold War and doing the right thing amidst the vast paranoia of that time period. Continuing his directing approach from Lincoln, Spielberg is equally restrained in his storytelling choices and narrative style. The opening ten minutes, a mostly wordless sequence without music lifted straight from police thrillers of the 70s, showcase this masterful approach, quite different from the usual Spielberg. However, once more, the trademark Spielberg sentimentality kept mostly in check for 95% of the film makes its appearance in the closing moments. Spielberg can't quite control himself from including schmaltz at least twice per film, but the final scene still provides an thematically interesting, if unsubtle, shot.
Kaminski's cinematography is unsurprisingly brillant and perfectly compliments Spielberg's bold visual staging. In a time where many mainstream films are edited within an inch of their life, Spielberg remains with his consistent use of brillant long takes that nevertheless don't call attention to themselves. For a director repeatedly criticized for being commercial and excessive, Spielberg continues to prove his knowledge of the craft.
Tom Hanks doesn't really stretch himself here in terms of acting, but he's undeniably solid. Hanks isn't really the kind of actor known for being diverse in his choice of roles, but at the same time he's a consistently reliable one. His conversations with Mark Rylance, in a fascinating and greatly understated performance, are the highlight of the film.
Bridge of Spies won't be remembered among Spielberg's classics, but remains an involving and stunningly made film.
There are a number of criticisms consistently leveled at Tom Cruise, but an undeniable fact is that despite his personal life, Cruise's level of commitment to every film he makes, good or bad, is astounding. His insistence to performing increasingly insane stunts is not only commendable but extremely rare among movie stars and CGI-saturated films.Rogue Nation features two even more insane stunts performed by Cruise and captured in-camera than Ghost Protocol , but this isn't the only highlight of the film.
Frequent Cruise collaborator Christopher McQuarrie proves surprinsingly adept at staging the numerous set-pieces, which feature minimal dialogue and swift editing by Eddie Hamilton. McQuarrie seems to have taken a pagebook out of George Miller's manual of action sequences, considering the minimal dialogue these contain. It proves refreshingly inmersive and a appreciated change of pace after more talky and noisy blockbusters like Furious 7 and Age of Ultron.
The opera sequence, a homage to Hitchcock and De Palma, is easily one of the greatest film sequences of the year so far. The underwater infiltration and a relentless motorcycle chase elevate the film to such action heights that as a result, the third act feels much more simple and despite its slight predictability, it simultaneously proves to be very suspensful at times.
Despite my consistent praise, the film isn't perfect. The editing in the fight scenes is occasionally choppy compared to McQuarrie's previous effort Jack Reacher and the frequent double-crosses prove to be somewhat confusing but neverthless interesting. However, these are minor problems in a film surprisingly engrossing and greatly entertaining that rarely slows down. If Cruise and company can keep this level of quality, more films please.
While there's still a part of me that wishes to have watched Edgar Wright's vision, Ant-Man still surpassed my low expectations and proved to be an improvement on Age of Ultron on several aspects. While Ultron had an excessively large scale, this film actually takes the opposite approach: the stakes are high, but not "world destruction" high. Another improvement is the use of humor. I'll admit that although many jokes in Ultron made me laugh, Whedon misplaced their use in several ocassions, causing an unfocused tone, frequently switching between serious and dumb at the drop of a hat. Here, despite a few serious scenes, the tone is consistently pretty light.
The CGI is impressive throughout, with the first shrinking sequence a particular highlight. Several sequences reminded me of Wright's style, such as the "tip montages", although surprinsingly enough, despite containing his humour and similar editing style, weren't part of his script. Paul Rudd is effective in a role that doesn't ask too much of him, Evangeline Lilly was surprisingly tolerable considering her mediocre role as Tauriel, and Michael Douglas proves that he makes a scene instantly more interesting by his mere presence.
Batman is a clear case of style over substance. Burton's gothic visual aesthetic looms over every shot of the film, which guarantees that if you lose interest on the almost non-existent plot, at the very least you'll be amazed by the striking compositions. Rewatching the film after many years, I noticed the screenplay is its weakest link, filled with cardboard characters such as the boring love interest, the comic relief reporter and other forgettable characters.
The film often resembles a series of loosely connected sequences clumsily strung together, given that Burton is less interested in plot and the titular character and more interested in the crazy villain, vividly played by Jack Nicholson. Although admittedly dated by Heath Ledger's terrifying interpretation of the character, Nicholson's Joker still remains entertaining and proves as demented as his successor, just lacking the unstoppable terrorist quality of Ledger's turn. As a result of the focus on the villain and, inexplicably, in Kim Basinger's character, Keaton barely figures in the film.
The action sequences, which are surprisingly few, are more mediocre than I remembered. Suffering from poor choreography, they only serve to reinforce that Burton's always been poor at staging action. Despite this, its production design still remains as impressive as always, and Burton provides an undeniably comic-book look to Gotham City, which the recent Nolan films sorely lacked. There are also a number of sequences which play without dialogue, which is a fresh approach compared to Nolan's nearly non-stop expositional dialogue. And lest I forget, Danny Elfman's frenetic soundtrack is unforgettable and clearly compensates for Burton's clumsily staged action.
Batman is excessively stylish and clearly dated. However, its striking production design, greatly directed sequences and its stylish cinematography still make it an enjoyable ride.
The Terminator has long been one of my favourite films and rewatching it on the big screen just a few hours ago, I realized to what extent the film is embedded in my memory. I could remember practically every sequence, every dialogue and every track of Brad Fiedel's unmistakable soundtrack. If that isn't sign of a film's impact, then nothing is.
Although the sequel is admittedly the superior film in many aspects, it possesses a more commercial approach as opposed to the nightmarish atmosphere of The Terminator. Cameron's early films were masterclasses in tension and non-stop action sequences, and he consistently exhibits these qualities throughout the film's numerous set-pieces, which provide a relentless and intense experience with few contemporary equals. Also of note is the fact that unlike Cameron's recent and overbloated works, there's not a single unnecessary moment in the film.
My enjoyment of the film still remains as intact as usual despite the dated special effects and ocassionally clunky acting from the leads. Linda Hamilton's performance, although superior in the sequel, is still very fitting as the innocent and desperate Sarah Connor. Michael Biehn provides a rugged quality to his character and Arnold still remains an undeniably intimidating presence.
The Terminator is a unrelenting action film which will long remain to be among my top films of all time.
Rewatching this film in preparation for the upcoming The Force Awakens was as tedious an experience as I predicted. It was the first time I rewatched this in many years and even though I've been long aware of its countless flaws, I noticed even more than I expected. Lucas' obsession with computer-generated effects overwhelm the film within its opening minutes, and it's noticeable that it was his main interest, as the screenplay displays an amazing amount of mediocrity even by his standards, the acting is equally lifeless (likely not helped by the fact that the entire cast is simply standing around in CGI landscapes throughout and Lucas' uninspired directing) and the story is downright convoluted and incomprehensible.
Jar-Jar Binks is so horrible and stupid I won't even waste more words on him, one of the most iconic villains of all time is reduced to a stupid and unconvicing kid that yells YUPI every ten minutes, Obi-Wan is just there, Liam Neeson lends some gravitas to his stubborn character only because he's Liam Neeson and he lends presence to everything, Portman looks lost, and the Jedi are demystified, instead turned into tedious bureaucrats. The countless political discussions give further proof, in case there was any doubt, that Lucas is terrible at building any sort of intrigue whatsoever.
The few highlights include the pod race sequence, despite the stupid cutaways to the commentators, the climatic lightsaber duel, despite the fact that it looks elaborately coreographed, and John Williams' soundtrack, as usual. The Phantom Menace is an incredibly tedious and dissapointing experience, given the unlimited potencial in further exploring the galaxy far far away.
Undeniably one of the most brutal and devastating films about revenge ever made, I Saw the Devil provides an intense and discomforting experience like few other films. However, I found it somewhat overrated; it's nowhere near Kim Jee-woon's worst film, that would be the still entertaining The Last Stand, but considering the consistent high praise it's been getting, I couldn't help but be slightly dissapointed by it.
Lee Byung-hun and Choi Min-sik give extremely committed performances, with Min-sik portraying one of the most disgusting and terrifying serial killers I've ever seen in a movie. It's a testament to Min-sik's acting that he takes this somewhat one-note character and makes him utterly monstrous. Every time you think he cannot surpass himself in depravity, he actually does. Byung-hun, in his third consecutive film with Jee-woon, makes palpable the despair and moral descent of his character.
Director Kim Jee-woon certainly pushes the boundaries of on-screen violence in a mainstream movie and although there are numerous shocking scenes of unspeakable brutality, there's a point around the halfway mark where the violence becomes so over-the-top that it loses quite a bit of credibility during some crucial sequences.
The amount of damage that Choi Min-sik's character endures throughout the film is simply impossible to take seriously, given that he endures getting his head bashed countless times and he's pretty much intact two days later, gets his Achilles Tendon slashed and then keeps walking with a slight limp, and survives a brutal car crash with barely a scratch on him.
Despite my misgivings, I Saw the Devil is an shocking and extreme revenge film with a downright brutal and heartbreaking ending that proves once again what other South Korean films about the subject have already proven: revenge is worthless.
The long delayed Jurassic World has finally arrived and generally confirmed my pretty low expectations going in. Maybe it's the aftereffect of watching this after the refreshing insanity that was Fury Road, a film I will inevitably compare to every upcoming release this year, or the fact that for all the homages and emulations to Spielberg's classic, Jurassic World never feels particularly inspired, only workmanlike.
While Jurassic Park excelled in its masterful set-pieces and simple but highly effective characters, Jurassic World suffers from a lack of memorable characters (suffering once again from the "Spielberg child syndrome", but even worse than in a Spielberg-directed-film), an abundance of eye-rolling moments and unnecessary subplots, which only serve to prove once again that humans in the Jurassic Park universe never learn from their mistakes. They'd get along perfectly with the people from the Alien universe.
The hybrid fells appropiately terrifying and there are certainly more deaths than in any Jurassic film, but oddly enough, the CGI mostly looks inferior to the revolutionary visual effects of the original. Chris Pratt doesn't make much of an impression compared to his charismatic performance in Guardians of the Galaxy and D'Onofrio is sadly wasted in a stereotypical villain role.
Despite being entertaining for a couple of hours, Jurassic World doesn't retain the wonder nor the great directing from the original film.
Mockingjay - Part 1 continues the semmingly endless Hollywood tradition of splitting in two the last book of a franchise. While I admit I haven't read the books yet, it's extremely noticeable that the film is only one half of a complete story, Given that the only two key plot developments take place during the climax, the film is replete with repetitive scenes depicting endless discussions between the senior members of District 13 and Katniss Everdeen,
who has now reluctantly accepted her role as the Mockingjay as a symbol of rebellion against the Capitol.
Returning director Francis Lawrence opts for an increased use of hand-held camera, sparingly used in Catching Fire, and provides a claustrophobic but mostly monochoromatic look to the film, which takes largely indoors. The ensemble and great cast is sadly wasted, and not even Julianne Moore and the late Phillip Seymour Hoffman get to make much of an impression. Jennifer Lawrence, in a melodramatic and ocassionally overreacted performance, doesn't have much to do in the film, as Katniss spends practically 90% of the film constantly whining and crying. Hopefully Mockingjay Part 2 will provide a memorable finale.
Exhilarating, frenetic, visually inventive and utterly insane, Fury Road is definitely an experience. George Miller, unlike most contemporary directors, gives you all the important information about the film's crazy post-apocalyptic world through creative and incredibly detailed visual storytelling. There is no unnecessary exposition or forced conflicts between the characters.
Tom Hardy gives another of his typically intense performances as Max. Communicating mostly through grunts and whispering utterances, he provides a more tormented and unstable version of the character than Gibson. Charlize Theron gives a commanding and strong performance as Imperator Furiosa, who actually proves to be the film's main character.
John Seale's breathtaking cinematography also proves essential to establishing this ravaged world, with an abundance of saturated oranges and blues. The action, as the trailers repeatedly proved, is deranged, excessive and jaw-dropping. With the exception of a couple of brief moments, it always maintains visual geography, a fact I always appreciate. There's an insane amount of world building, far more than in the previous Mad Max installments, and there's also a guy with a FLAME-THROWING guitar, who's there for the only reason that it looks cool and completely demented.
It's actually fascinating that a film of this scale, visual creativity, all-around craziness and with a feminist approach got financed by a major studio and with a $150 million budget no less.
After rewatching the excruciating experience that The Phantom Menace was, Attack of the Clones predictably lives up to the mediocre standards set by its predecessor. Every filmmaking aspect, to the alarmingly corny screenplay, the overuse of early 2000s CGI, the stiff performances and the lifeless direction by Lucas only serve to make the film feel every minute of its 142 minute runtime.
Set 10 years after The Phantom Menace, the film follows Anakin's mission to protect Senator Amidala after repeated assassination attempts and falling in love, while Obi-Wan Kenobi attempts to uncover the responsible behind these attempts and the creation of a clone army. While it may sound like a great Romance-Mystery structure on paper, Lucas does everything possible to squander the potential for making a compelling story. Doesn't help matters that the main love story is filled with the corniest dialogue imaginable and that the actors have absolutely zero chemistry, which makes it impossible to accept as the transcendental romance that Lucas clearly intends.
The performances are even more uninspired this time around, as the actors mostly look bored and lost amongst the countless CGI landscapes. Much has been rightfully said about Christensen's performance, as he proves to be absolutely dreadful as Anakin, turning him into a whiny, creepy and self-absorbed asshole with delirious of grandeur. Ewan McGregor and Christopher Lee are the only ones who even try to look as if they give a fuck about their surroundings.
The script is lifeless, corny and once again more concerned with boring political discussions than with providing great characters and memorable adventure. It seems that Lucas forgot what was the spirit of Star Wars when he set out to make the prequels. The only great aspect is John Williams' unsurprisingly breathtaking score, which the filmmakers clearly noticed as they put it constantly in the background to add drama and excitement when there is none. His love theme for Anakin and Padme is one of the greatest themes of the saga, which makes all the more painful as it clearly deserves a better film than this one.
Attack of the Clones is overlong, boring, overloaded with dated CGI and a clear sign that Lucas' obsession with technology long surpassed his attention to good storytelling.
Taken 3 is the very definition of an unnecessary and extremely mediocre sequel. Actually second sequel, because we already had to bear the repetitive and boring semi-remake to the first film that was Taken 2. Returning screenwriters Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kramen, surely reminded by Liam Neeson that their original set-up could no longer be repeated, instead settled on a cheap rip-off of The Fugitive, only without the tense action sequences or the well defined characters. Instead we get Liam Neeson doing what he used to do best as an action star, as it is sadly apparent that his age has finally caught up with him and he is phoning it in just for the paycheck, and Forest Whitaker trying to solve an extremely "difficult" case by eating bagels.
The nearly two hours running time only compounds the numerous flaws further, as the film doesn't have enough plot to sustain your attention. Olivier Megaton once again fills the film with terrible action sequences, nauseating cinematography and epiletic-inducing editing. Seriously, there must be approximately like 1 million cuts in 109 minutes. I only saw the film for curiosity, knowing full well what I was getting into, but I was still amazed by its utter incompetence in every aspect. My only hope is that they'll call it quits after this one.
The sequel to 2012's breakout superhero hit, Age of Ultron obviously serves as a middle film in the MCU. Although the stakes are significantly higher than last time, some aspects feel a little underwhelming and inconsequential. Joss Whedon still proves adept at staging massive action sequences and giving his characters endless quips to throw at each other at even the worst of times, but taking into account that he has discussed several times that the making of the film exhausted him, it's ocassionally noticeable, as he includes, by necessity from the powers that be in the MCU, many character cameos and hints of future plots.
The weaker aspect of the film is definitely the inclusion of the Maximoff twins. Quicksilver made quite the impression with his powers and presence in X-Men last year with only 15 minutes of screentime, but here Aaron Taylor Johnson doesn't even come close to that. His weird and obviously forced accent doesn't really help him. Elizabeth Olsen fares better, although her accent also proves to be distracting.
Despite these flaws, the film still proves to be highly entertaining, although it doesn't quite reach the heights of the first film. The acting is once again great, with everyone fitting comfortably in their roles. Ultron, although a little wasted, is helped by Spader's menacing voice. One thing I particularly appreciated, especially compared to every previous Marvel film, is that the characters showed their vulnerability quite a bit more and for once, there was emphasis in evacuating civilians before unleasing a war in their midst. Whedon's VFX-assisted long takes once again make a couple of appreciated appearances, and Vision finally provides a cool flesh and bone role for Paul Bettany. His first scene was really one of the best scenes in the film.
The Imitation Game is another biopic in a seemingly endless list of biopics that come out every year indistinguishable from one another. For all its self-important attitude and melodrama, it doesn't even attempt to shine above other similarly themed films; it actually revels in following convention to a T. Morten Tydlum, of whom I've only watched his acclaimed feature "Headhunters", which I quite liked, here follows the British Biopic Manual at every second, including but not limited to:
* Heart-stirring but otherwise functional soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat.
* Casting great British actors and giving them stereotypical roles.
* Casting Benedict Cumberbatch in another misunderstood and antisocial genius.
* Making up many unnecesary plot points.
* Hundreds of historical inaccuracies.
And so on, and so forth. Cumberbatch gives a good performance, but one that feels too manufactured and rehearsed. I still can't understand how Cumberbatch and Bradley Cooper were nominated over Jake Gylenhall's masterful performance in "Nightcrawler", but that's for another review. Speaking of undeserved Oscar nominations, even more baffling was the nomination for Tydlum's serviceable but entirely forgettable directing over David Fincher, Dan Gilroy, Christopher Nolan, etc. I guess the Oscar voters will have a heart attack if they even think of nominating someone who doesn't direct a polished British drama.
Now, to my biggest gripe with the film, the historical inaccuracies. Of course every biopic has them, it's practically inevitable when doing a film you can't include every fact and person or otherwise it would be endless. But the matter is that other biopics haven't suffered in quality because of this; Spike Lee's Malcolm X is a monumental example of this and that film even now remains underseen and underrated, and was even practically ignored at the Oscars. The Imitation Game suffers because it's noticeable when something was drastically altered from history just to make it more digerible for a mainstream audience. Although I found it a little better on first viewing, my opinion on the film lowered when I read about the inaccuracies, such as Turing's personality, greatly altered to make him much more socially isolated than he actually was. Maybe the filmmakers thought he wouldn't be relatable or sympathetic otherwise, but given his eventual tragic treatment by the British government, I think they were rather mistaken.
Despite all these flaws, the film remains an entertaining affair throughout; it's just that it never elevates itself from nothing else than an affable but completely forgettable film. At least it's a little better than "The Theory of Everything".
Crank is not what I'd call a great piece of filmmaking. It is, however, what I'd call a great example of a hyperkinetic piece of entertainment so unabashedly excessive, outrageous and completely insane I cannot help but admire it for those qualities. Within the opening 5 minutes, I was already along for the ride, after a great opening sequence which puts you right into the shoes of Chev Chelios through a disorienting POV shot. Jason Statham rules the film with his trademark deadpan attitude, which fits perfectly given that someone has to acknowledge within the film itself the absurdity of his dilemma. Although the film runs a little out of steam by the time Amy Smart shows up and the final half hour doesn't live up to the frenetic insanity of the opening 45 minutes, Crank is a great choice to spend 90 minutes to witness some over the top craziness.
Princess Mononoke was actually my introduction to the amazing works of Hayao Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli as a whole, although I had already seen one previous film by the studio: the excellent and heartbreaking Grave of the Fireflies. This film was the second anime that I had ever watched up until that moment, and when it ended, I couldn't believe how I had gone so much time without even bothering to look upon these amazing works of art. Boasting an incredibly epic story and tremendous stakes, Miyazaki probably made his darkest film, which shocked me after seeing all his subsequent films, which always deal with adult themes but never feature so much disturbing content or violence as this film.
Miyazaki, as usual, shows you the endless magic of animation and the level of detail in the enviornments is simply a sight to behold. In an interesting trivia which I realized after seeing every Miyazaki film, this is his only work which doesn't feature flying scenes whatsoever. Joe Hisaishi's breathtaking score grabs your attention right from the ominous opening scene and the ending is shocking in its poetic beauty.
Despite the decidedly mixed reaction to 2012's reboot, I appreciated the film although I still very much preferred Sam Raimi's debut film. However, it's an entirely different matter when it comes to my opinion on this film. Besides the obvious argument that a sequel to an already unnecessary reboot is even more unnecessary, this film still had an unlimited amount of potential in terms of character development and exploring intersecting story lines. And to be honest, it does try to do this, maybe too much on the intersecting story lines aspect, but it never manages a balance between an individual story and the overarching storyline already slated for the upcoming Sinister Six spin-offs.
The result is a mess of a plot, an utterly waste of over-the-top in a bad way cliché villains with even more cliché motivations, numerous jarring tonal shifts which already affect the film when it's started barely ten minutes ago. For instance, the opening chase sequence featuring an throwaway cameo by the great Paul Giamatti, here utterly wasted as an constantly screaming villain with a terrible Russian accent, shifts constantly between trying to be suspenseful, funny, dramatic and violent all at once. Certainly the fault lies in Marc Webb's inconsistent direction throughout the entire film and his inability to decently and creatively stage an action sequence and Pietro Scalia's choppy editing, which takes out the entire momentum of this 142 minute long film, trying to make an epic superhero film out of one that really didn't need to be all that big.
On the positive side, most of the acting performances are still solid, particularly Garfield, Stone and Field, even though they can't make miracles with the cliché-ridden script they've being handed to. DeHaan's performance suffers from being provided with a whiny and underdeveloped character, and Jamie Foxx, another great character actor, is also terribly wasted here as the one dimensional Electro.
But most importantly, because of trying to be so many films at once, forgets the most important element the previous Spider-Man films had, even Spider-Man 3, despite its undeniable flaws; the human aspect. The only scenes that really touch this are any between Garfield and Stone, but despite their undeniable chemistry, they also end up becoming nothing more than a tiresome on and off couple, which undermines the proceedings since we already know the ending of it.
Undeniably the best action film of 2014. Gareth Evans outdoes himself after the brutality of the first film with even more insanely awesome and sickeningly violent sequences.
The film is much more plot driven than its predecessor, devoting much of its running time to world-building and the introduction of some brutally efficient killers such as Hammer Girl, the Assassin and Prakoso, who stars in probably the most violent fight of the entire film next to the climax. Despite the sometimes confusing plot and some overlong segments, Evans fulfills expectations even better than expected with a final hour filled with sequence after sequence of shocking and tremendously shot and edited action. It's really a relief that in this time of overuse of quick cuts that Evans allows you to see and feel every bone crushing punch. The only technical flaw I can find to the fight sequences is that Evans overuses shaky cam, but not to the point of disorienting you spacially, as you can still see everything clearly.
The climatic car chase and the final kitchen showdown, a grueling six minute sequence, is probably one of the greatest and certainly the most brutal fight scene I've ever seen in a movie. It's hard to imagine how Evans will top himself when he releases The Raid 3, but if he managed with this sequel, I trust him to do it one more time.
Spielberg's masterpiece, and one of the very best films of the 1990s. The masterful filmmaking and the flawless execution of the various horrifying sequences portraying the cruelty and viciousness suffered by the Jews leave you speechless.
Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes give astounding performances as two opposites, and it's a crime that Fiennes was robbed of the Oscar, as his character is simply one of the most terrifying villains of all time.
A great experience. Although it is Nolan's most ambitious film by a mile, it's not his best, as it suffers from the usual flaws found in every Nolan film, mainly clunky dialogue. However, that doesn't detract from the amazing concept and breathtaking visuals it consistently offers.
The emotional core of the film has already proven to be a divisive concept amongst critics and viewers, but I thought that for the most part, it worked perfectly, especially in a heartbreaking scene which I won't spoil here.
Matthew McConaughey, once more, proves himself as one of the great contemporary actors in Hollywood, giving Cooper a emotional character arc and making him believable at all times. The rest of the cast, although dealing with underdeveloped characters, do a great job.
The CGI is out of this world and proves it can make a greater impact on a film if it's used selectively as Nolan uses it here. The 169 minutes running time, despite a questionable plot-wise second act, keeps you glued to your seat. In my theater, there were only about 20 people, but a young couple next to me was already debating the film when it concluded. That proves that, whether you liked it or not, you will remember Interstellar, which I think is the greatest achievement that a film can accomplish.
Comments 1 - 22 of 22
Movie comment on Green Room
Jordan95
Considering I watched Blue Ruin just recently and my opinion towards it was pretty positive and the acclaim this film has received, my expectations were very high, and I usually try to keep them meassured to avoid any possible disappointments. And although I didn't find Green Room to be a masterpiece, it's still a very good film, although slightly inferior to Saulnier's previous film. The first reason for this is that Blue Ruin 's story carried more thought-provoking implications than the increasingly savage fight for survival that Green Room ultimately becomes, and unlike the subtle and well-constructed characterization of Dwight Evans in that film, the characters here aren't particularly interesting, with the exception of Patrick Stewart's main villain, Darcy.Stewart gives a very effective and understated performance, although it's a shame that Saulnier doesn't explore his character further. Rather intelligently, he uses his trademark mellow voice with opposite effect, providing Darcy with a mumbling, soft spoken tone that ultimately makes every methodical order he provides throughout the film to sound extremely sinister.
Much has been spoken about the film's use of graphic violence, and Saulnier definitely maintains the same fatalistic atmosphere carried over from Blue Ruin as well as its sudden bursts of violence. There are two particular moments so unbelievably graphic they're impossible to forget soon enough. Another aspect I like is how Saulnier incorporates a lot of material into a 95 minutes film, despite the fact that this and Blue Ruin both suffer from pacing problems in their second act. Saulnier makes expert use of Chekov's Gun throughout the film in a way that feels organic and at the same meticulously planned.
Movie comment on Bridge of Spies
Jordan95
Probably Spielberg's best film since Munich, Bridge of Spies is a restrained and reflective film about the tense political climate of the Cold War and doing the right thing amidst the vast paranoia of that time period. Continuing his directing approach from Lincoln, Spielberg is equally restrained in his storytelling choices and narrative style. The opening ten minutes, a mostly wordless sequence without music lifted straight from police thrillers of the 70s, showcase this masterful approach, quite different from the usual Spielberg. However, once more, the trademark Spielberg sentimentality kept mostly in check for 95% of the film makes its appearance in the closing moments. Spielberg can't quite control himself from including schmaltz at least twice per film, but the final scene still provides an thematically interesting, if unsubtle, shot.Kaminski's cinematography is unsurprisingly brillant and perfectly compliments Spielberg's bold visual staging. In a time where many mainstream films are edited within an inch of their life, Spielberg remains with his consistent use of brillant long takes that nevertheless don't call attention to themselves. For a director repeatedly criticized for being commercial and excessive, Spielberg continues to prove his knowledge of the craft.
Tom Hanks doesn't really stretch himself here in terms of acting, but he's undeniably solid. Hanks isn't really the kind of actor known for being diverse in his choice of roles, but at the same time he's a consistently reliable one. His conversations with Mark Rylance, in a fascinating and greatly understated performance, are the highlight of the film.
Bridge of Spies won't be remembered among Spielberg's classics, but remains an involving and stunningly made film.
Movie comment on Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation
Jordan95
There are a number of criticisms consistently leveled at Tom Cruise, but an undeniable fact is that despite his personal life, Cruise's level of commitment to every film he makes, good or bad, is astounding. His insistence to performing increasingly insane stunts is not only commendable but extremely rare among movie stars and CGI-saturated films.Rogue Nation features two even more insane stunts performed by Cruise and captured in-camera than Ghost Protocol , but this isn't the only highlight of the film.Frequent Cruise collaborator Christopher McQuarrie proves surprinsingly adept at staging the numerous set-pieces, which feature minimal dialogue and swift editing by Eddie Hamilton. McQuarrie seems to have taken a pagebook out of George Miller's manual of action sequences, considering the minimal dialogue these contain. It proves refreshingly inmersive and a appreciated change of pace after more talky and noisy blockbusters like Furious 7 and Age of Ultron.
The opera sequence, a homage to Hitchcock and De Palma, is easily one of the greatest film sequences of the year so far. The underwater infiltration and a relentless motorcycle chase elevate the film to such action heights that as a result, the third act feels much more simple and despite its slight predictability, it simultaneously proves to be very suspensful at times.
Despite my consistent praise, the film isn't perfect. The editing in the fight scenes is occasionally choppy compared to McQuarrie's previous effort Jack Reacher and the frequent double-crosses prove to be somewhat confusing but neverthless interesting. However, these are minor problems in a film surprisingly engrossing and greatly entertaining that rarely slows down. If Cruise and company can keep this level of quality, more films please.
Movie comment on Ant-Man
Jordan95
While there's still a part of me that wishes to have watched Edgar Wright's vision, Ant-Man still surpassed my low expectations and proved to be an improvement on Age of Ultron on several aspects. While Ultron had an excessively large scale, this film actually takes the opposite approach: the stakes are high, but not "world destruction" high. Another improvement is the use of humor. I'll admit that although many jokes in Ultron made me laugh, Whedon misplaced their use in several ocassions, causing an unfocused tone, frequently switching between serious and dumb at the drop of a hat. Here, despite a few serious scenes, the tone is consistently pretty light.The CGI is impressive throughout, with the first shrinking sequence a particular highlight. Several sequences reminded me of Wright's style, such as the "tip montages", although surprinsingly enough, despite containing his humour and similar editing style, weren't part of his script. Paul Rudd is effective in a role that doesn't ask too much of him, Evangeline Lilly was surprisingly tolerable considering her mediocre role as Tauriel, and Michael Douglas proves that he makes a scene instantly more interesting by his mere presence.
Movie comment on Batman
Jordan95
Batman is a clear case of style over substance. Burton's gothic visual aesthetic looms over every shot of the film, which guarantees that if you lose interest on the almost non-existent plot, at the very least you'll be amazed by the striking compositions. Rewatching the film after many years, I noticed the screenplay is its weakest link, filled with cardboard characters such as the boring love interest, the comic relief reporter and other forgettable characters.The film often resembles a series of loosely connected sequences clumsily strung together, given that Burton is less interested in plot and the titular character and more interested in the crazy villain, vividly played by Jack Nicholson. Although admittedly dated by Heath Ledger's terrifying interpretation of the character, Nicholson's Joker still remains entertaining and proves as demented as his successor, just lacking the unstoppable terrorist quality of Ledger's turn. As a result of the focus on the villain and, inexplicably, in Kim Basinger's character, Keaton barely figures in the film.
The action sequences, which are surprisingly few, are more mediocre than I remembered. Suffering from poor choreography, they only serve to reinforce that Burton's always been poor at staging action. Despite this, its production design still remains as impressive as always, and Burton provides an undeniably comic-book look to Gotham City, which the recent Nolan films sorely lacked. There are also a number of sequences which play without dialogue, which is a fresh approach compared to Nolan's nearly non-stop expositional dialogue. And lest I forget, Danny Elfman's frenetic soundtrack is unforgettable and clearly compensates for Burton's clumsily staged action.
Batman is excessively stylish and clearly dated. However, its striking production design, greatly directed sequences and its stylish cinematography still make it an enjoyable ride.
Movie comment on The Terminator
Jordan95
The Terminator has long been one of my favourite films and rewatching it on the big screen just a few hours ago, I realized to what extent the film is embedded in my memory. I could remember practically every sequence, every dialogue and every track of Brad Fiedel's unmistakable soundtrack. If that isn't sign of a film's impact, then nothing is.Although the sequel is admittedly the superior film in many aspects, it possesses a more commercial approach as opposed to the nightmarish atmosphere of The Terminator. Cameron's early films were masterclasses in tension and non-stop action sequences, and he consistently exhibits these qualities throughout the film's numerous set-pieces, which provide a relentless and intense experience with few contemporary equals. Also of note is the fact that unlike Cameron's recent and overbloated works, there's not a single unnecessary moment in the film.
My enjoyment of the film still remains as intact as usual despite the dated special effects and ocassionally clunky acting from the leads. Linda Hamilton's performance, although superior in the sequel, is still very fitting as the innocent and desperate Sarah Connor. Michael Biehn provides a rugged quality to his character and Arnold still remains an undeniably intimidating presence.
The Terminator is a unrelenting action film which will long remain to be among my top films of all time.
Movie comment on Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace
Jordan95
Rewatching this film in preparation for the upcoming The Force Awakens was as tedious an experience as I predicted. It was the first time I rewatched this in many years and even though I've been long aware of its countless flaws, I noticed even more than I expected. Lucas' obsession with computer-generated effects overwhelm the film within its opening minutes, and it's noticeable that it was his main interest, as the screenplay displays an amazing amount of mediocrity even by his standards, the acting is equally lifeless (likely not helped by the fact that the entire cast is simply standing around in CGI landscapes throughout and Lucas' uninspired directing) and the story is downright convoluted and incomprehensible.Jar-Jar Binks is so horrible and stupid I won't even waste more words on him, one of the most iconic villains of all time is reduced to a stupid and unconvicing kid that yells YUPI every ten minutes, Obi-Wan is just there, Liam Neeson lends some gravitas to his stubborn character only because he's Liam Neeson and he lends presence to everything, Portman looks lost, and the Jedi are demystified, instead turned into tedious bureaucrats. The countless political discussions give further proof, in case there was any doubt, that Lucas is terrible at building any sort of intrigue whatsoever.
The few highlights include the pod race sequence, despite the stupid cutaways to the commentators, the climatic lightsaber duel, despite the fact that it looks elaborately coreographed, and John Williams' soundtrack, as usual. The Phantom Menace is an incredibly tedious and dissapointing experience, given the unlimited potencial in further exploring the galaxy far far away.
Movie comment on Ang-ma-reul bo-at-da
Jordan95
Undeniably one of the most brutal and devastating films about revenge ever made, I Saw the Devil provides an intense and discomforting experience like few other films. However, I found it somewhat overrated; it's nowhere near Kim Jee-woon's worst film, that would be the still entertaining The Last Stand, but considering the consistent high praise it's been getting, I couldn't help but be slightly dissapointed by it.Lee Byung-hun and Choi Min-sik give extremely committed performances, with Min-sik portraying one of the most disgusting and terrifying serial killers I've ever seen in a movie. It's a testament to Min-sik's acting that he takes this somewhat one-note character and makes him utterly monstrous. Every time you think he cannot surpass himself in depravity, he actually does. Byung-hun, in his third consecutive film with Jee-woon, makes palpable the despair and moral descent of his character.
Director Kim Jee-woon certainly pushes the boundaries of on-screen violence in a mainstream movie and although there are numerous shocking scenes of unspeakable brutality, there's a point around the halfway mark where the violence becomes so over-the-top that it loses quite a bit of credibility during some crucial sequences.
Despite my misgivings, I Saw the Devil is an shocking and extreme revenge film with a downright brutal and heartbreaking ending that proves once again what other South Korean films about the subject have already proven: revenge is worthless.
Movie comment on Jurassic World
Jordan95
The long delayed Jurassic World has finally arrived and generally confirmed my pretty low expectations going in. Maybe it's the aftereffect of watching this after the refreshing insanity that was Fury Road, a film I will inevitably compare to every upcoming release this year, or the fact that for all the homages and emulations to Spielberg's classic, Jurassic World never feels particularly inspired, only workmanlike.While Jurassic Park excelled in its masterful set-pieces and simple but highly effective characters, Jurassic World suffers from a lack of memorable characters (suffering once again from the "Spielberg child syndrome", but even worse than in a Spielberg-directed-film), an abundance of eye-rolling moments and unnecessary subplots, which only serve to prove once again that humans in the Jurassic Park universe never learn from their mistakes. They'd get along perfectly with the people from the Alien universe.
The hybrid fells appropiately terrifying and there are certainly more deaths than in any Jurassic film, but oddly enough, the CGI mostly looks inferior to the revolutionary visual effects of the original. Chris Pratt doesn't make much of an impression compared to his charismatic performance in Guardians of the Galaxy and D'Onofrio is sadly wasted in a stereotypical villain role.
Despite being entertaining for a couple of hours, Jurassic World doesn't retain the wonder nor the great directing from the original film.
Movie comment on The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1
Jordan95
Mockingjay - Part 1 continues the semmingly endless Hollywood tradition of splitting in two the last book of a franchise. While I admit I haven't read the books yet, it's extremely noticeable that the film is only one half of a complete story, Given that the only two key plot developments take place during the climax, the film is replete with repetitive scenes depicting endless discussions between the senior members of District 13 and Katniss Everdeen,Returning director Francis Lawrence opts for an increased use of hand-held camera, sparingly used in Catching Fire, and provides a claustrophobic but mostly monochoromatic look to the film, which takes largely indoors. The ensemble and great cast is sadly wasted, and not even Julianne Moore and the late Phillip Seymour Hoffman get to make much of an impression. Jennifer Lawrence, in a melodramatic and ocassionally overreacted performance, doesn't have much to do in the film, as Katniss spends practically 90% of the film constantly whining and crying. Hopefully Mockingjay Part 2 will provide a memorable finale.
Movie comment on Mad Max: Fury Road
Jordan95
Exhilarating, frenetic, visually inventive and utterly insane, Fury Road is definitely an experience. George Miller, unlike most contemporary directors, gives you all the important information about the film's crazy post-apocalyptic world through creative and incredibly detailed visual storytelling. There is no unnecessary exposition or forced conflicts between the characters.Tom Hardy gives another of his typically intense performances as Max. Communicating mostly through grunts and whispering utterances, he provides a more tormented and unstable version of the character than Gibson. Charlize Theron gives a commanding and strong performance as Imperator Furiosa, who actually proves to be the film's main character.
John Seale's breathtaking cinematography also proves essential to establishing this ravaged world, with an abundance of saturated oranges and blues. The action, as the trailers repeatedly proved, is deranged, excessive and jaw-dropping. With the exception of a couple of brief moments, it always maintains visual geography, a fact I always appreciate. There's an insane amount of world building, far more than in the previous Mad Max installments, and there's also a guy with a FLAME-THROWING guitar, who's there for the only reason that it looks cool and completely demented.
It's actually fascinating that a film of this scale, visual creativity, all-around craziness and with a feminist approach got financed by a major studio and with a $150 million budget no less.
Movie comment on Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones
Jordan95
After rewatching the excruciating experience that The Phantom Menace was, Attack of the Clones predictably lives up to the mediocre standards set by its predecessor. Every filmmaking aspect, to the alarmingly corny screenplay, the overuse of early 2000s CGI, the stiff performances and the lifeless direction by Lucas only serve to make the film feel every minute of its 142 minute runtime.Set 10 years after The Phantom Menace, the film follows Anakin's mission to protect Senator Amidala after repeated assassination attempts and falling in love, while Obi-Wan Kenobi attempts to uncover the responsible behind these attempts and the creation of a clone army. While it may sound like a great Romance-Mystery structure on paper, Lucas does everything possible to squander the potential for making a compelling story. Doesn't help matters that the main love story is filled with the corniest dialogue imaginable and that the actors have absolutely zero chemistry, which makes it impossible to accept as the transcendental romance that Lucas clearly intends.
The performances are even more uninspired this time around, as the actors mostly look bored and lost amongst the countless CGI landscapes. Much has been rightfully said about Christensen's performance, as he proves to be absolutely dreadful as Anakin, turning him into a whiny, creepy and self-absorbed asshole with delirious of grandeur. Ewan McGregor and Christopher Lee are the only ones who even try to look as if they give a fuck about their surroundings.
The script is lifeless, corny and once again more concerned with boring political discussions than with providing great characters and memorable adventure. It seems that Lucas forgot what was the spirit of Star Wars when he set out to make the prequels. The only great aspect is John Williams' unsurprisingly breathtaking score, which the filmmakers clearly noticed as they put it constantly in the background to add drama and excitement when there is none. His love theme for Anakin and Padme is one of the greatest themes of the saga, which makes all the more painful as it clearly deserves a better film than this one.
Attack of the Clones is overlong, boring, overloaded with dated CGI and a clear sign that Lucas' obsession with technology long surpassed his attention to good storytelling.
Movie comment on Taken 3
Jordan95
Taken 3 is the very definition of an unnecessary and extremely mediocre sequel. Actually second sequel, because we already had to bear the repetitive and boring semi-remake to the first film that was Taken 2. Returning screenwriters Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kramen, surely reminded by Liam Neeson that their original set-up could no longer be repeated, instead settled on a cheap rip-off of The Fugitive, only without the tense action sequences or the well defined characters. Instead we get Liam Neeson doing what he used to do best as an action star, as it is sadly apparent that his age has finally caught up with him and he is phoning it in just for the paycheck, and Forest Whitaker trying to solve an extremely "difficult" case by eating bagels.The nearly two hours running time only compounds the numerous flaws further, as the film doesn't have enough plot to sustain your attention. Olivier Megaton once again fills the film with terrible action sequences, nauseating cinematography and epiletic-inducing editing. Seriously, there must be approximately like 1 million cuts in 109 minutes. I only saw the film for curiosity, knowing full well what I was getting into, but I was still amazed by its utter incompetence in every aspect. My only hope is that they'll call it quits after this one.
Movie comment on Avengers: Age of Ultron
Jordan95
The sequel to 2012's breakout superhero hit, Age of Ultron obviously serves as a middle film in the MCU. Although the stakes are significantly higher than last time, some aspects feel a little underwhelming and inconsequential. Joss Whedon still proves adept at staging massive action sequences and giving his characters endless quips to throw at each other at even the worst of times, but taking into account that he has discussed several times that the making of the film exhausted him, it's ocassionally noticeable, as he includes, by necessity from the powers that be in the MCU, many character cameos and hints of future plots.The weaker aspect of the film is definitely the inclusion of the Maximoff twins. Quicksilver made quite the impression with his powers and presence in X-Men last year with only 15 minutes of screentime, but here Aaron Taylor Johnson doesn't even come close to that. His weird and obviously forced accent doesn't really help him. Elizabeth Olsen fares better, although her accent also proves to be distracting.
Despite these flaws, the film still proves to be highly entertaining, although it doesn't quite reach the heights of the first film. The acting is once again great, with everyone fitting comfortably in their roles. Ultron, although a little wasted, is helped by Spader's menacing voice. One thing I particularly appreciated, especially compared to every previous Marvel film, is that the characters showed their vulnerability quite a bit more and for once, there was emphasis in evacuating civilians before unleasing a war in their midst. Whedon's VFX-assisted long takes once again make a couple of appreciated appearances, and Vision finally provides a cool flesh and bone role for Paul Bettany. His first scene was really one of the best scenes in the film.
Movie comment on The Imitation Game
Jordan95
The Imitation Game is another biopic in a seemingly endless list of biopics that come out every year indistinguishable from one another. For all its self-important attitude and melodrama, it doesn't even attempt to shine above other similarly themed films; it actually revels in following convention to a T. Morten Tydlum, of whom I've only watched his acclaimed feature "Headhunters", which I quite liked, here follows the British Biopic Manual at every second, including but not limited to:* Heart-stirring but otherwise functional soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat.
* Casting great British actors and giving them stereotypical roles.
* Casting Benedict Cumberbatch in another misunderstood and antisocial genius.
* Making up many unnecesary plot points.
* Hundreds of historical inaccuracies.
And so on, and so forth. Cumberbatch gives a good performance, but one that feels too manufactured and rehearsed. I still can't understand how Cumberbatch and Bradley Cooper were nominated over Jake Gylenhall's masterful performance in "Nightcrawler", but that's for another review. Speaking of undeserved Oscar nominations, even more baffling was the nomination for Tydlum's serviceable but entirely forgettable directing over David Fincher, Dan Gilroy, Christopher Nolan, etc. I guess the Oscar voters will have a heart attack if they even think of nominating someone who doesn't direct a polished British drama.
Now, to my biggest gripe with the film, the historical inaccuracies. Of course every biopic has them, it's practically inevitable when doing a film you can't include every fact and person or otherwise it would be endless. But the matter is that other biopics haven't suffered in quality because of this; Spike Lee's Malcolm X is a monumental example of this and that film even now remains underseen and underrated, and was even practically ignored at the Oscars. The Imitation Game suffers because it's noticeable when something was drastically altered from history just to make it more digerible for a mainstream audience. Although I found it a little better on first viewing, my opinion on the film lowered when I read about the inaccuracies, such as Turing's personality, greatly altered to make him much more socially isolated than he actually was. Maybe the filmmakers thought he wouldn't be relatable or sympathetic otherwise, but given his eventual tragic treatment by the British government, I think they were rather mistaken.
Despite all these flaws, the film remains an entertaining affair throughout; it's just that it never elevates itself from nothing else than an affable but completely forgettable film. At least it's a little better than "The Theory of Everything".
Movie comment on Crank
Jordan95
Crank is not what I'd call a great piece of filmmaking. It is, however, what I'd call a great example of a hyperkinetic piece of entertainment so unabashedly excessive, outrageous and completely insane I cannot help but admire it for those qualities. Within the opening 5 minutes, I was already along for the ride, after a great opening sequence which puts you right into the shoes of Chev Chelios through a disorienting POV shot. Jason Statham rules the film with his trademark deadpan attitude, which fits perfectly given that someone has to acknowledge within the film itself the absurdity of his dilemma. Although the film runs a little out of steam by the time Amy Smart shows up and the final half hour doesn't live up to the frenetic insanity of the opening 45 minutes, Crank is a great choice to spend 90 minutes to witness some over the top craziness.Movie comment on Mononoke-hime
Jordan95
Princess Mononoke was actually my introduction to the amazing works of Hayao Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli as a whole, although I had already seen one previous film by the studio: the excellent and heartbreaking Grave of the Fireflies. This film was the second anime that I had ever watched up until that moment, and when it ended, I couldn't believe how I had gone so much time without even bothering to look upon these amazing works of art. Boasting an incredibly epic story and tremendous stakes, Miyazaki probably made his darkest film, which shocked me after seeing all his subsequent films, which always deal with adult themes but never feature so much disturbing content or violence as this film.Miyazaki, as usual, shows you the endless magic of animation and the level of detail in the enviornments is simply a sight to behold. In an interesting trivia which I realized after seeing every Miyazaki film, this is his only work which doesn't feature flying scenes whatsoever. Joe Hisaishi's breathtaking score grabs your attention right from the ominous opening scene and the ending is shocking in its poetic beauty.
Movie comment on The Amazing Spider-Man 2
Jordan95
Despite the decidedly mixed reaction to 2012's reboot, I appreciated the film although I still very much preferred Sam Raimi's debut film. However, it's an entirely different matter when it comes to my opinion on this film. Besides the obvious argument that a sequel to an already unnecessary reboot is even more unnecessary, this film still had an unlimited amount of potential in terms of character development and exploring intersecting story lines. And to be honest, it does try to do this, maybe too much on the intersecting story lines aspect, but it never manages a balance between an individual story and the overarching storyline already slated for the upcoming Sinister Six spin-offs.The result is a mess of a plot, an utterly waste of over-the-top in a bad way cliché villains with even more cliché motivations, numerous jarring tonal shifts which already affect the film when it's started barely ten minutes ago. For instance, the opening chase sequence featuring an throwaway cameo by the great Paul Giamatti, here utterly wasted as an constantly screaming villain with a terrible Russian accent, shifts constantly between trying to be suspenseful, funny, dramatic and violent all at once. Certainly the fault lies in Marc Webb's inconsistent direction throughout the entire film and his inability to decently and creatively stage an action sequence and Pietro Scalia's choppy editing, which takes out the entire momentum of this 142 minute long film, trying to make an epic superhero film out of one that really didn't need to be all that big.
On the positive side, most of the acting performances are still solid, particularly Garfield, Stone and Field, even though they can't make miracles with the cliché-ridden script they've being handed to. DeHaan's performance suffers from being provided with a whiny and underdeveloped character, and Jamie Foxx, another great character actor, is also terribly wasted here as the one dimensional Electro.
But most importantly, because of trying to be so many films at once, forgets the most important element the previous Spider-Man films had, even Spider-Man 3, despite its undeniable flaws; the human aspect. The only scenes that really touch this are any between Garfield and Stone, but despite their undeniable chemistry, they also end up becoming nothing more than a tiresome on and off couple, which undermines the proceedings since we already know the ending of it.
Movie comment on Serbuan maut 2: Berandal
Jordan95
Undeniably the best action film of 2014. Gareth Evans outdoes himself after the brutality of the first film with even more insanely awesome and sickeningly violent sequences.The film is much more plot driven than its predecessor, devoting much of its running time to world-building and the introduction of some brutally efficient killers such as Hammer Girl, the Assassin and Prakoso, who stars in probably the most violent fight of the entire film next to the climax. Despite the sometimes confusing plot and some overlong segments, Evans fulfills expectations even better than expected with a final hour filled with sequence after sequence of shocking and tremendously shot and edited action. It's really a relief that in this time of overuse of quick cuts that Evans allows you to see and feel every bone crushing punch. The only technical flaw I can find to the fight sequences is that Evans overuses shaky cam, but not to the point of disorienting you spacially, as you can still see everything clearly.
The climatic car chase and the final kitchen showdown, a grueling six minute sequence, is probably one of the greatest and certainly the most brutal fight scene I've ever seen in a movie. It's hard to imagine how Evans will top himself when he releases The Raid 3, but if he managed with this sequel, I trust him to do it one more time.
Movie comment on Schindler's List
Jordan95
Spielberg's masterpiece, and one of the very best films of the 1990s. The masterful filmmaking and the flawless execution of the various horrifying sequences portraying the cruelty and viciousness suffered by the Jews leave you speechless.Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes give astounding performances as two opposites, and it's a crime that Fiennes was robbed of the Oscar, as his character is simply one of the most terrifying villains of all time.
Movie comment on Interstellar
Jordan95
A great experience. Although it is Nolan's most ambitious film by a mile, it's not his best, as it suffers from the usual flaws found in every Nolan film, mainly clunky dialogue. However, that doesn't detract from the amazing concept and breathtaking visuals it consistently offers.The emotional core of the film has already proven to be a divisive concept amongst critics and viewers, but I thought that for the most part, it worked perfectly, especially in a heartbreaking scene which I won't spoil here.
Matthew McConaughey, once more, proves himself as one of the great contemporary actors in Hollywood, giving Cooper a emotional character arc and making him believable at all times. The rest of the cast, although dealing with underdeveloped characters, do a great job.
The CGI is out of this world and proves it can make a greater impact on a film if it's used selectively as Nolan uses it here. The 169 minutes running time, despite a questionable plot-wise second act, keeps you glued to your seat. In my theater, there were only about 20 people, but a young couple next to me was already debating the film when it concluded. That proves that, whether you liked it or not, you will remember Interstellar, which I think is the greatest achievement that a film can accomplish.
Movie comment on Gone Girl
Jordan95
Another excellent entry to Filmer's exemplary filmography. The twisted story fits perfectly with his style.