Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
More bitch than vvitch
Horror. That's what this movie really provokes. But unintended horror. Horror of what's the genre's new masterpiece, as critics say. Terror in front of the levels of pretentiousness. Shivers just imagining the ego of the "auteur" of this crap. Let's be brief: First, we have again here one of those movies in which ALL the characters are unsympathetic. That means you don't give a damn. Second, What's the point of trying to imagine how people spoke in 17th Century?? One thing is sure: Shakespeare will be contorting in his grave just hearing this pseudo-dialog. Only we can thank the "auteur" he didn't deliver in iambic verses. Third, that horrible, horrible, horrible music!! Yeah, I get it, guys. You're just trying to achieve certain uneasiness by means of dissonance. Only, this isn't just uneasiness. This is horrible noise makes your ears bleed!! Fourth, the boredom. Trying to make art?? Thou shall not bore the audience!! And last, not least, critics ignorance and disorientation. If this is "a bright renewal of the genre", you can count one lifelong fan out, thy loyal servant.
Skip this one.
Jason Bourne (2016)
Surgeon's warning: Don't watch this from the first row
The last Borne entry is just OK. Summer entertainment movie, no more, no less. On the bad side: The script is pointless and tricky, Alicia Vikander sounds really like a bad actress and the fist fights are poorly staged. But the worst problem here is the direction: one gets really tired of that shaky camera. I watched the movie from the 5th row of the Multiplex (escaping form the pop'corn munchies) and 5 minutes into the movie I was feeling dizzy alright. I cannot imagine what could be the effect of watching it from the first or second row.
Just two more objections: Can anyone tell me what car is Bourne driving in the final chase? I definitely want that brand, as it seems kind of unbreakable after all it goes through!! (even if it has a major drawback: air-bags don't seem to work at all). And the last one: Really??? Can a SWAT truck do that??? C'mon, guys!! You really stressed out my suspension of disbelief muscles with that!!!
The Leftovers (2014)
Now, that's what I call AMATEUR, LAZY, LOUSY WRITING.
To start with... Come on, IMDb!! Really??? 7.9 points out of 10??? You gotta be kidding' me!!!...
I encourage seriously IMDb guys to check their scoring system. It fails miserably when it comes to turds like this, and specially if it's something concocted in the HBO's kitchens... ...Though, wait, as a matter of fact I start to consider that HBO must be -well, it HAS to be- a kind of network Mafia: Their most terrible and abysmal TV shows (e.g.: "Olive Kitteridge") score high on IMDb and win Emmys. And... you know what? I UNDERSTAND IT. BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF MONEY ON TV.
It's only then possible that -as a smart reviewer pointed out elsewhere here- family and friends of those involved in this dog of a show are the real authors of those comments that assure to us feeble-minded viewers that this stuff is a thinking man's work of art and a really really deep one at that...
Which is definitely not.
Tonight I viewed third episode of 1st season and I've decided to stop watching. There's a lot of better things out there waiting to be discovered and this one is not one of them.
Let's summarize all the trouble that this piece of crap has: 1-Obnoxious characters you don't care about. 2-Absurd, irrational, illogical actions or reactions everywhere coming form all the characters. 3-Unfunny and stupid narratives supposedly funny and creative. 4-Irrelevant themes supposedly deep. 5-Childish execution. 6-Ludicrous metaphors. 7-False mysteries (as in "Lost"). 8-Dishonest abuse of the audience. 9-Cultural onanism. 10-Mercantile use of drama. 11-Corny ideas everywhere (those dumb ludicrous smokers...). 12-False emotions. 13-....................................... (fill the dots as you please)
Also, I researched the culprits of this attack on viewers' intelligence and my worst fears became true. I knew that something in the feeling of being cheated while watching the series reminded me of "Lost". And, of course, Lindelof was there. Something in the lazy, lazy, lazy and amateurish writing reminded me of "Prometheus". And, sure thing, Lindelof was there too.
What's the matter with Lindelof? There's certainly people (some members of his family, sure; a bunch of his closed friends, of course; and all the stockholders in HBO) think he is a genius. Or at least that's what they say.
But there's also a huge amount of other people that think Lindelof is a disturbed. Then?... Genius or disturbed?...
All of Lindelof's links to the Money and The Powers That Be won't never-ever-ever-ever amend that tragic flaw of his that he won't recognize even if you hit him with it hardly in his face until it bleeds: That he is A BAD, LOUSY WRITER.
Now, Mr. Lindelof, please: stop cheating people. PLEASE.
Alas, another name that ringed a bell to me was the other main culprit of this mess: Mr. Tom Perrotta, the writer of the novel on which this bummer is based. Which is an unexpected thing, though, as a movie I LOVE (and that's what I call definitely superb writing) is based on another of his novels: "Election", a very smart comedy by that -this time true- genius named Alexander Payne.
'Nough said. I won't waste a minute more of my precious time with Lindelof.
Neither should you.
Addenda: I just read that Season 2 starts with an episode set in prehistoric times... WTF?... To me that's just juvenile show off, just for the sake of it. Maybe Lindelof and whoever was his writing partner had a great time in their office coming up with that "brilliant" concept. But we just don't care. Because it's not funny nor creative. It's SILLY. See, we don't need another false artist like you, Mr. Lindelof. It's bad for the culture, bad for the planet. Mr. Lindelof, you should devote your naive notion of what "creativity" means to advertising. You should stop boring honest daily workers that don't need a con man like you amassing obscene amounts of money by fooling them with supposed creativity when they sit after a long and hard (and underpaid) day's work to watch TV. And, Mr. Lindelof, just hiring Justin Theroux as main character won't make your stupid idea of surrealism go an inch near David Lynch. Now that's a real artist. The comparison between Lynch and Lindelof is the final proof that in Art "either you have it or you don't". So I cannot tell give you an advice like "better learn from him". Because that's simply impossible.
Olive Kitteridge (2014)
That's what I asked my wife when I saw the last scene of this pseudo-Pulitzer.
My conclusions? HBO must be a mafia. If not I don't understand it. I don't understand that they can award any kind of Emmy to this regular soap-opera. Only explanation: HBO took charge of the asylum.
That would also explain the "best script" award to Game of Thrones, instead of "Mad Men".
And, by the way, How dare they advertise Bill Murray as supporting actor? It's a plain hoax. He is only 10 minutes or less on screen through the whole show. And thank god for that, 'cause it wasn't a good part either. Just the same old Bill Murray grumpy old guy. But poor and lame.
And thank god again, it was only 4 installments. I was bored already on the second.
House of Cards (2013)
Wanna know how it ends?
The American version of the fabulous original is so infectious (except for Kevin Spacey) and its artificial lengthening so nauseatingly profit-based that I just can't restrain myself from giving up the ending (at least in the original):
IN THE END FRANCIS' WIFE KILLS HIM WITH THE HELP OF HIS OWN BODYGUARD.
Do yourself a favor: Better watch the British original instead.
Enough of this idea that audience can be manipulated through infinite seasons with no end in sight, á la "Lost". Simply put, that's not narration. That is a scam.
Learn from the Brits: they know how to tell a story without fooling the audience.
'Thou shall not take Carver's name in vain'
It's only me?...
No, please, tell me: Is it only me that finds "Birdman" is one of the lousiest bits of over-hyped garbage to hit the screens for the last decades??...
To begin with: The movie is nothing but a "show-off". Just in benefit of the egomaniac narcissist Mexican queen-of-drama, Inarritu. Oh, wow. So you can make a movie in just one long take! (fake, by the way). Well, sorry to say, Hitch did it first. And better. Also: Why is it that it seems there's something like a competition going on between mexicans (Cuaron, Inarritu) to see who has it longer -the take, I mean-?... (That duel is still going fine, as long as they don't start a real "balasera"...)
In this non-intentional new edition of the old "Emperor's new clothes" parable, I find only one winner, and he is so despite Inarritu's efforts: Michael Keaton. A great actor, and a very much underrated one as he's alway's been, he displays here a great, muscular performance. As a matter of fact, it's the rare only instance I can remember in which a dreadfully written character is surmounted and transcended by the efforts of the actor himself. Keaton deservedly deserves all the awards he can possibly achieve for his feat.
And that's all that's good in this movie. Oh, well, maybe Lubezki's efforts to please his egotistic boss: I can only imagine how much he had to sweat to finish each long take for the glory of Inarritu without major mistakes. But that's really all. Because direction is crap (a good concept is not a good direction). Writing is crap: Really? four writers are needed to brew this inane concoction?... YOU MUST BE KIDDIN' ME!!! Rest of acting is crap, because characters are awfully written (sorry, Norton, you're also only second best to Best Egomaniac in the movie: first prize goes to Inarritu, of course).
...And, last, not least... Where's Raymond Carver in all this??... Pure pose. Pure affectation. Pure mannerism. I looked carefully for Carver somewhere hidden in between the embarrassing scenes of the "What do we talk when we talk about love" play supposedly created from his book... Couldn't spot him anywhere near. There was nothing of Carver in any of those puerile, amateurish, flat-character ridden snippets of the play the writers gave us lucky mortal viewers. Nothing of Carver's redemptive moments. Nothing of his sad poetry. Nothing of the first rank literature that cause shivers in the reader. Nothing of the true Art that, if only for a second, offers a glimpse of sense and transcendence in this nonsense life.
Not to talk about the blatant and shallow references to Fellini's masterpiece "8 1/2"...
Please... It's only me???...
A Most Wanted Man (2014)
A Bleak Farewell to Hoffmann
"A Most Wanted Man" is good, dark, gritty, sad cinema. It's sadder yet as it's the last work of art the great P. Seymour Hoffmann offered us. That last shot is too bleak a farewell to one of the Greatest Artists of our time. Like in a true work of Art, Hoffmann always hid clues in his performances. Here's another that simply amazes me no one seems to have noticed. Just close your eyes when Hoffmann recites in several moments in this movie. Now picture Sir Richard Burton in black and white instead. Gotcha. Hoffmann is playing Richard Burton playing Alec Leamas in the fabulous classic "The Spy That Came From The Cold". Pure art play. Chilling. Following that reading, remembering the plot of "The Spy..." I even got carried away and came with my own ending, surely one worse than Le Carre's, but certainly one that got me amused for a good portion of the film: What if that "Most Wanted Man" was nothing but one Bachmann's long and elaborate planting to catch the big terrorist fish? After all, that's what Le Carré did in "The Spy That Came From The Cold".
So that's what happens when you confront a work of art: interpretations flourish. And that's what Philip Seymour Hoffman contributed to Film and Theatre History: Art. Rest In Peace.
Can you make a political farce without criticizing the politicians?
Why is it that American TV always manages to make a feeble version out of a caustic British political farce? Let me answer that one: because American TV networks are not allowed to criticize their politicians. That's why, in a nutshell.
Of course, I'm thinking also of "House of Cards". What in the BBC version was a vitriolic attack full of spicy flavor toward the Tories' dirty uses (specifically during the Thatcher years), in the Netflix version is only a boring and insipid dish that just took forever to concoct.
I've just finished the first episode of "Veep". Actually, I didn't know it was the American version of "The Thick of It" until I read Iannucci's name in the final credits. Being a huge fan of the English series and the movie spin off, "In the Loop", it was funny what I said to my wife after the first 5 minutes of "Veep": "Is it me or this guys are copying 'The Thick of It'?". And unwittingly, I was right: Iannucci was copying himself, in a bad sense. First thing I've noticed is that "Veep" lacks the punch of the British original. And why is that?, I wondered. Immediately I realized what was wrong: It lacks the British punch because the Brits are allowed to mock their politicians. As simple as that. Can you make a political farce in which you don't criticize the politicians? No, you can't. The result of that is another lame sitcom in which the most politically incorrect thing you can hear is when someone is told to shoot his dog and bury it. End of political incorrectness of the whole episode.
I'll finish by copy-pasting other reviewer's comments which seem specially accurate to me:
"The only people who would think Veep is awesome are people who have either not seen or not understood 'The Thick of It' ".
"On the Veep, everyone seems to be acting out their lines for laughs".
"Laughable VP is nonsense. And maybe Ianucci felt this too, because writing isn't as good as in The Thick of It".
"It centers around the vice president of the united states doing absolutely nothing important and being completely self obsessed with inane rubbish".
And, last but not least:
"(...) guess main problem here is that British ironic attitude towards politics doesn't work in the US. If you try and remember any US show about politics, it's always about higher purpose / moral dilemmas / heroism / etc. It's never an ironic and slightly condescending look at the government".
I suppose Americans have a serious problem when they can't criticize their politicians. Specially in these times.
My vote is a too low 3-stars because I know IMDb will compensate that with several 10- stars unfair reviews coming probably from HBO employees.
Wake up America.
The Conjuring (2013)
8 points in IMDb???... NOW THAT'S REALLY SCARY!!!!
I give this crap 1 star because I cannot give 0.
Anyway, voting doesn't matter anymore: like in some horror classics, the feeling that "mankind" around you just went crazy or simply they are aliens in disguise, starts to become intensely unsettling!!...
I seriously encourage IMDb to change its voting politics and start to prevent retards, morons and under-aged from voting. It's just not serious for a presumed professional web to continue with this pitiful state of things. It does a lot of image damage.
What is really cringe-making is reading so many reviews and realize that audiences have gone haywire. Besides not having a clue about movies. None of the users reviews comment upon the fact that this "movie" is just a bad rip-off from several horror classics: "The Changeling", "The Exorcist", "Poltergeist", "Rosemary's Baby", "The Sixth Sense", "The Lengend of Hell House", "The Entity", "Curse of the Demon", "Amityville Horror", "The Innocents", "The Haunting",... even "The Birds"!!... Need I go on?... There's almost no horror classic this movie doesn't rob (homage???) and steal of. And the rip-offs are carelessly and brainlessly stitched into an engender that is indeed the worst demonic horror ever. Surely it must be Satan's work, no doubt.
What does that mean? To me it's fairly clear: audiences are illiterate. Voters are dunces. And that, my dear human fellows, is what really is downright creepy.
I just despise IMDb's voting system. I think it's simply and downright self-nullifying.
I will never ever again trust this web's reviews. At the moment I'm even thinking of canceling my IMDb Pro subscription.
Silver Linings Playbook (2012)
Seriously?? Can this win an Oscar??... Oh, I see, the Weinsteins are behind it
First of all, as I always do when I write a review in IMDb, I'll state clearly again my astonishment with the rating. I insist: looks like something's wickedly wrong with IMDb...
Now for the movie. Well, it's not horrible. It's watchable. But the strings show everywhere. With this I mean that to anyone with film knowledge, it's a PRODUCT. A product crafted with the Oscars in view, like everything the Weinsteins do. They sometimes make it good ("The King's Speech", "Shakespeare in Love"), sometimes they make it awful ("The Master", "Django Unchained"). This is kind of midway.
Why do I say the strings show? Well, for anyone that has read a couple of basic screen writing manuals, it shows. It definitely shows. The script is so by-the-book that that's the only reason for the absurd second halve of the movie, the it's-so-stupid-it's-unbelievable double bet thing. I won't get much into it for spoilers reason, but if you've seen the film you know what I'm talking about. Not to speak about the whole dance nonsense or even the possibility itself that such a bet could ever take place with at least one non-retarded adult witness involved. And the ending with all the characters gathered in the same physical place for no other reason than to fulfill one of the more hackneyed writer's Bible Commands??
In the good side (the silver linings side?) the idea of displaying a drama involving characters with mental disorders we don't know much about helps us to care more about the real cases outside the movie. Only that I read somewhere among the users reviews that such illnesses are not faithfully displayed. And that's bad. Makes me wonder if the bipolar disorder wasn't really what interested the director- screenwriter, but only the possible awards (we know very well by now that Academy voters love mental illness in a drama).
Which leads me to David O. Russell. Like Paul Thomas Anderson, his work starts to show the egotistic perversion of a self-acclaimed "artist". I've commented how flawed the script is. The direction is worse. It's mediocre. His pseudo-documentary- style moving camera only makes me dizzy.
I insist, it's a watchable movie. But Oscar-worthy???
Django Unchained (2012)
Another stupid overlong Tarantino-Miramax Oscar prone garbage.
Just like the previous installment "inglorious Bastaerds (or whatever)", Tarantino indulges himself in just another (did we really need it??) exercise of spaghetti-onanism.
The main question here is "What's the point?". Someone tries to justify the movie to me as an "authentic" (sic!!) depiction of black's slavery in America, to which I say "...Aaaaaw come on!... I've seen it much better done in the 70's in Alex Haley's Roots TV series!!!"... (and I need to say I'm really supportive of Afroamericans)
But of course, being a Tarantino movie, nothing is believable here. Everything is "hip". Suspension of disbelief is constantly blown away by that acute sense of being watching another kinky Tarantino tableaux, complete with those trademark Academy Award dialogs...
And when it comes to violence, oh my, it's impossible not to laugh at the involuntarily comic attempts at being voluntarily comic of all those Quentin's excesses "a la Peckinpah".
I can only salvage one shot in the whole overlong movie: the one in which Tarantino himself gets blasted to pieces, leaving a dark hole in the ground as only remains. If only...
A movie strictly for Tarantino fans, Sergio Leone's fans and retarded of all kinds.
The Master (2012)
The Master? The Disaster!
Overlong pretentious crap. Bad times are these, in which even the professional critics cannot see through the manipulative personal agendas of one of the most impressive assortment of egos in Film History: Joaquin Phoenix wants desperately an Oscar, P.T. Anderson wants desperately an Oscar, the Weinsteins want yet more Oscars for their collection. Only maybe Philip Seymour Hoffman quite doesn't care. He seems to me the only professional here.
But, why all the professional critics in one voice sing the excellence of pretentiousness and void? Why, in yet another nail in its already finished coffin, is IMDb's rating absurdly high???... Of course, the answer to these enigmatic questions is: Because The Weinsteins say so!
Now, to the final point of the movie: The Oscars. Highlights of the "creators' " (artists??) self-importance humbly directed to the kind attention of the Academy Awards board members are:
-"Look how insufferably and pointlessly long can I hold up this useless, pointless shot about which no one cares!" (Director P.T. Anderson)
-"Look at my actor skills! I can stare at my actor partner's eyes without blinking all the way through this overlong shot!". Plus: "Look! I can top that with a lonely tear, falling form my eye at the director's required slow pace!" (Actor Joaquin Phoenix)
-"Look at that moment I wrote myself alone in which I, The Writer, plan out a scene for The Director (me, too!) in which said Director will earn the Heaven of Seventh Art by that overlong, sustained shot in which we could watch The Actor in an unblinking-eyes-tour-de-force!... (Plus the possibility of a lonely, slow tear at the end of it)" (Writer P.T. Anderson).
-"Look at my character's subtly worked out physical traits! Did you spot how almost inconspicuously I bend my back and mumble with only the left half of my mouth? Did you notice how badly I wear my ill-fitting pants?" (Actor Joaquin Phoenix, insistently)
-"Look at those purpose-built ill-fitting pants, at those purpose-built redneck-looking all-buttoned-up-to-the-collar shirts! Don't they look wonderfully bad? Am I not so-good-I-can-be-bad at my task (art)?" (Costume Designer Mark Bridges)
-"Look at all that brilliantly subdued imagery! Look at those saturated-desaturated colors! Am I not really reflecting the period, while at the same time looking post-modern?" (DP Mihai Malaimare Jr.).
So... Don't we just all deserve an Oscar??? Pleeease!!!!
Apes already conquered our planet!
What???!!!???? 8 points out of 10 for this crap??? Something's HORRIBLY wrong with IMDb, definitely... Is everyone mad?? Or are just apes voting here? Sorry, but I can't take it. The movie is a failure at all levels, starting with the hackneyed, formulaic script. It seems to me it was written out of those computer programs that tell you the exact moment for a plot point, a catalyst, an inciting incident, a subplot second act or you name it. Garbage. From the very first second of the movie you KNOW exactly what's going to happen and how things are going to develop for the rest of the movie. And that's NOT my idea for a good (or even passable) script!! Not to mention the feeble characters. Let's take a look at them: -the good scientist, played with his usual blandness by James Franco, -the beauty love interest (I suppose she is Hindu in order to attract moviegoers from that "emergent" market...), who happens to also be wise (surely she studied in the MIT) and cultured (she is reading Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar", hence the name of the ape... Oh, come on screenwriters, you could have done better!!), -the cold scientist (complete with goatee, as a hint that he's not a good guy), played by the great Brian Cox, alas!... -the bad corporation executive (why an Afro-American, guys??) -the very very bad zoo-keeper (complete with his usual companion, the retarded zoo-keeper)... Need I say more? Better let's not talk about the apes (the one-eyed bad ape, the brute gorilla with good heart, the suave and wise orangutan...): they don't even rise -no pun intended- to the category of character... they're just BAD animation!! And, finally, talking about animation: I thought if I wasn't to see a good narration, at least I was about to witness the usual "state-of-the-art" CGI show-off... And a show-off it was, sure... but in the wrong way. I mean: all that unjustified jumping around of Caesar... what's the point?? But let me tell you something else: if "Spider-man" was criticized regarding the unnatural movements of the CGI character 10 years ago, we are in the same point here. You can be very precise with the hair of the animals and the general depiction of the skin, eyes, gestures, etc (Andy Serkis: some day he'll get even the Oscar, I'm afraid). But the more wide and complex movements (jumping, running, fighting...) still are unnatural, unreal. Somehow the animators couldn't see the forest for the trees and the apes in them. Summing it all up: IF YOU SAW THE TRAILER, YOU SAW THE PICTURE, and saved money and time.
Barney's Version (2010)
I really don't understand who payed for this crap of script, as long as there are surely thousands of not produced great stories around the agencies to be bought... To start with, the story never involves the viewer. I really can't care less about whatever happens to Barney. Second, the character is so obnoxious and despicable you really desire all kind of bad things should happen to him. Third... What's the genre supposed to be? The writer and the director can't seem to make up their minds regarding this. Fourth: not only you can never hint as to which direction the movie is going (what's the theme of the film??), what's worse, your only hint is that you won't ever care. Yeah, I know it's based on a best- seller. I just don't wanna know who can read such a sub product. That's what we come at when a bunch of guys that have a lot of money and happen to be born inside the industry's impregnable gates hold the right to film their silly stories. Really, a very embarrassing waste of time. And the biggest let down from the great Giamatti, by the way a real miscast here (what? a Giamatti character marrying three beautiful women and despising them?? and having sex on the side with another bimbo?? You kidding me???...) Paul, next time choose more wisely, your fans don't deserve such garbage. A complete disaster.
Finally... you know what's worst of all??... I'll tell you: all those reviews in which people judge it "excellent", "the best comedy I ever saw", "jewel", "delightful", "really artistic"... What happened to the Art of Cinema, guys, for Chrissakes??? To all those, I'll give the definition that their reviews suggest me, in one word: "creepy"... Guys, you-are-creepy... You scare me, you worry me... Are you from this planet? Disquiets me to think I have to share the world with you... Oh, Jesus, people, you really, really depress me...
Not pretentious or artificial... just French!
Not much time to waste about this sh*t. Just as needful as a shot in the knee or a terrorist bombing. Not a big help to the image of French cinema. I wish I could hear the opinion of my revered french directors: Truffaut, Rohmer, Tati, Clouzot, Renoir, Clément...
Oh, my! Disgusting discovery! I must spare 10 lines about this cr*p! What can I say? Maybe just mourn for the decay of the cinematic taste that IMDb keeps on throwing at the face of the few ones that really have seen films and know that Tarantino didn't discover cinema!
Recommended to all those who rate this movie above 1*: "A Confederacy of Dunces", by John Kennedy Toole. Just enjoy it before some dunce adapts it...
Good try, Mr. Nolan... but Nope!
The essential problem with this movie is that it has no logic rules to abide by. And, mind you, even dreams have rules, as Freud started to hint. A rule is not "I do what pleases me", which is what we see throughout this movie. That's arbitrariness. Mr. Nolan should learn from hard working writers to build seriously an imaginary universe, like Tolkien, Borges, Frank Herbert, etc. Worlds with RULES. Because without rules, the writer can do whatever pleases him any moment. And as anything is possible,... who cares? And as one stops caring, one starts to get booooooored. Specially if in a supposedly imaginative story you get punished endlessly with the oh-so-hackneyed pursuits and shoot-out of faceless bad guys... Yah, yeah, yeah, original, new and unseen as an Edwin S. Porter film. Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawnie!