Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Awesome CGI, standard plot line and looks so-o-o-o-o BEAUTIFUL!
I'd give it a 9.5 out of 10, but there is no half-division. I was browsing anime section of local DVD rental place and what interested me in this title was that it was produced "with support by IBM." Now, the Big Blue is a hardware manufacture company and a good common-stock investment, but what does it have to do with making movies? So I rented this title... and it blew me away. One of the best movies I've ever seen. Animation, motion capture are amazing. Lighting is fantastic.. and the overall style - oh my... In a word, if you agree that black-and-white rivals color, definitely watch this one... It's got everything that one would ever ask for, in a movie.
Children of Men (2006)
Visually stunning and thematically captivating
This movie contains everything that a futuristic movie should have: a plot line centered around the extinction of human race, set in a politically charged situation; the struggle of a man against the greater collective forces, and ultimate redemption of human race through fate and individual heroism. The film is superbly produced, the dialogue is sharp and canny, the visuals--oh, i love the visuals, the journalistic style is so appealing. This film is much better than pop Hollywood movies where a concept is presented to you so meticulously, it's practically shoved down your throat. _Children of men_ does not do that. It gives you an image for a brief few seconds, and it's your decision whether or not to dwell on it. As a result the movie moves fast, fast, fast. Watch it twice and you'll still enjoy it. There is not a boring second of footage. I highly recommend this movie to all sci-fi fans, readers of cyberpunk novels, and just about anyone who enjoys action, fast & sharp. I'd give it a nine but oh, here's what makes this movie great: the jokes. There are moments in the film that are supercharged with tension, action, drama, and... humor. It's golden. Ten out of ten.
Le mépris (1963)
This is how people build relationships.
Herein be mild spoilers.
A wonderful film that should really be required curriculum for the shy and indecisive ones. It shows, in a nutshell, the difference between an attractive man and a polite man.
The movie could be deemed sexist, if only it was not so funny. Women in this movie, the two main leads and the one minor role, are shown as (1) object of visual please, (2) objects of sexual pleasure, (3) possessions and (4) furniture. The last one is my favourite and has a particular touch of the French New Wave to it. Now, the synopsis: Prokosch (Jack Palance) plays the role of the alpha-male, the wrong-doer but also the relentless pursuer of his goals. Everyone around him--co-workers and acquaintances alike--find themselves annoyed & disturbed by him, yet pulled in by his irresistible charisma and forced to comply with the rules that only he makes.
The young and beautiful Camille (Brigitte Bardot), the wife of a timid but polite Paul Javal (Michel Piccoli), finds herself in a dilemma: on the one hand she's got her husband, on the other, Prokosch. She loves her husband and thinks Prokosch is a "jerk," yet later on her attitude is reversed and it is to her husband that she feels contempt, and admiration for Prokosch. This is explained at length in the course of the movie, intercut at times with various quotations and nonsensual fables, yet Mr. Javal fails to grasp it. Poor Camille. She can only hate him. How did they manage to marry in the first place.
The ending is particularly suiting. Because it points out an important flaw in Prokosch's character, therefore suggesting that he too is not a paragon of perfection. Although proponents of Prokosch's attitude may disregard the accident as a coincidental and an untrue invention in the scriptwriter's, it should be noted to them that recklessness, like any trait of character, positive and negative alike, should not be taken to such an extreme as to cause death. Relentlessness, as prudence, should also be used only in appropriate context and not for what Prokosch was using it. In Contempt no one is a winner, and Camille especially falls on the wrong side of the fence.
28 Days Later... (2002)
among top 10, on my list
this movie is absolutely great and should not be missed. though i think if i watched it 3 years ago i would not appreciate it so much, so i understand why its so low-rated. but it really should be like 8.3/10 or so.
the movie has an apocalyptic theme, i.e. everybody dies, and there is no hope-like. still, i consider it an ultimately 'good' movie, one that affirms the goodness of human heart. one of the central questions raised by the movie is this: in complete hopelessness and despair, what is there to live for, what is more to life than mere surviving? the movie does have an answer. a horror movie, but could as well be a modified psychological drama.
that is substance. style -- oh, style is just amazing. the film was shot on digital cameras, very dynamic. most scenes have a photographic quality to them. you can literally freeze almost any frame and get a poster, or at least a very good photograph. consequently, no matter what actually happens at any particular scene, it is still a pleasure to watch -- like watching a slide show of good photos. there should be more such movies. (Frida and A clockwork orange are examples of movies with EVERY scene carefully and superbly produced)
style of speech is realistic and down-to-earth, street-like. anti comic book, i'd say. like, in pop American movies characters with over-boosted ego speak in this pathetic unrealistic style, like 'i know i'm a good guy and i'll KILL YOU, and y'know it.' But here its different. notice when Jim and Samantha meet Frank and his daughter, and Frank says "I'm Frank, anyway" -- it is so... real, so true. very nostalgic, for me at least. (i'm a European living in the U.S.)
the army spirit is depicted realistically. the base commander reminds of Apocalypse Now. Same moral deterioration, same outlet of despair.
the plot could not be any better. first Jim finds himself alone, lucky to see any survivors at all, then their little squad is able to reach a fortified 'heaven', then... watch the movie.
for many viewers the most important thing in any movie is main characters, how much they like them, how they can associate with them. in this respect 28 d. l. too strikes a high point. the characters are great. the 'big softy' Frank in particular...
the only real objection anyone may have is the ridiculously short developing period of the decease. 20 sec -- and the infected has a fully developed Rage. this is scientific nonsense. however, it makes the movie extremely dynamic, and i think it works.
i give this movie 10, because everything in it -- the theme, the characters, the style -- appeal to me. it's surely among top ten for me.
Red Dragon (2002)
good movie, but there should me more HOPKINS
Ok. I saw The Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal, the latter I liked especially. I rented Red Dragon just to see more of Mr. Hopkins. He is my favourite actor, and I like how destructive and overwhelming he is being. His strength, the confidence with which he manipulates people, the way he looks in the camera -- it's amazing. You see, my favourite movies are not action-oriented, they are people-oriented. Hannibal does not try to accomplish anything, he just does what he loves doing. The Tooth Fairy, on the other hand, serves someone, and tries to fulfill a purpose...
THERE IS SO-O-O LITTLE HOPKINS IN THIS MOVIE! Mostly you see this detective guy and the Tooth Fairy. In comparison with Hopkins, the Tooth Fairy is a small unlearned amateur child. He is so vulnerable... He and Hannibal basically do the same thing, but the Tooth Fairy is taken apart and destroyed by what he does, and Hopkins grows stronger and stronger because of his perfect attitude.
There are some extremely funny moments in the movie, although they were not planned as such. For example, when the detective finds out that someone ate... whatever, he says: "Yeah, that's our guy..." that just killed me.
Overall, it's a good movie, it is, but I still would like to see more of Hopkins. If you want to watch any good movie, and not Hopkins specifically, it's good enough. By the way, one person recommended me Surviving Picasso, she said Hopkins acts greatly there..