The problem with this film is not the film itself. It is entertaining enough and there is lovely chemistry between Megan Follows and Jonathan Crombie. Fans had been longing for a long time to see these two in the roles that they own so much. But... the problem really is that producer Kevin Sullivan thought he had the right to change the life story of characters created by someone else. He thought that Anne's story was not dramatic enough (and the legal disputes with the heirs didn't help) and decided to invent something that would be bland and entertaining. By doing this he overruled the expectations of millions of fans that loved Anne's story - he had the perfect chance, perfect actors and a great story (who in their right mind can say that Anne's House of Dreams is not dramatic enough??) and he missed that. It is really unfortunate and sad. Why call them Anne and Gilbert when they obviously are not them?
Reviews
11 Reviews
Sex and the City
(2008)
what a waste
8 November 2008
First we had the Sex and the City - series. It was witty, intelligent writing. It featured four women that were independent, strong, loving and loyal to their friends. For the first time really a series was concentrating on women and playing them as complex, interesting characters in -sometimes- equal relationships with men. So, when the movie came out the expectations were high. But - it lands so flat. From the movie we learn that how women really spend their lives is waiting for the prince to come and pick them up. All the rest of the time is just used chatting with girlfriends about the Mr Right. That women truly exist only when they are with some man. The movie is superficial, not believable (the scene with Miranda and Steve on the bridge is just plain pathetic), and boring. Not even the jokes work well. It's not a movie about (these) women and their (fabulous) life in their 40s but a weak plot build around photo shoots, clothes, shoes, fashion, design. It's the pages of Vogue or Metropolitan or whatever other fashion magazine made into a movie. It quite conservatively reminds us that women can be wild in their 20s, independent in their 30s and they need a man to give a meaning to their lives when they're 40. Quite sad.
Cowards
(2008)
Daily fears and loneliness
29 April 2008
Only last week a friend said that school-time bullying in preadolescence or adolescence leaves a scar for a life-time. To be bullied in a phase in life when you are full of insecurities and your self-esteem and self-image are just shaping themselves, to be bullied by your peers is a terrible burden. It's a cowardly act by cowards who make their best to make you a coward.
Cobardes is not a happy movie. It is not an easy movie. It has quite a pessimistic under-tone that reflects our time of disconnected families and media violence. It has no winners and a plenty of losers. There is no black and white here but a general sense of shades of depressive grey. It manages to avoid cheap moralism and unnecessary preaching and instead delivers a conclusion that we all fear for something/someone and we are all ready to misuse power over those that are vulnerable to us.
Cobardes might not be as fresh, small and beautiful as the previous movie by the directors. It's much more a product, professionally made and very well acted that might lack in passion but gives food for though. The (inner) world of adolescents is always a mystery not only to themselves but to the people around them. The script has its flaws and imperfections but that is overruled by the impressive work by the actors, especially the young ones. They manage to give a face and presence to some uneasy feelings and play well with our sympathies. The movie has rhythm and a polemic, but excellent ending. It is not a masterpiece and doesn't pretend to be that but it is one of the very few, if any, well done movies on a difficult and merging theme that hopefully connects with the young audience and makes them reflect on this issue.
Cobardes is not a happy movie. It is not an easy movie. It has quite a pessimistic under-tone that reflects our time of disconnected families and media violence. It has no winners and a plenty of losers. There is no black and white here but a general sense of shades of depressive grey. It manages to avoid cheap moralism and unnecessary preaching and instead delivers a conclusion that we all fear for something/someone and we are all ready to misuse power over those that are vulnerable to us.
Cobardes might not be as fresh, small and beautiful as the previous movie by the directors. It's much more a product, professionally made and very well acted that might lack in passion but gives food for though. The (inner) world of adolescents is always a mystery not only to themselves but to the people around them. The script has its flaws and imperfections but that is overruled by the impressive work by the actors, especially the young ones. They manage to give a face and presence to some uneasy feelings and play well with our sympathies. The movie has rhythm and a polemic, but excellent ending. It is not a masterpiece and doesn't pretend to be that but it is one of the very few, if any, well done movies on a difficult and merging theme that hopefully connects with the young audience and makes them reflect on this issue.
Menolippu Mombasaan
(2002)
Healthy-looking cancer patients
15 January 2006
For some reason I got the chance to watch this movie on DVD and to check some fresh faces in European movie making. The idea of a road movie in beautifully shot summerly Findand is quite tempting, and the elements of the 'last hot summer before the adulthood' are all there. Just like in Mexico's "Y tu mamá también" there are two guys interested in sex, booze and rock'n and roll, and a hot chick. Whereas "y tu mamá también" is a master piece and well acted, directed, edited and told, this movie falls short of its intentions in building a coherent drama. Acting is flat, especially the wooden love interest; the girl that goes to Lapland and is followed by the two main characters. Maybe the reason for her inexpressiveness is the poor dialogue but we are never really let to understand her feelings or her motives, and while we are meant to believe that she is the object of desire of one of the main characters, there's a complete lack of chemistry between them which made me wonder why would he ever skip a trip to Mombasa because of her. She is a nice-looking girl but seems so amateur and uncomfortable with the camera that it is almost painful to watch.
The two main characters are good to look at, and there lays one of the basic problems of the movie. They are bald, yes, but that's the only visible trace of their supposed illnesses. They run, jump, dance and have fun, and just look too healthy to be cancer patients. No medicine is that strong. The guitar boy bears a strong resemblance to Mexico's Gael García Marquez (only time will tell whether he has the same level of talent) and is given little material to work with. The real star here is Yusa, the crazy guy. Even if this character is highly exaggerated and the script lacks 'profoundness', the actor is skilled enough to put his heart and energy in the character and while he completely steals the movie (together with the outstanding Finnish countryside), he is the only real reason to keep watching it.
The two main characters are good to look at, and there lays one of the basic problems of the movie. They are bald, yes, but that's the only visible trace of their supposed illnesses. They run, jump, dance and have fun, and just look too healthy to be cancer patients. No medicine is that strong. The guitar boy bears a strong resemblance to Mexico's Gael García Marquez (only time will tell whether he has the same level of talent) and is given little material to work with. The real star here is Yusa, the crazy guy. Even if this character is highly exaggerated and the script lacks 'profoundness', the actor is skilled enough to put his heart and energy in the character and while he completely steals the movie (together with the outstanding Finnish countryside), he is the only real reason to keep watching it.
Obaba
(2005)
Why has this film ever been made?
23 October 2005
With great expectations I went to see this film, Spain's contribution to the Oscar-race this year. Part from being completely pointless, banal, pathetic, badly written, edited, acted and directed, the movie is too long. It fails in delivering the "message" it tries to give, fails in its storytelling, clumsy historical settings and above all in its rhythm. There are some so extreme misfires I haven't seen in a movie in a long time (the story of Lucas whose dead sister lives in his head, the divine revelations, all that lizard nonsense). The Spanish-speaking audience around me was yawning and rapidly losing patience, and some of the commentaries I overheard was whether the members of the Spanish Academy had taken drugs before choosing the film for the Oscar contest.
Tapas
(2005)
Excellent example of humble and beautiful film making
25 June 2005
Far from trying to be smarter than it is, this beautiful little film actually achieves to be more honest and lyrical than most of the films on the market. It is a nostalgic, outstanding opera prima of its authors; an honest and caring photograph of a certain neighbourhood and its people. Although not neutral nor indifferent, it accomplishes to be non judgmental, and tells a story of people in different stages of life; the hidden secrets we all carry within and the solitude that accompanies us all. I highly recommend this film that is funny but never lightheaded, melancholic but never pretentious, humble but never loses its love for its characters with their imperfections and secrets. Like life itself. A joyful example of new European film making with heart and soul. 10 out of 10.
Solas
(1999)
Symphony of staged misery
4 June 2005
Funny how opinions can be different. I perfectly respect that many people found this movie a masterpiece, but I found it pretentious, dishonest, an external exhibition of "misery" full of stereotypes (and quite a conservative undertone). The fallen angel girl that goes through resurrection, the Madonna mother, bad (really really b a d) father, abusive and violent self-centered boyfriend, etc. All too calculated, staged for my taste - there are so many other films that I find more honest in their portray of poverty and misery (but with dignity). And then above all the fairy-tale end. It seemed so much like an imagined poverty by someone who has never experienced it.
The only thing that I really enjoyed of that film was the erotic electricity between two older characters that is a rare thing to see in a movie. In my opinion, that gives an extra start to this movie.
The only thing that I really enjoyed of that film was the erotic electricity between two older characters that is a rare thing to see in a movie. In my opinion, that gives an extra start to this movie.
The Sea Inside
(I) (2004)
Masterpiece on human dignity
4 September 2004
This small, quiet, harmonious movie grows into a masterpiece on human dignity. It is intelligently structured, filled with meaningful little details and important side-plots. It tells a story of one man with great humanity without positioning itself politically, but fostering life as a precious right (not an obligation) and underlining individual's right to choose. It enjoys the richness of different landscapes (mental and physical) and languages (important detail). Outstanding acting by each of the actors, especially unbelievable Javier Bardem. His screen-presence has such a force that you forget that this is fiction. The movie has a wonderful rhythm, it is beautifully shot and outstandingly directed. It takes real talent to make a movie on such a difficult theme with understanding, humour and heart. Six stars out of five.
The Matrix Revolutions
(2003)
What a waste of money and time!
5 April 2004
Warning: Spoilers
POSSIBLE SPOILERS
This movie reflects what I would call questionable values and world-view, meaning that we are led to believe that nothing has really developed in the future and the world is still based on muscles, violence and the myth of Christ (the 'chosen' one). We can actually get to see God in this who looks like the laughing Baby in the Teletubbies. I belong to the large group of people that enjoyed the first part of Matrix - its intelligent twists, its freshness, visual effects and depth. Then comes the follow-up with money, violence and tits. What a waste of money and time. I did not see the 2nd part because was advised not to see it, but out of curiosity watched the final part on a plane. It was so bad and so offensive to intelligence that watching it almost made me mad.
This movie is based on movie cliches (bad writing), stereotypes (one-dimensional characters)and special effects of music videos(lack of plot). Not much has changed in the world - women still dress up like in R&B music videos (does Monica Bellucci have any other meaning in the movie that to show her tits - I recall that she is considered a talented actress in Italy but here she can only show her body parts - the black female pilot, Jada Pinkett, is the typical 'tomboy' character that gets to 'kick guy's butt' - still, in a close-up you get to see her breasts under her shirt - was that really necessary? you need to be sexy to drive really fast?). The couples are strickly non-inter-racial (so strange that assuming that in the future there will be much more 'mixture' between people from different ethnics) and the 'real action' is still led by men and by men only.
And the world peace is resolved in a (physical) fight between between good and evil. The movie reflects Christian values and sacrifice (Neo sacrifices himself for the greater good), just that non-violence is not an issue since the chosen one is to guy who can hit harder and faster. I found the last scene not visually stunning but boring without any surprise - a scene that thas been repeated a million times in the history of the cinema. This is not the Matrix (the first part), that was setting some questions, intelligent plot-lines and interesting characters (there we had at least a couple of women that contibuted equally to the action) - no, this is a Steven Seagul-film in a prettier wrap. The depth of the plot and characters is from a B or C-class action movie with stunningly stupid dialogue. And then we have this Christ, this leader that wanders from place to place looking like he did not have a clue, has nothing interesting to say and then is ready to show his muscles when the time comes. Pathetic.
This movie reflects what I would call questionable values and world-view, meaning that we are led to believe that nothing has really developed in the future and the world is still based on muscles, violence and the myth of Christ (the 'chosen' one). We can actually get to see God in this who looks like the laughing Baby in the Teletubbies. I belong to the large group of people that enjoyed the first part of Matrix - its intelligent twists, its freshness, visual effects and depth. Then comes the follow-up with money, violence and tits. What a waste of money and time. I did not see the 2nd part because was advised not to see it, but out of curiosity watched the final part on a plane. It was so bad and so offensive to intelligence that watching it almost made me mad.
This movie is based on movie cliches (bad writing), stereotypes (one-dimensional characters)and special effects of music videos(lack of plot). Not much has changed in the world - women still dress up like in R&B music videos (does Monica Bellucci have any other meaning in the movie that to show her tits - I recall that she is considered a talented actress in Italy but here she can only show her body parts - the black female pilot, Jada Pinkett, is the typical 'tomboy' character that gets to 'kick guy's butt' - still, in a close-up you get to see her breasts under her shirt - was that really necessary? you need to be sexy to drive really fast?). The couples are strickly non-inter-racial (so strange that assuming that in the future there will be much more 'mixture' between people from different ethnics) and the 'real action' is still led by men and by men only.
And the world peace is resolved in a (physical) fight between between good and evil. The movie reflects Christian values and sacrifice (Neo sacrifices himself for the greater good), just that non-violence is not an issue since the chosen one is to guy who can hit harder and faster. I found the last scene not visually stunning but boring without any surprise - a scene that thas been repeated a million times in the history of the cinema. This is not the Matrix (the first part), that was setting some questions, intelligent plot-lines and interesting characters (there we had at least a couple of women that contibuted equally to the action) - no, this is a Steven Seagul-film in a prettier wrap. The depth of the plot and characters is from a B or C-class action movie with stunningly stupid dialogue. And then we have this Christ, this leader that wanders from place to place looking like he did not have a clue, has nothing interesting to say and then is ready to show his muscles when the time comes. Pathetic.
Gangs of New York
(2002)
One-dimensional, violent, pointless
11 March 2003
This was one of the worst movies I have seen in years; the first time in 10 years I was about to leave the whole time. It's ultra-violent, pointless, childish and partly plain bad. The story is very weak, predictable and extremely childish. The characters do not have any depth nor are their actions well explained. What a moral lecture about a guy that lives 20 years with the single though of revenge - how about making a new start, go somewhere else and forget? And all that plain violence without any reason? the times of the law of Hammurabi were over already! This movie gives a very questionable moral lecture about a society where people are one-dimensional animals that believe in violent leader-based structures and where women are mainly prostitutes, part from a couple of mothers. And when does a catholic priest have children and go around killing people, and that is noble? I could go on forever and am very sorry to see so many talented people waste their talents in this.
No Man's Land
(I) (2001)
a must-see movie to everyone
28 February 2002
This movie makes you feel privileged and very lucky for not having to live the absolute crazyness of war. Already because of that it should win all the awards ever!You leave the movie theatre thinking how unlogical, cruel and simply stupid we human beings can be!Such an important, important film.
Tell Your Friends