Change Your Image
martinjp-27642
Reviews
Scream (2022)
This movie shouldn't even have 1 star
This franchise died a long time ago, and at this point, there's absolutely no hope it will ever come back to life.
This is the definition of a money grab. Actors from the original are "borrowed" to validate the existence of this uninspired mess, even though these actors aren't given much or anything to do; case in point: Dewey, but Sidney also don't have any function except for distracting from the atrocious acting of Melissa Barrera (Sam) who has the same facial expression throughout most of the movie.
To say that the constant and annoying meta-communication has completely outlived its purpose is an understatement. What's the point of having the annoying friend group constantly mentioning 'Stab' and "the rules"? Do the "filmmakers" (in lack of a better term) seriously expect audiences to sit and think: "Wow, that's so edgy and high-IQ." Pretentious, boring, and unoriginal is what it is.
The acting of Jenna Ortega (Tara) is the only redeeming factor. She actually seemed to care, but even she was given cringey one-liners like: "I still prefer the Babadook" and embarrasingly unoriginal and overused lines such as in her "heartfelt" talk with Melissa at the hospital.
Other than that: 1) no effective jumpscares; 2) exceptionally bad build-up to the murders; 3) exceptionally bad introduction to the one-dimensional characters in the friend group; 4) incomprehensibly dumb decisions on the characters' part (for example, Dewey's decision at the hospital); 5) the villains turn out to be as silly and nonsensical as ever, making this one of the least scary movies ever made. 'The Room' had way more frightening moments than this.
A money grab...I mean...a movie like this should be marketed as comedy, even though it also fails as that.
Eyes Wide Shut (1999)
The brilliance of a movie that's much darker than many people believe (Alice is the key)
It's only on a surface level that this movie is about unoriginal themes like "the consequences of infidelity" and "realizing the value of what you have" or whatever else people have said and written over the years. I can't help thinking that surface level interpretations are what Kubrick wanted in order to confirm the title, because, like Bill (Cruise), most audience members have their eyes wide shut to what's really going on.
The first shot is the first step to understanding the real meaning. Alice is getting undressed in a room that resembles the location of the masquerade. There are also tennis rackets in the background. From the "normal" party at Ziegler's, we know that Ziegler plays tennis. This establishes a connection between Alice and Ziegler; a connection Bill doesn't know about. Combined with her dream that "happened to be" identical to what Bill had just experienced at the masquerade, the mask that "happened to" show up in the bed, and the deceitful, knowing smile she gives Bill while helping Helena with math, Alice doesn't only know exactly what's going on; it's also strongly suggested that she's one of Ziegler's regulars and, maybe, that she was at the same masquerade as Bill. In case she's been at the masquerades, which I think is the most likely interpretation, this explains why she wouldn't say hello to Nick but lied to Bill about needing to go to the toilet; not that Nick would (necessarily) recognize her, but because she knows who he is. She also gives Nick a knowing (and slightly frightened) look.
Alice's connection with the powerful elite explains the rather creepy final scene at the department store. On a surface level, Bill, Alice, and Helena walk around among toys just like they themselves are toys for the elite to exploit and discard; on a surface level Bill and Alice are rediscovering the spark between them. However, that's not what's going on at all. Helena follows the two men that we saw under the stairs at the "normal" party at Ziegler's. Interestingly, Bill has his back turned to this event, while Alice is able to see it. Metaphorically, Bill has had his back turned (or his eyes wide shut) for the entire movie: 1) what really happened to Mandy and Nick; 2) the creepy Milich; 3) his own wife's true face. He believes whatever he needs to believe to keep up appearances, him being an important doctor and all (which he never misses an opportunity to proudly mention to people). Thus, Alice knows exactly what's happening and what's going to happen to Helena, as mirrored and foreshadowed by 1) the eerie Milich plotline, which is masked as humor, and 2) the masquerade.
Alice runs their marriage. Bill is merely a pawn (the weakest piece in chess, by the way; Kubrick's favorite game). Alice knows how to make Bill feel inadequate and clearly enjoys it, which indicates a sadistic - and evil - side to her personality. In that regard, it's interesting to note that in the hopes of reclaiming his masculinity at the masquerade, all Bill ends up with is being emasculated even further, as evidenced by the command to remove his clothes and being redeemed by a woman who, unlike him, is brave.
Bill's wallet means a lot to him (the first or one of the first lines in the movie is him asking Alice about his wallet), but he can't use his money (or title) to get access into the powerful elite that Alice is part of. His name, Bill, underlines that he's merely a "money machine" that the unemployed Alice needs, while being with the men she "really wants" (Sandor's words). Also, in a metaphoric sense, Bill's bill keeps growing bigger and bigger during the movie until he finally loses it and takes a subservient role in his marriage to the much stronger (but also deceitful and ice-cold) Alice.
The first time I watched this movie I thought it was slightly above average, but then I realized I had been approaching it the wrong way. Every shot in the movie is like a painting; everything's there for a reason and means something. That's an important reason why the movie took over a year to film. A solid 10/10 movie experience with remarkable performances by Cruise and Kidman.
Hot Seat (2022)
Entertaining and captivating
This is one of those movies that should have a higher rating. It delivers on most of the areas that matter for a movie within this genre. Solid idea, great build-up and tension, nice pacing, and convincing performances by Dillon, Gibson, and Welch.
In my opinion, a movie like this is much more exciting than the "bigger" movies Hollywood puts out. There's nothing pretentious about it; instead it delivers the excitement that kept me watching and rewatching it.
The movie could have had a better intro, which fails to deliver the tension that I think the rest of the movie has.
There could have been more explanations about what exactly Dillon is doing at his computer.
Also, we could have seen Gibson doing something a little more technical and complicated.
But overall, a solid action/thriller, which exceeded my expectations.
No Time to Die (2021)
It feels stupid even giving this "woke" trash 1 star
Tiny Ana de Armas takes out 3 guys easily; first kicking, then shooting. As expected.
Craig literally - and metaphorically - takes a backseat on Lashana Lynch's "scooter". As expected.
Craig is such a shadow of his former self because of all the considerations of "diversity" (deceptive word) that this movie takes. The director's also emphasized his own "woke" beliefs.
I realize that movies can't always be realistic, but this one had a clear agenda behind it.
Dune (2021)
I've now realized what the biggest problem with this movie is
I owe a huge apology to movie fans everywhere. Originally, I rated this 5/10 and even made positive remarks in my review (now deleted). I guess I was overwhelmed by watching it on the big screen, because at second viewing (streaming), I can't even finish it.
This movie's literally empty. It tries so hard to be grandiose like LOTR, but what Villeneuve forgets, is that the plot has to be compelling and complex. This movie's biggest problem is that we see almost all scenes from Paul's POV. In LOTR, the characters are independent and complex. This is not the case in Dune. Key characters are hardly given any screen time, and they're certainly not given a (convincing) personality.
This is the primary problem. The secondary problem is the amount of filler scenes. Like when the Emperor's messenger arrives to Caladan in the beginning. Grandiose music, grandiose cinematography, but completely pointless.
Dune is such a money grab, biding its time just to set up a sequel. As long as movies like these are praised, modern cinema will remain superficial.
Interstellar (2014)
8.6 rating is laughable...but very telling
This extremely pretentious piece of ( ) is on my top 5 of worst movies of all time. I watched it 3 times just to be sure about my assessment. It kept getting worse for each time. It's worth praising McConaughey - he's the only redeeming factor about this movie.
It's Nolan, so of course, there's the usual "genius and innovative idea" and "Nolan's ahead of his time" propaganda, even though this movie is anything but genius and ahead of his time. Besides being absolutely ridiculous, the "big twist" is also extremely unorginal: "Love conquers all", just like Hollywood's told us in thousands of movies before this one.
It's so annoyingly sentimental and relies so heavily on making the audience cry and feel (oh yes, feelings above all) that it becomes cynical.
Unfortunately, it's very telling that audiences today prefer these pseudointellectual, emotional, big productions with absolutely no substance. As long as these types of movies keep getting applauded, modern cinema will remain superficial.
Tenet (2020)
This movie only has a 7.4 rating because of Nolan
What a mess this movie is, and if it had been directed by someone more or less unknown, it would have been absolutely slammed for its absolute lack of good and exciting storytelling, the extreme pretentiousness of the "ideas" and the total lack of reason for us to care for any of the characters. But...it's Nolan, so no matter what he does, his fan club's always there to back him up.
I really can't overstate just how bad this movie is. Don't waste time with this pseudointellectual nonsense.
Blade Runner 2049 (2017)
Unjustifiably slow and self-indulgent
I like some of Villeneuve's movies, but every director's style has pitfalls. The pitfalls of Villeneuve's style is that the movies become unnecessarily slow and too focused on cinematography/atmosphere rather than having a compelling and complex plot. Villeneuve's "Prisoners" is deeply captivating; "Sicario" has an interesting rawness to it; "Dune" is just overall powerful.
Blade Runner 2049 relies way too much on the fact that "this is Blade Runner", and we're supposed to automatically find Harrison Ford's character exciting, and we're supposed to automatically care about the movie's universe. My guess is if this wasn't a sequel and if this was made by an unestablished director, critics and audiences would have complained way more about the lack of a goal with the movie from the get-go and the lack of reason for us to care for any of these characters. The 20-30 second close-ups of characters looking sad or angry don't make me empathize with the characters, and the absolutely stunning visuals don't justify the lack of plot that could have easily been shown in a 2 hour format instead of a 3 hour format.
As a result, the movie comes across as pretentious and self-indulgent. It's definitely made for fans of the franchise.
Sicario: Day of the Soldado (2018)
A logical sequel
I have no idea why some critics still bother to compare this to Sicario (2015). They're part of the same series, true, but that doesn't mean the plot and style have to be the same. The point of Emily Blunt's character was completed after the first movie, and another "observatory" documentary-like style wouldn't have made sense. It made sense in the first movie, though.
In my opinion, Sicario (2015) is a drama/thriller, while this one is an action movie, first and foremost. So keep these distinctions in mind, if you plan on watching this sequel.
Sicario (2015)
I watched this 3 times in a row
I've never watched a movie 3 times in a row on the same day. Sicario was the first.
The first time I was quite annoyed with it. I felt that Emily Blunt's character Kate ruined what could have been a perfectly good action-thriller starring Brolin and Del Toro.
The second and third time I realized that the movie was good exactly because she was there. Not because her character's either likeable or relatable (at least that's what I think), but because we see the scary scenes through her eyes. In other words, she makes the scenes scary.
Some criticize her character of being one-dimensional, and I thought so too, initally. But then I realized that her character HAS to be one-dimensional. That's precisely the point of the plot. That's why she's wrong on a lot of things, and that's why she can't handle the realism that shatters her idealism.
Expect to see a thriller/drama, first and foremost. There's action too, but unlike it's sequel, Sicario's not your "typical" straightforward action movie. Its direction style's very addictive, and I notice new things each time I see the movie.
The reason why I don't give it a 10/10 is because I do think it's a mistake that Emily Blunt's character Kate leads a kidnap response team, kicking in doors. To really emphasize the difference between Kate's world and the world of Brolin and Del Toro, she should've had a desk job.
Other than that, Sicario's very raw and realistic - almost like a documentary - and without any cheesy one-liners or other action movie cliches.
Arrival (2016)
So much for so little
I like Villeneuve's vision of making serious and "understated", even slow movies. However, this one was repetitive to the point where I didn't care what happened to any of the characters or what the "twist" was going to be.
I wanted to like it, I just couldn't. It's over the top sentimental, and even though Amy Adams does a somewhat decent job, she too gets boring and repetitive: She has a very limited range of facial expressions, at least in this movie. Half the time, she has the same frightened look on her face, taking heavy breaths in for dramatic effect, even though the action's really not that dramatic.
I have many issues with this movie, so I'll just name a few of them:
I disliked that whole: "We've never had this kind of breakthrough" when all she did up until that point was write "Human" on a sign and take her suit off (as if the others hadn't thought of that).
In this way, it's definitely a pretentious movie, trying to convince us as the audience that the main character's very clever - even though this act of convincing doesn't match what we actually see her do. This is an unfortunate "tell, don't show" moment on Villeneuve's part.
In the beginning, when Ian tells her she's wrong that language about language being a cornerstone, their relationship's set up to be a rivalry (or something similar). However, in the scenes after that, Ian's just immediately fascinated with her linguistic skills.
What we see Louise do, doesn't require a lot of expertise. When I read she was an expert, I expected that we got to see her work with acoustic phonetics (intensity, vowel length, charts), but we don't. This movie is about feelings, Louise's feelings, first and foremost.
The amount of "flashbacks" is extremely redundant, but I guess it's an excuse to (over)use the amazing soundtrack for emotional effect while Louise shifts between 'sad face' and 'frightened face'.
Overall, sentimentality is this movie's greatest problem. Most of the dialogue is soft spoken and low in order to create intimacy. Too pretentious, too deliberate. I expect more from Villeneuve.
The pacing, the 5 seconds (minimum) of thinking before anyone says anything in this movie, and the monotone nature of each scene ruin what could've been a very good movie I'd want to see again and again. Unfortunately, I couldn't wait for this one to finish.
Druk (2020)
Good plot idea, but caricatured and (a bit) superficial
First of all, this is a very interesting idea for a movie.
However, it's this idea that becomes the movie's biggest problem. The idea is Vinterberg's primary concern, the characters are obviously a distant second. There's not enough background material for me to care for any of the characters.
Also, Vinterberg takes a lot of shortcuts to get his points across instead of actually narrating. Here's what I mean:
1. The carelessness of the students in the beginning of the movie is deeply exaggerated.
2. Martin (Mads Mikkelsen) asks his wife if he's become boring. I cringed when I heard him ask that. Come on, Vinterberg: Show, don't tell. We're supposed to see (!) that he's boring, not that he's literally asking her.
3. Exaggerated focus on close-up's to show how amazed the students are by Martin, once he's had something to drink. Vinterberg is persuading us, he's not just showing the action.
Overall, the film suffers from a lack of depth. Here's what I mean:
1. The "real life" montage of drunk politicians is extremely misplaced and takes the focus off the narrative. And this is the case in point: Vinterberg is not as interested in the characters as he is in the idea.
2. The alleged friendship between the four men is never established. We never get an idea of what they talk to each other about besides their "mission". Vinterberg just shows them laughing and then adds sentimental music for emotional effect. This is lazy writing.
3. Martin's "change" already occurs 18 minutes into the movie (where the four of them sit at the table). His character is not yet established at this point.
In conclusion: The movie definitely has its share of memorable and well-directed scenes, but overall it lacks depth and a reason for us to care for any of these characters.
Miami Vice (2006)
6.0 rating is misleading
This movie should have a 7.0 rating, minimum. 6.0 makes no sense.
It's nice to see a mature and serious (as in no nonsense) action thriller. You can clearly see this is written and directed by an older and experienced man (Mann) who wants so much more than entertain and go for easy emotions and cheap thrills. It's a cinematic experience in a very low-key way. Nothing like today's overly dramatic and self-glorifying blockbusters with scripts written directly for light entertainment and easy emotions.
Miami Vice is not "style over substance" as some critics have said. If you're a serious filmmaker, you don't differentiate 'style' and substance' like that. They're connected because the style IS the way to unfold the plot, and Mann certainly knows how to connect the two.
If you like action movies with a lot more than just action, you notice and appreciate details, and you enjoy a script without comic reliefs and irrelevant dialogue, you should deinitely see this one. I really can't recommend this enough. I wish Hollywood still allowed movies like this one.
Public Enemies (2009)
Direct, dark and beautifully directed
The first time I saw Public Enemies was when it came out. I wasn't too impressed by it then. I would have probably rated it 3/10. I saw it again 5 years later and became fascinated with the way it was directed; the camera work, the colorgrading, and the eye for detail that distinguishes Mann from many other directors. In 2020, I've seen the movie 3 times so far, and all the pieces have finally come together. The plot (and its pacing), the screenplay and the stylistics combined make for a delightful viewing experience.
The frequent use of handheld camera and shaky images serves the movie well in that it keeps you engaged in what might otherwise have been a boringly "still" historical drama.
The screenplay is concise; the scenes and dialogue are there for a reason: building up characters and making their relationships credible. I like movies where you think: "Wow, practically no scenes or dialogue could have been left out."
I went into the movie knowing that it does take some historical liberties. Apparently, Dillinger died before Baby Face Nelson, and there are indicators that Dillinger and Billie's relationship wasn't as close as the movie portrays. If I were to point out one thing that might be a bit much, it would be Dillinger crying over Billie's "arrest". A bit overboard, but nothing that ruins the movie on any levels.
Overall, a great experience with a phenomenal finale. The cinema scene is in my top 3 of greatest movie endings ever. The way Dillinger projects his own life onto Manhattan Melodrama, the music and Dillinger's hidden smile is a beautiful moment in cinematic history.
Se7en (1995)
Scary foreshadowing
I first saw this movie in 1996 when I was 11 years old. In regards to plot, style, acting performances and foreshadowing, Se7en is way ahead of its time. You really can't see this was made in 1995. It's made for the future.
Notice the short scene where Tracy wakes up in the bed and looks around the home. You can see the boxes in the background where her head is eventually going to be in + you get an idea of what happens the morning that John Doe pays her a visit. Maybe she hears a sound and she's getting up to see if anybody's there.
Also notice Tracy when she's sadly looking at David during the symphonic montage. We only see her head, not her body. Again, foreshadowing being made.
I could say a lot more positive things about this movie, but others have already done that.
Copycat (1995)
Holly Hunter is beyond annoying - and this movie is garbage
Wow, where do I even begin explaining why this movie is pure garbage and should be avoided by all thriller movie fans (and movie fans in general)?
1) Terrible, terrible acting performances with Sigourney Weaver being the only exception. Not that this is her best performance, but she's not bad. Cornick Jr. is over the top, the copycat killer is embarrassing, Mulroney doesn't even try, and Will Patton is limited as always. And HOLLY HUNTER deserves to be awarded the most annoying, unconvincing "inspector" in the history of cinema. You can't base a lead off of somebody like her.
Terrible acting performances lead you to not care for any of the characters or what happens to them...and most of all: to not be scared at any point during this "thriller".
2) Mulroney is conveniently killed in a nonsense sub plot that has nothing to do with the serial killer they're chasing, and that's one of the many problems with this movie: It wants to cover too much ground, and as a result it's overly long, repetitive and you lose interest. It's simply not well-acted enough or complicated enough to last just over 2 hours. There are no plot twists - only plot breakers. And how many times do we have to see Weaver being chased and afraid in her apartment?
To think that this was the year that Se7en was also made ... a world of difference in plot, style and performances between the two.
Avoid this amateurish movie. It's 2 hours of your life you could spend doing meaningful things.
Blackhat (2015)
Underrated! 5,4? Seriously?
A movie like this should not just be above average. It's skillfully directed with its attention to detail plus consistent and memorable stylistics. Unlike many "computer movies", its plot and dialogue are very realistic, non-pretentious and free of annoying comic reliefs. The action sequences are also realistic, no showoff, no action for the sake of action. Also, I like that Hemsworth is "allowed" to remain masculine (direct, decisive and not controlled by his emotions) throughout the film. Not a common sight in our decade of movies where the male protagonists almost always get soft or confused at some point because of so-called "progressivism".
I rate it an 8 because it's not perfect. I know Michael Mann is a very "show, don't tell" kind of director; that's what's so great about his movies. However, in this particular movie, some scenes could have had a bit more dialogue, a bit more explanation of the different phases in trying to catch the bad guys. Also, I think the antagonist is introduced too late in the movie.
If you appreciate the stylistics of a film and not just its story; if you prefer realism over CGI or whatever, and if you like a straightforward no-nonsense type of film, Blackhat is that movie.
It (2017)
Not scary AT ALL - Don't waste your time
I had to make an account to warn people against this movie. Do not be fooled by the "Horror" predicate on this movie. This is just like a Disney movie combined with some very foul language used by the minors in this movie. It has no real target audience, and it has no direction, no underlying purpose.
The ending is totally unsatisfying and self-contradictory. What happens to the town of Derry? What about the children when they stop floating; wouldn't they be brought back to life?
Not to mention the length of this movie. Over 2 hours for a simple and predictable (as in not complex and interesting) movie is way too long. You have a thousand attempts at jump scares, and the clown really isn't scary. It seems ridiculous and over the top.
In short, don't waste your time with this one. It's Disney, lacks direction, don't waste your time.