neigenoirejz Reviews

Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)

It's not enough

[3/10 · 12 April 2016]

Aside from the most obvious, predictable and least suspenseful way of killing off an important character and the entire movie being pretty much a blatant copy-pasta of the original trilogy, the Force Awakens isn't all that bad. It's certainly an entertaining movie (especially for younger generations) all things considered, but is it enough for the old guard?

The big downfall of this movie are the characters. The characters in The Force Awakens are paper thin. And the reason why is because there are not enough meaningful dialogues. All the flashy pew'pew'ing is meaningless if there's not enough exposition. For example, what do we know about the lead character Rey? Well, the first half of the movie tells us that she lives alone on a sandy planet. She collects scrap. And... that's it for the most part. That's just not enough information! As a result it's impossible to form an attachment to this character. I mean there are a few other personality traits that we learn about her but overall it's just not enough. Compare that to when we first meet Han Solo in A New Hope. We instantly fall in love with this character not because he's a smuggler who owns a super fast ship (although that's cool in its own right), but because he instantly presents us with information - quirks, traits, characteristics, personality! He's arrogant, macho-type of guy with a shady past involving the Empire, isn't too slow to brag about his achievements, and a tendency to get entangled with local crime lords. That's an overload of information given to us through dialogues and interactions between the characters. See, that's where The Force Awakens falls flat. Not only is there not enough information about the lead characters, the dialogues that they engage in are short and woefully shallow... No amount of state-of-the-art graphics can make up for a lack of information. I guess we're supposed to grow and develop our attachment to the characters as the film progresses. But everything that happens to Rey is reactionary - stuff just happens and we're forced to watch her being forced to react by running away, fighting, and running away some more. In the end, none of her personality stands out as very unique or particularly interesting or has a chance to develop much.

Poe, played by Oscar Isaac, is by far the best and most charismatic character in this film. The moment he says "So who talks first? I talk first? You talk first?" when confronted by Kylo Ren, is when I instantly knew this character will not suck. Sadly, we don't get to see Poe very much after this scene which is a big shame.

I mean, I'd be lying if I told you I didn't enjoy watching the movie for its action sequences, beautiful cinematography and sets. Given today's standards, it's definitely an entertaining and fun movie. But this is STAR WARS. It's a goddamn religion for so many of the fans... As pretentious as it sounds - fun is not enough! The fans want more - more innovation, more interesting characters, more exploration of the mystery of the Force. Overall, it's just not enough.

Abrams and the rest of the writers should be ashamed.

Interstellar (2014)

Absurd

[1/10 · 15 March 2015]

I was very disappointed after seeing this movie. Especially after having read so many positive reviews. The portrayal of physics and astronomy here is so pseudo-scientific and so preposterous that I found myself constantly sighing or scratching my head all throughout the movie. I don't have a degree in astronomy or any other science field for that matter but the scientific freedoms that this movie takes are so incredibly blatant and obvious that even I found myself bothered by them. Even for a sci-fi it's far too liberal in this regard.

But that's not the only problem with this movie. The characters are paper-thin... and the way events unfold is often irrational or portrayed in a very contrived manner. For example, an Ex Nasa pilot stumbles upon a secret NASA base (which he found by interpreting strange dust formations into binary code which he then somehow immediately knew were map coordinates - makes so much sense, huh?) where he is immediately offered to pilot their only rocket which is to save mankind and is to launch the FOLLOWING day, because all their pilots are inexperienced and have only flown in simulators, whereas the protagonist has flown before, MANY YEARS back, and only BARELY leaving the atmosphere. But that's fine, they're sure he can manage an intergalactic journey, involving many years of travel, deep-space hibernation, traveling through a wormhole and finding a new world to save mankind. No need for any training or a medical check of course, surely he'll be just fine, he just needs to show up tomorrow for the launch. Incredibly, when our hero performs the greatest feat of space exploration ever - traveling through a wormhole, he and his crew-mates just play it cool, the feat is given no more significance than a casual stroll through a park. There are quite a few other examples too where the plot is painfully contrived and makes the whole movie difficult to take with even a bit of seriousness.

Another thing that completely broke the immersion was the very unscientific language that was used all throughput the movie. A movie that was supposed to be about space exploration and science... You'd have to be mentally challenged to actually believe that this insultingly simplistic chit-chat resembles anything close to actual scientific language that high level NASA scientists, professors and engineers would use. This is nothing short of an insult to our intelligence...

I'll end by saying I really fail to comprehend how people claim this to be the best sci-fi movie ever... It seems to me that we're stooping lower and lower in our expectations of what makes a film great. It's almost a standard now to expect a movie to be bad when reviews are surprisingly positive.

Nightcrawler (2014)

What?

[1/10 · 29 January 2015]

Wait... So the guy is directly responsible for several homicides, basically murders his partner because he had made demands regarding his pay, makes up a bullshit story about it all and the police just let him go! What's more, his "company" continues to grow and prosper. What? Is that it? The guy has mental issues, is a thief, an extortionist and is responsible for deaths of several people and at the end he just walks away? I'm sorry, it just makes no sense to me. The acting and cinematography and all that jazz was good I guess, some of the technical chatter was a bit cheesy at times, but the plot itself makes no sense to me whatsoever. I'm not here to drool over Gyllenhaal's performance (which is good) like most people seem to, I want in addition a plot that is satisfying and in my opinion that's not to be found here.

The Dark Valley (2014)

Weak plot, beautiful scenery

[3/10 · 29 November 2014]

Warning: massive spoilers ahead.

The plot can be summarized like this: a man in his 30ies, an American who was born and has lived his whole life in America, travels to a secluded village in the Alps where his mother and her lover lived at their time of youth.

He arrives with the purpose of bringing justice to a group of people, who harassed his mother and killed her lover. She was also forced to have sex with one of those men (the protagonist's biological father). After arriving at the village the protagonist proceeds to murder several men, including his biological father (a sick, incapacitated elderly man) and six of his sons (the protagonist's half brothers).

The motivation that lead this guy on a murderous spree is very unconvincing and left me questioning his sanity more than cheering for the "justice" that was brought about. This notion was only reinforced by how one-dimensional his character is.

Overall, the weak-sauce plot and the very boring, one-dimensional protagonist left me dissatisfied with the film.

The visuals and the cinematography are aesthetically pleasing though. And the Alps are wonderful, of course.

Shutter Island (2010)

The Best Thriller of the 21st Century

[9/10 · 18 September 2014]

One of the few thrillers that really messes with your mind and makes you think. It's full of little details and twists that go over your head on the first viewing - definitely a movie you will want to watch at least twice. This film is filled with suspense and gives your brain some exercise at the same time - a combination that is quite enjoyable in my opinion. It makes you question your own judgments of the portrayed events, think back on what you might have missed or misunderstood, all while a dark, scary scene plays out keeping you on the edge of your seat. This holds true until the very last scene of the movie. A masterfully crafted piece of cinema that I enjoyed from the first scene to the very last.

Edge of Tomorrow (2014)

Unoriginal and lazy

[2/10 · 18 September 2014]

In short, Edge of Tomorrow is a movie where one irrational thing happens after another with some spectacular CG in between, all of which is justified by very original concepts that we have never seen before - an alien invasion, a man reliving the same day over and over again, and Americans saving the world from destruction, which is done mostly by one guy who blows up the chief alien with some grenades. Epic stuff. There is very little back-story, very little explanation of why things happen, they just do, and we watch them happen because, well, they often involve spectacular explosions, otherworldly creatures and cool exoskeletons with built-in machine guns (awesome!). The writing and dialogues are poor (with a few exceptions) you mostly hear lines like "we must kill the Omega" or "the world expects us to win" etc. There is actually one very brief scene where our protagonist discusses the possible reasons of the alien invasion with a group of elderly people. Sadly it fell short of delivering any answers at all, and all we got from that scene was that the aliens are there, it doesn't matter why, all that matters is we must kill them. Can it get more simplistic than that?

Also, apparently the most powerful types of aliens (Alphas and the Omega) are physically present on Earth and in the case of Alphas - they physically take part in combat against humans. This makes little sense since if an Alpha gets killed, the killer absorbs the alien's power and can "control the time". The killer will also have visions that will reveal the location of the Omega. So why would they risk being killed and giving away that power? Especially since even the smaller aliens completely wreck humans, why is there need for Alphas to be present on the battlefield at all? Perhaps there is a reason for that, but the lazy writing does not help us find out. This is just one of the many plot holes in this movie.

TLDR: The movie has cool visual effects, ideas and concepts we've already seen many times before (even the visual style of aliens is a blatant copy-pasta), poor writing, plot holes and poor dialogues. 2/10 would not watch this crap again.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

An abomination

[1/10 · 28 March 2014]

I couldn't force myself to watch this film for more than 30 minutes. I had watched An Unexpected Journey, so naturally my expectations were extremely low, but at least I was hoping I could bare to watch it until the end. Nope. It was enough for me to see the scene with Beorn, to realize how bad this movie is going to be. Beorn is a bloody joke. I mean no offense to the actor, but his performance seemed extremely unconvincing to me, and the visual style that they chose for him is so... different from the book, I just couldn't get into it. The point where I stopped watching was in the halls of the elven king, where the king and Thorin have a conversation. The king's face suddenly turns into an ugly, disfigured shape and then turns back to normal again, apparently to stress the idea he was expressing at that moment. My question is - why? Why would you do that? It just feels out of place, like one of those one-too-many cgi things that are there only for the purpose of being CGI and looking "cool". The performance of the actor, who played the king, was also lackluster, in my opinion. I don't get why elves can't act like elves - immortal beings, that are wise and ancient. In this movie they act more like teenagers who have just reached puberty. There's even some romantic implications between a female elf and a dwarf... I mean, I have no words for that. This movie blew me away with how little it has in common with the book or the Tolkien's universe in general. It's an abomination of the work towards which the author had devotes most of his life and it's sad to see that it's so popular and will forever be engraved in the minds of the masses as The Hobbit - a film based on professor Tolkien's book.

Incendies (2010)

Amazing movie

[9/10 · 3 November 2013]

A mesmerizing, beautifully crafted movie that creates an almost tangible emotional attachment. It's so captivating and so realistic it becomes emotionally exhausting at certain points throughout the movie. You will be gripping your seat in disbelief or bewilderment at the shocking events that happen on screen and you'll do it not because of huge explosions or amazing action sequences, but because the movie makes you genuinely care about the characters and their fates. Although everything about the film is quite well done - acting, cinematography, music - it's the cleverly crafted plot and the way it's delivered that takes the cake. I really don't want to reveal any details about it though, suffice it to say that it's an amazing work of art that will leave you anything but indifferent.

Safety Last! (1923)

Superb

[8/10 · 30 June 2013]

I've never been a fan of silent films (I think I've only ever watched three), but this one is one of my all time favourite comedies. The humor here is brilliant! Sure, it's simple (it's a silent film after all), but it works and that's what matters. I could never have imagined a 90 year old piece of cinema with little to no dialogue making for a good laugh, but it did!

I absolutely enjoyed it from beginning to end and I can't recall the last time I've laughed so much during a film. The climbing scene, though, was fun in a different way - I didn't find myself laughing as much as I was gasping. An amazing fact considering the age of the film.

I wouldn't call this entirely a one man's show, but I can't help but highlight Harold Lloyd's commitment in every facial expression and every move of his body - it's quite mesmerizing. There's a hint of something almost poetic about this type of acting and film in general.

Surprisingly it's a type of film that's fun to watch with friends. If you haven't seen it, give it a try. I assure you, you won't regret it!

Ace in the Hole (1951)

Good, but left me wanting for more

[7/10 · 18 June 2013]

I'm the kind of person, who looks for the moral of the story - the philosophical message expressed in the film. In the case of Ace in the Hole, it could be something like "don't be selfish and don't manipulate others for your own gain". Which at the end of the day isn't that bad, but it does seem a bit simplistic and unfortunately left me wanting for more at the ending.

The performance by K. Douglas is, as usual - splendid and it was quite a journey witnessing him turn from a charismatic but arrogant journalist into a broken man - brought down to his knees in the realization of his own miserableness as a human being.

This film has quite a few memorable moments and scenes which will make you stare in amazement or disbelief (the slapping scene, for example, caught me completely off guard), many of which owe their merit to K. Douglas' splendid acting.

Overall, Ace in the Hole is a good film with great acting and cinematography, but with some drawbacks as well. Nevertheless, it definitely deserves to be watched at least once by everybody. It gets 7.5 from me.

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)

Would have been a wreck, but for P. Sellers

[6/10 · 2 June 2013]

I get why people like this movie so much, I get the (scary) message it conveys by making us laugh at such a serious issue. What I don't get is the praise of G. C. Scott's performance. He was almost the only character that seemed to me somewhat boring and unlikeable (with the exception of a couple scenes, I'll admit). I very much enjoyed Seller's performance, though. Call me slow, but when I first watched this film, I completely missed the fact he played three different characters! Very solid and versatile acting, thoroughly enjoyable.

As for the pacing, sadly the movie does seem to drag at times. And the moments I found myself genuinely laughing, although plenty enough, were stretched somewhat far apart from each other.

Some elements felt a bit contrived or redundant, e.g. all the officials in the war room just sitting there like props while Turgidson and the president had a 10 minute dialogue. Some of the plane scenes were a bit lengthy and tedious. The terrible accent of the ambassador Alexi (when speaking in Russian) made me cringe, although this won't be an issue for those who don't speak or understand Russian.

The movie is OK to watch once and perhaps deserves a rewatch for the superb comedy and the fantastic acting by P. Sellers. But I don't think it's the best in Kubrick's arsenal. It gets 6/10 from me.

Paths of Glory (1957)

A masterpiece

[10/10 · 30 May 2013]

There is very little to say about the flaws of this film, and what little there is to say is quickly forgotten and overshadowed by the amazing performances of all the main actors, the deep, meaningful dialogues and the engaging, captivating story, which is presented in a well paced manner. Not once did I feel the movie was dragging on or rushing ahead too quickly, it really is perfectly paced.

I must especially highlight the performances by K. Douglas and G. Macready. The rest of the cast is splendid too of course, but these two gentlemen truly made the movie for me.

If you like war movies with an engaging storyline, without too great an emphasis on military combat itself but with a philosophical message conveyed through amazing dialogues and acting that draws you in for the entire screen time, then this movie is for you.

The Ascent (1977)

Bleak, emotionally crushing, beautiful

[8/10 · 24 May 2013]

Is one's life the most valuable thing one can possess? Are all ideals and philosophies mere fallacy, not worth sacrificing one's life for? These are the questions this film touches upon. And does so brilliantly.

By today's standards, the film might be viewed as somewhat slow-paced and indeed, without giving too much away, certain scenes are a bit stretched out and in my opinion, could have been made shorter for stronger emotional impact. Nonetheless, the amazing performance by all the main actors kept me glued to the screen most of the time. The hopelessness and the terror of war, intensified by the unforgiving Russian winter, permeates the film from start to finish.

The film presents us with food for thought not covered much by modern cinema, touching upon something that isn't often discussed openly in modern society. We avoid it because it lurks inside each of us and we fear it - venality and betrayal in face of death.

Our life is everything we know - the entire world ends with it, as Portnov, the Nazi interrogator says in the film. Would YOU sacrifice it for something? For anything? This film will force you to ponder this question and reflect on your values and yourself as a human being.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

A colorful action adventure mostly for children

[1/10 · 9 May 2013]

Despite many deviation from the books, I enjoyed The Lord of the Rings movie trilogy (especially the first movie). Sure, Peter Jackson did cut and (unfortunately) add in a lot of stuff that wasn't in the books and many things were portrayed inadequately, but in the end the cinematic brilliance of the movies won me over.

This time, however, I just couldn't force myself to enjoy the film. Here is a list of things that I personally found to be its biggest problems.

1. CGI. Too much is too much. The excessive reliance on computer generated graphics cheapens the experience and distances the viewer from the characters. Many scenes look like taken out of a video game cut-scene. Some characters like Azog are completely CGI! In addition to excessive amounts of CGI, the movie has a lot of action scenes with crazy camera movements (impossible to attain with actual cameras) which again contributes to the "video game" effect.

2. Borrowed LOTR concepts. The structure of this movie is very similar to FOTR. It starts with a backstory, telling historical events concerning the plot - just like in LOTR. Then a "fellowship" is formed who travel around visiting elves, climbing mountains (avoiding an avalanche of rocks/snow), fighting through underground tunnels (goblin town/Moria).

There's even a council involved and we see many characters of LOTR that weren't even mentioned in the book. Was the appealing to the LOTR crowd really necessary? What does it add to the story of the dwarfs? The Hobbit was written from Bilbo's perspective but the movie is trying much too hard to be a grand, epic story in the same vein as LOTR while retaining the children's tale aspect. It's unbalanced and simply does not work.

3. A lot of the comedy I found to be very poor. Remembering the funny moments in LOTR, I can't help but wonder what happened to Jackson's sense of humour. Of course, a lot of the humour in LOTR was based around Gimli, of which I was a little upset because in the books dwarfs are anything but comical. Nonetheless, I found myself genuinely laughing at the scene of Gimli talking about dwarf women to Eowyn, the scene with hobbits sparring with Boromir and attacking him jokingly, the scene with one of the hobbits asking "So where are we going?" at the Council of Elrond, the scene at the party with Frodo throwing Sam into dance with Rosie and the one with Frodo asking Gandalf: "Mordor, Gandalf! Is it left or right?", I could go on and on... All these moments and many, many others still make me smile. And what do we get in The Hobbit? Trolls sneezing on Bilbo and him warning the trolls not to eat the dwarfs, because they have worms? Really?

The big problem here, I guess, is that Jackson decided to continue the LOTR trend of portraying dwarfs as clumsy, comical people. And since dwarfs take up much of the screen time of The Hobbit, it's unsurprising that it turned out having this weird, supposedly comical undertone throughout. To me it blunts all the seriousness of the story and destroys any tension or dramatic elements. Which brings us to the next point.

4. Lack of suspense. I expected this movie to feel much like FOTR did - a tense, suspense-filled adventure. Unfortunately this turned out not to be the case. There is a lot of action in the Hobbit. So much that at one point it becomes dull and meaningless. The dwarfs and the hobbit survive the craziest of situations, always surviving/being saved at the last moment. Fall from 500 feet on a wooden platform? No problem - everyone's safe and sound. Get caught in the midst of a fight between two gigantic transformer-rock-monsters? Don't you worry, our heroes will get through without as much as a scratch. Ridiculous! I don't think I recall any scenes in LOTR that felt so over the top. (Well, maybe with the exception of Legolas killing the mumakil.) Just remember the ending of FOTR and compare it to the ending of The Hobbit. Completely different worlds in terms of suspense.

5. The pace. Stretching the thin novel over 3 films - each roughly 3 hours long is probably the root of all the problems. Imagine what a wreck it would have been if FOTR was stretched over 3 films? That's exactly what we're witnessing here. The movie is filled with dull action and LOTR homages to fill the screen time of a 9 hour journey that should never have been 9 hours. It should have been a single movie. Initially Peter Jackson was asked to do a single movie for LOTR, but he refused stating that he couldn't make it and do the books any justice. Then for a period he was prepared to make it into two movies! Yes, the entire LOTR - into just two movies. And what on earth possessed him to stretch this 300 page book into 9 hour cinema? I wish I knew the answer to this question...

When the Hobbit was first announced I was thrilled, I knew that if Peter Jackson directed it, the movie would be brilliant. When I heard it would be 3 movies, a shadow of doubt crept into me. Sadly, this movie became everything I hoped it wouldn't. I give it 2 out of 10 for the scene with Gollum, the beautiful sets and design. Most of the rest of the movie was disappointing.

Christopher Tolkien's words come to mind: "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away."