zrmp Reviews

Gladiator (2000)

Not the jewel everyone is looking for

[5/10 · 7 November 2004]

Battlefield Earth still gets my vote for the worst movie ever (beating out Waterworld hands down). But this has to rate close to it. People, this movie is bad. It has no sensible dialogue, Joaquin Phoenix is miscast (he would've been strangled the next week by the praetorian guard), and Crow is slipping in his choice of trash. We're not even going to ask for historical accuracy (by the way, there isn't any) since that would be either too much or too confusing.

No character in this movie had any depth. I am still curious how the whole legion did not notice the absence of their "beloved" general. I am lost at how a man who went to France ended up in a desert on a cart. I am amazed that at first this man doesn't care about anything, then he wants revenge, then he doesn't, then he yells at that queen, then.. you get the point. And after that, a slave owner who sent people to their deaths dies with "honor" on his lips. Then, a woman who stood by and did nothing while her brother was slaughtering people is preaching to the good citizens of Rome the merits of honor and justice (she preached to the crowds that came to see people be decapitated). The contrasts of good and evil were so well defined, that no three year old will be confused.

This movie must rate high with audiences, but so does Scooby Doo. If you like the mental twists of Scooby Doo, you'll like this movie as well.

Assa (1987)

Different

[23 April 2004]

*** Some Spoilers ***

I guess one thing you have to remember is when this movie was done. It was a weird time as the country was going through changes and this film was that: different. It's not that it's the best movie ever made, or even a finer one, but what is important is not what it was, but what it wasn't: and that is it was not like all other soviet movie to date. It was commenting on the reality in a different way and to some degree was far more open than movies of the past. Case and point, when bananan argues with a cop about his earing. It was an argument of "I want" vs the old and tried soviet "Not Allowed". The Victor Tsoy song, in the end, asking for change, was again commenting on the same theme, that status quo is just not possible any more. Even the two lovers: the old vs new somehow relate to the theme. The plot itself is very shakespearean: older man, younger woman... younger man... younger woman falls in love with younger man... older man kills younger man... younger woman kills older man. It's really simple but yet it doesn't truly explain why people like this film. Overall, I think it became popular because it came at the right time, rather than anything else. I think a person, even who is not from soviet union can easily enjoy the film. I give it a 6 out of 10.

White Sun of the Desert (1970)

Cult Classic

[23 April 2004]

I think the "best USSR movie ever" misses the point. This is certainly not the best movie, it wasn't even supposed to do all that well in the theaters when it was first made and released. I don't think anyone ever foresaw its success. However for some reason it just works; audiences identified with it and loved it.

White sun of the desert is a classic western. You don't have to know history of the Soviet Revolution to recognize a western when you see one, for this is exactly the soviet adaptation of the genre. Not only that, but the plot of this movie is just great.

I first saw this film when I was a kid (and numerous times since then), and even though I haven't seen it in a while, even with subtitles, you can't go wrong. I'd rate it 3rd best western along with "The Good, The bad, and the Ugly", "High Noon", and "A bullet for the General."

Brazil (1985)

This movie fails in every aspect

[15 July 2003]

I am sorry to say, but I want my money back. The movie is in fact boring, un-funny, and has no serious points to make at all. I think people want it to be great for some weird reason, but in reality, it's nothing but one rediculously boring and stupid scene after another. It's not art, it's junk; if you opened your eyes, you'd see the king is naked. This movie is complete trash and does not live up to any praise at all. If you really want to waste your time and money, then this flick is for you.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Not the jewel everyone is looking for

[1/10 · 2 January 2002]

I am not a big fan of fantasy nor did I read the books but I wanted to go see what all the hype was about and it turned out to be just that: hype. As far as the movie goes, it wasn't really all that bad. However it wasn't all that good either. This was an average flick that would be really enjoyed by a kid, but hardly anyone else.

The fact that the film starts with nothing, ends with nothing and is geared (it seems to me) only to be an introduction to the next release is disingenuous to the public. This should've been stated! Even Star Wars films can all be watched as separate films; this one can not. This release has a feel of an average TV miniseries (like "The Mists of Avalon") and is about as exciting. Absolutely nothing spectacular. Those who read the books probably fill the blanks with their imagination but the rest of us see just boring continuation of contrived events. There was hardly any magic, hardly any cause for actions taken, hardly any explanation of why people are doing things they're doing. The "evil" character has no depth whatsoever.

I rated the movie *1* to try to offset the unfair rating this movie is getting. I think people see what they want to see instead of what is actually there. I don't think this movie will stand the test of time; in the long term, it will be another Willow.

Please stop giving this movie 10 simply because you liked the books. It is simply not fair to the great movies on the top 250 list! To say that LofR is better than the Godfather is a travesty. Can you honestly say that this movie is better than Citizen Kane (a movie that had a plot), Schindler's List, Star Wars, others? I think people really need to get a frame of reference on what a good movie is. Large birds and hobbits don't make a great film. All the reviews I read here are "look how close to the book this is" or "the book and movie agree", etc. YOU ARE NOT RATING THE BOOK! You're rating the MOVIE in comparison to OTHER MOVIES.

Those who like movies with substance should give this movie a 1 to offset the kids who obviously don't know any better.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Not the jewel everyone is looking for

[1/10 · 2 January 2002]

Battlefield Earth still gets my vote for the worst movie ever (beating out Waterworld hands down). But this has to rate close to it. People, this movie is bad. It has no sensible dialogue, Joaquin Phoenix is miscast (he would've been strangled the next week by the praetorian guard), and Crow is slipping in his choice of trash. We're not even going to ask for historical accuracy (by the way, there isn't any) since that would be either too much or too confusing.

No character in this movie had any depth. I am still curious how the whole legion did not notice the absence of their "beloved" general. I am lost at how a man who went to France ended up in a desert on a cart. I am amazed that at first this man doesn't care about anything, then he wants revenge, then he doesn't, then he yells at that queen, or whatever. And then, a slave owner who sent people to their deaths dies with "honor" on his lips. Then, a woman who stood by and did nothing while her brother was slaughtering people is preaching to the good citizens of Rome the merits of honor and justice (she preached to the crowds that came to see people be decapitated). The contrasts of good and evil were so well defined, that no three year old will be confused.

This movie must rate high with audiences, but so does Scooby Doo. If you like the mental twists of Scooby Doo, you'll like this movie as well.

Me & Isaac Newton (1999)

Not as good as it sounds

[4/10 · 27 December 2000]

I thought the movie was a poor documentary. Nothing of substance was discussed. It seemed to cheapen the ideas and did not provide anything new. The film lacked wonder or romance or anything that would really drive one to science. Most scientists appeared "stereotyped" and sometimes weird. A woman said that her awards didn't matter a whole lot, only children that were helped. She said that after a 10 minute scene where she explained all her awards. Playing "humble scientist", are we? "I have equations dancing in my head," another said. I don't see how that explains anything to us. It hasn't covered significant effects of science on our culture. Politics of science were barely touched.

Not a bad flick for a 10-14 year-olds. Other than that, I felt it was boring and unrevealing.

4/10

Starship Troopers (1997)

Misunderstood Film

[7/10 · 28 May 2000]

I think this was a great film but a bit misunderstood. It wasn't meant to be serious but I thought it did have a serious point (however, I read the book and perceived the movie as recreation of some of the plot).

Just like all Heinlein's novels, this one is full of action and violence (well, that's why we like it :) But the movie also presented a supposedly democratic society gone bad. The slogans of propaganda do sound ridiculous, but how do they differ from "UNCLE SAM WANTS YOU" ?? Noone would say that slogan is something to laugh about. The issue, I think, is that the movie portrays a society, supposedly democratic and based on freedom, that underneath is just a Nazi camp. What's the difference between killing 'bad people' or killing 'bad bugs' if the only reasons for killing them are: they are enemy, they are bad, and you have your orders? I think the underlying theme is that people sometimes do swallow these slogans which (as you can see in the movie) do sound ridiculous, if you substitute bugs instead of (communists, heretics, homosexuals, or take you pick of enemy number one). Or how ridiculous was the replacement of the admiral? When the attack on bugs fails, nobody questions policy; a bad admiral is to blame (obviously it was his fault) and a new one is appointed. A system that maintains the status quo and doesn't question its actions yet preaches the ideals of "good citizenship" in schools (maybe that remind you of your history class, who knows).

It is a reminder that the slogan "it will never happen here" is not really reflective of the world. The movie shows how easy it is to hate; that noone will care (I mean, did you really feel bad for the bugs) if our newly selected enemy is ugly and doesn't think like you. They deserve to die just for that (what was the issue with the bugs after all)! Plus, the last propaganda clip is 'classified' however I somehow don't think what they were doing to the bug will pass the Geneva Convention! But who cares, it's not like the thing is human or deserves any rights. And mind control: I mean obviously the upper echelons used to do only the 'right' thing.

It also, of course, portrays some of the hate associated with the cold war (the hate for communism, as the bugs are an idealistic portrait of individuals willing to die for their society without question. Obviously the movie can't do justice to many of the issues, well, at least not in a way Heinlein wanted.

I think it's a good film, especially if you remember the book. A great action flick; not an Oscar winner by any means, but still a decent one.

P.S And if you think I am full of crap, there is another good reason to see it: Denise Richards! ;)