Change Your Image
gorilazed
Reviews
Midway (2019)
I score it around 6.8. Recommend it for war movie fans
Not familiar with the details or the art of war used in the battle of Midway but I will definitely be checking it out after watching this film. After watching this film I can't even imagine how all those people felt in the midst of such a battle. Seems like something terrifying and that feeling of watching those men in battle is what makes me think it is a good war film. It seems to go into detail regarding the occurrences of the battle and the ones that lead to it with almost all of the main characters having really existed (unlike the character of Ben Affleck in Pear Harbour for example).
On the other hand, the dialogue at some point seems a little cartoonish with characters saying or even behaving like what I would see in a cartoon or anime. It's normal that in cinema you often see people not behaving or talking like you see in real life but the film seemed to exaggerate at times.
The CGI are sufficient to transmit the feeling but not nearly enough for a film with a battle of this scale and historical importance lol. At times it seemed like the characters were looking at a screen with a movie playing (especially during the Pearl Harbour bombing scene).
But all in all, I recommend it for people who like war and/or historical movies.
Jupiter Ascending (2015)
The amazing soundtrack and sci-fi world in this film are what's making it worth to watch
Let's face it. When people heard The Wachowskis were writing and directing this film they probably expected something deep and astonishing as the Matrix trilogy. It's inevitable. The name Wachowski is surely imprinted in every sci-fi fan's mind in green letters over a black background. Nevertheless, there's nothing green about Jupiter Ascending (JA).
This film has quite an ambitious plot, which only seems right, for the universe it takes place in is extremely well built and imagined, something to be expected from The Waschowskis. The special effects are very good but hardly near the best I've ever experienced. I still believe that the excessive use of CGI, although it allows more fluid action sequences, it doesn't seem as real as some old school special effects (take for example Star Wars episodes IV, V and VI and compare them to I, II and III). The ideal would be a mixture of the two methods. In JA all the alien equipment, such as spaceships, weaponry and every day tools, are very out of the ordinary and quite pleasant to the eye. However, looking for example at the Chicago fight scene, the complex shape of the aircrafts, the way they fly and their constant 'shapeshifting' just make the action seem confusing and hard to keep up with. At some points it just feels unrealistic, even considering who's fighting, and I'm almost sure that a skinny human like Jupiter (Mila Kunis) should have died during that scene considering she was whiplashed and thrown around all over the place. The human spine can only take so much. Furthermore, I felt that every action scene was very repetitive with Caine Wise (Channing Tatum) always saving Jupiter at the last millisecond. Seriously, it happened maybe around 5 times.
But the main problem of the film is it's characters. The film starts feeding us right from the bat a lot of sci-fi info, which at the beginning is a little hard to keep up with but later on, if one was paying close attention, it all starts to make sense. But then one notices that there isn't really any character development throughout the film. They are in summary one dimensional characters. As such, there is no way the audience, or at least me, could feel any attachment to the character. Aditionaly, some of the dialog is just some old cliché lines such as 'I always fall for the wrong guys' among others. Cain Wise, the supposed hero of the story, is a character whose only purpose is to kick some butt. He has a past, which is poorly fed to the audience. I don't believe Tatum is a bad actor but the truth is that he keeps on taking roles that require little dramatic acting. Even being one of the leading actors in the nominated Foxcatcher, he played a muscle bound gorilla with very few lines compared to his co-stars. However, Eddie Redmayne's acting was just from a whole other league and I truly believe if the story had focused a little more on him and had further developed his character's past, we could be witnessing another Oscar acting nom (also if the film had been released in a more friendly award nomination season). Also, I believe the other members from the Abrassax family had a decent portrayal of their characters but once more we didn't really get to know them. Mila Kunis plays her usual self, but I don't really care for her character. Mainly due to reasons I stated before, but also I would have preferred a more serious character. For example, her quirky narration at the beginning just doesn't go with the epicness of the OST's intro.
Overall a good film to pass the time, but unfortunately it will never be a classic. Although tempting, don't watch it expecting something like the Matrix. If you want to compare it with a film of it's kind maybe compare it with the Star Wars movies but Jupiter Ascending can't even see their greatness considering how far it is from them. It's universe however has a lot of potential and I would surely watch if there happened to be a sequel. I do hope there'll be one, and if so with a better plot revolving around it's characters, whoever they may be. In the end, I just want to say that the film's soundtrack is something out of the ordinary. I definitely consider it a piece of original classical music. It's surely one of the main reasons I gave the film such a high rating.
Godzilla (2014)
Expected some more
I haven't been to the movies often due to work but because of it's extremely appealing trailer I made an effort and decided to go watch this film although, plot wise, I would probably have preferred the new X-MEN or Edge of Tomorrow. I expected Godzilla to focus itself mostly on action and CGI.
CONTAINS SPOILERS The opening credits are a montage of Monarch documents and 1950s videos. This immediately brought to mind the 1998 Godzilla which kind of started the same way. But fear not, this Godzilla is nothing like the one from 1998.
Bryan Cranston steals the first part of the show. His performance is amazing however he's not in the movie much. And the same can be said for Godzilla, and this is the big problem of the film. We actually only get to "really" see the King of Monsters in the last 20 min of the movie.
Another problem is that the characters from this story have absolutely no development. After that intro scene during 1999, one would expect that some of the plot would revolve around the relationship between Ford(Taylor Johnson) and his father(Cranston). But that doesn't happen. The same goes with Ford's new family. Elle (Olsen) has absolutely no importance to this story whatsoever. Overall, this movie had a lot of capable actors but doesn't make the most of them. Juliette Binoche dies right in the beginning; Elizabeth Olsen just runs from everything; Ken Watanabe's scenes only required for him to be kept in awe during most of the time; Aaron Taylor-Johnson was just required to act cool which he already looks by nature; Cranston the only one from which acting was really required died too early.
Overall, the film is very appealing to the eye with beautiful CGI (those blue flames are so cool) and awesome fighting scenes between the beasts. But the whole film was really just a huge build up for the final fight scene between the monsters which makes it a little boring during that time, having no character development and all.
Wyatt Earp's Revenge (2012)
Historacally it's completely inaccurate, acting is bad, etc
I like westerns and do so even more if they're based on real events. So when I saw the title containing one of the most iconic characters of American Western History I just dropped my remote sank my butt in the couch and prepared to enjoy the show. Never have I been so wrong. Where to start...???
Acting: Val Kilmer was probably the "biggest" name of the cast and, although he portrays the main character, he literally spends the whole film sitting on a couch and telling his story. Basically he's a narrator. Maybe for the general public that's not a bad thing but personally I miss the old Val Kilmer which had bigger roles in his films. The most important thing for someone playing the narrator is definitely their voice. Kilmer wasn't that bad in this aspect but I think he was lacking a kind of "cowboy accent". Personally I was thinking why didn't they just pick the guy that narrates The Big Lebowski (he's also the one that plays the cowboy in the first Ghost Rider), he has voice and the accent. Concerning the rest of the acting it was to stiff most if not all the time. Even the fight scenes, I mean Earp just stands there when Spike launches himself over him. It wasn't even a decent jump it was kind of a poorly choreographed ballet jump. If you want to knock someone down just cannonball the hell out of him. Still on the same fight, Spike had to guns pointed at Earp and, when he decided to shoot, both guns were out of bullets. Facepalm moment.
Make up: as I've read in previous review, it actually seemed they had better hygienic habits than we have nowadays. Constantly on dirt and riding their horses but always clean. Just like their teeth, why the hell can't I have their cowboy teeth. But this is actually something recurring in almost every movie nowadays. God forbid the main characters from having dental issues.
Historical accuracy: Jesus Christ, where to begin: -Wyatt Earp wasn't the one in charge of the posse to capture Spike. It was actually Charlie Bassett. Earp was one of his deputies. -Everone seemed to know and fear Earp when in truth, during this manhunt he wasn't yet that well known. -Earp had no relationship with the actress Dora. -In the movie old Earp said he never wanted to kill and that he never killed someone for revenge. In truth there was something called "Earps Vendetta Ride" (GOOGLE IT). -Spike's father said Earp couldn't be bought with money but if Earp was as famous as they made him seem in the film he would know that Earp was also a famous gambler.(Of course this doesn't mean he would have been a sell out. I'm just saying he probably wouldn't refuse an offer so quickly). In the end, only the character names were accurate. They might as well have just put Jesse James in the film and say it was Earp that killed him. This movie, in my opinion, is just an excuse to enhance Earps greatness using lies to do so.Yes Earp was a great icon in American Western history but there wasn't the need for so many lies to make him sound great. Just check his biography and you'll find plenty of decent material to make a decent movie about this man.
Overall a give it a 4/10. I was facepalming throughout the whole movie so I don't think I've seen enough to give it a lower score.