Change Your Image
MozaredTFT
Reviews
Thirteen (2003)
A stunning movie you will remember
It was the middle of the night and I had just finished watching a couple of episodes of a random sci-fi series when I decided to end the night by watching a seemingly fairly 'easy-go' movie - Thirteen. I definitely had no clue what I had signed up for.
After about 15 minutes into the movie I realized that Thirteen was going to be less 'easy-going' than I originally thought. By the end I was appalled, stunned, left wanting more, confused, in doubt and all the while trying to form my opinion. I decided to stay up for another 30 minutes longer to write this.
Thirteen really is an excellent movie. It is generally hard to review them because the feeling they give you is so delicate it's nearly impossible to describe. I will call in the help of the soundtrack here and say that the best way I could possibly describe Thirteen is by quoting the line "You've pinned this butterfly down".
Tracy, a 100% normal 13-year old girl is the butterfly. Like any girl her age, she shows the promise of having a good 20-30 years of flying ahead of her, cheering up people and being a wonderful persona in general as she goes. That is, until her first day at high school, when peer pressure immediately takes it's toll as she meets Evie Zamora - the classic "best looking girl in school" we see in a lot of teenage high school drama movies.
Except that in Thirteen, it's different. Thirteen doesn't follow the basic "Problem comes into being, problem reaches critical level, everything resolves" plot. At one point during the movie I had the feeling that the film was taking it too far - after a major 'bump' in the storyline I expected a Hollywood ending where the problems would be solved and everything would end well. Needless to say, I didn't get it.
To find out what I did get, I will urge you to watch the movie. Unless you have a general aversion of the drama genre, I can promise you that it will not disappoint. No matter in what way I try to explain what the movie is like, the bottom line is that the movie gives an alternative, realistic view of a thirteen year old girl's life that is acted, filmed and written so strongly that it will stick to your head like glue to wood. This is a movie you will remember.
Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle (2004)
A watered down version of "Dude, Where's my Car?"
I'll have to admit - pretty much the sole reason I stopped and gave this movie a glance is because of the "From the director of "Dude, where's my car"" line on the DVD case. I loved that movie and figured this couldn't be much worse.
I was, mostly, right. Harold & Kumar seems to be a little bit of a B-version of "Dude, Where's my Car" - everything this movie does right, Leiner does better in Dude. There's still plenty of nonsense-stoner but oh-so-funny high school humour going around, but this movie seems to have more parts that try too hard to be funny and therefore fail at it. Just like Dude, H&K has it's ups and downs, though it seems to have a couple more downs than Dude did.
That said however, I can't deny that I laughed myself stiff over some of the incredibly satirical humour the movie features. And aside from that, H&K also seems to be one of the few comedic videos I've seen that actually manages to make a parody out of racism and racist stereotypes without failing completely. Regardless of the few flaws it has, it's still a good watch.
In the end though, if you would ask me "Should I see this movie?", I would tell you there there are only three options: either you liked "Dude, where's my car?" - in that case, watching Harold & Kumar is probably a must - or, you disliked "Dude, where's my car?" - in that case, avoid H&K at all costs. If you haven't seen "Dude, where's my car?", then watch that instead and judge from there.
TBS (2008)
Uncommon Dutch quality
TBS is a movie I watched a long time ago and re-watched today - I've figured it's still worth it.
For a quick in simple summary of the movie, it works. The dialog seems a bit 'blunt', and this is a problem more Dutch movies haves. Everything else however, is seriously well done. The cameras are in the right spots, acting by Maassen and Smit is tremendously well done (I was surprised to see that this is the only 'big' movie Smit has acted in) and the story is a very good one as well.
The movie doesn't have any of the cheesiness more often seen in Dutch movies and the story is one that moves you - I myself was heavily affected by the ending, in a way few movies have managed to do (Sin City or Lord of the Rings come to mind). I really wish I would've rated the movie lower than a 9 to make my review seem less cheesy, but really, it is that good. If you've had the pleasure of hearing about this movie, then by all means watch it - you won't regret it in the slightest.
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (2008)
Surprisingly good
When I first watched the original Narnia movie, it was a nice view but never more than that. I thought it was pretty shamelessly trying to rip off Lord of the Rings and I've always had the mindset of "It'll entertain me, but it's far from a good movie" about it. I went into this 'sequel' with that mindset, and I was very much surprised in what I encountered.
Where the first movie seemed to be much more of a "children's movie", this one takes a more serious approach. It's not a movie with a standard Hollywood theme - bad things happen and there's no "overhappy" ending where all the bad things are undone and everything ends up right. And while the movie has a more grown-up tone than it's predecessor, it manages to do so without implementing a lot more gore like most other movies do. To take the turn on two wheels, I suppose I could say "more people will be shown dying but the amount of gore shown on screen is still virtually non-existent".
Also, where in the first movie I could predict pretty much every upcoming line or event, I only correctly did so once in this movie. The plot is definitely good enough to keep you interested, and the movie is acted and played in a very pleasant way.
The only thing I didn't really like about the movie is that at around 3/4ths of it, it seemed to say "oh sod it all" and just tied up all remaining story arcs with short and somewhat strange solutions. It seemed like the movie was about halfway through filming when somebody said "We're out of time, lets round it up now". I do have a feeling that this 'abrupt ending' mainly occurs because I haven't read the books - something tells me there's a lot more explanation given there for the phenomenons that now make the movie look rather cheap.
Leaving out that flaw, the movie is very watchable, though. I'd even go as far as to say it's "pretty decent" and I probably have to admit it is one of the very few movies I know to start off with a horrible "part one" and continue with a most impressing sequel. This movie is watchable for basically the entire family, though I do suggest starting off with the first one if you intend to show it to your kids. Last but not least, I'd actually recommend this movie to everybody who (like me) thought the first one was a horrible children-focused rip-off of Lord of the Rings.
Jumper (2008)
Average on all fronts
I can and will be really short about this one; it is 100% average.
Everything that you expect from an average movie is in here. Special effects, a cheesy plot involving a teenage love affair, and loose plot ends.
The movie isn't completely horrible and it will entertain you, but the idea which could've been something great ends up being a piece of film with completely redundant scenes, unexplainable plot changes that are there for the sake of simply being there, unreasonable human behaviour and a bad guy with little to no character depth.
Basically, what you see in the trailer is what you will see in the movie except that the movie lasts about twenty times as long. If you specifically liked the trailer, you'll like the movie, but don't expect anything more than two hours of cheap entertainment from this one.
Max Payne (2008)
Go back to your roots, Payne!
Alright, I saw this movie two hours ago. First impressions were "Alright", "Too short" and "Too far from the games, not sure if that's a good or bad thing". Now to think it over and expand that.
Let me start off by saying I really really liked the games. The magnificent depressive feeling and one-liners Payne bombs his own story with create mind-blowing psychic explosions in both his and your own head. The blackish color and "Downtown city" feeling of the games were brilliant.
But for some reason, none of this is included in the movie. The best it can be compared with is some kind Miami Vice-like TV series. The story wasn't horrible, but far from what you'd actually call good. Some characters (Like Mona Sax) seem to be too distant from the story to actually make a difference. And it's painfully obvious that Nicole Horne is only there because she was in the game and not because she had a crucial role to play.
The special effects are nice, but aside from some of the demons they don't really add anything to the story. And why the heck was Chris Bridges playing Jim Bravura? Don't get me wrong, his acting was nice, but the Bravura from the game and Bridges are about as far apart as you can get.
I've rated this movie a 7, but come to think of it, the only reason it's worth a 7 is because I'm a fan of the games. If you are, you ought to just watch the movie because it's fun to see names like Bravura, Sax, Ragnarock and Horne pop up. If you haven't played the games, skip this one. The story is too chaotic and the plot is too simple for the movie to be seriously entertaining.
It's a shame really... If the movie had kept to the game more it could've been a big time blockbuster. Even directly implementing some of the one-liners of the game into the movie would've improved it a lot. The movie wasn't awful, but no matter how you put it; back to basics would've made it a lot better.
Sin City (2005)
Depressive art with bullets and violence
Alright, I have to admit, I'm a fan of anything in the film-noir genre. But this simply blew me away.
At first, the story seemed a little hard to grasp since it started off nowhere, flew to another personage, gave me a sneak peak of yet another, and then went back along the road of person number two. By the end of the film, everything had become clear, and my only regret left here is that the characters of the three different stories never truly meet.
The camera, the acting, the gray blur... It was all exactly where it had to be. As the story truly kicks off with the beginning of Marv's story, you immediately get violently pulled into the movie. Marv might remind you of the incredible Hulk at times, but he's far from it. You hear him voice-over his own story as you see blackened glimpses of his wrecked face. When the story flips to Dwight, it's the ladies' turn to relieve their anger. The women shown in his part of the movie know how to row their own boat, and this is gruesomely but beautifully demonstrated while Dwight comments on his own story. Last but not least, Hartigan's story rolls over you like a tidal wave, as he fills you in on what happened to him since we last left him at the very beginning of the movie.
This is a movie in exactly the way that I like it; cold dead reality with a whiff of fantasy, filmed by a depressive camera while a man with nothing to lose adds in the fitting one-liners. I can't say anything for people who have read the book, but I can say this; If you liked the Max Payne games, go watch this. If you like a movie showing the slum-like sides of life, go watch this. And most of all; if you like art consisting of bullets, violence and depression, go watch this.
In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (2007)
One of those "Meh" movies.
Since I'm a fan of fantasy movies, I figured this was one I had to check out. I didn't expect too much after seeing the movies' score here on IMDb, and was neither proved wrong nor let down. I'll give the movie a 5. Sure, it will entertain you, but that's all there is. There are so many odd plot holes I don't even know where to begin. And, as another comment said, for some reason the movie seems to 'race' from one very LOTR-like fight to the other, often without a good reason to do so.
The only scene I really liked was the Wizard battle. It's filmed and held in such an original way that it actually made me say that it is something that's actually worth the title of 'Wizard battle'.
In the end, I suppose I can say the special effects were nice and not overdone. But that's about it. This movie isn't awful, but it's nothing special either. If you can get it cheap, save it for a rainy day, watch it once, and then discard it.
The Dark Knight (2008)
Close, but no cigar
Ah yes, this well-spoken piece of film. Lets see if I can express my feelings about it in a readable way. Here I go;
First things first, there are two things I want to get clear before discussing the movie. 1) I haven't seen any Batman movies at all. I myself don't reckon it makes much of a difference to my opinion on this one, but just saying. 2) I am not going to discuss whether this movie is 'good' or 'bad'. Looking at the strictness of the IMDb ratings, this one probably deserves an 8. Keep in mind that whatever comes next, this movie is definitely worth seeing; you wíll be entertained.
Alright, that said, where do I begin? I suppose mentioning that Heath Ledger's role as the joker is beyond stunning is a good start. I've never really bothered with Batman, and such I only knew "The Joker" as "The bad guy from the Batman universe". To me, Heath has given the Joker a face. His performance is far beyond 'good'... The Joker is shown to the viewer as a somewhat insane, psychotic criminal who is still believable. I'm not sure why, but I like the character. The Joker leaves a mark.
Aside from that, I really enjoyed the tension in the movie. Most of the time, it was hard to guess what was going to happen next... You are kept wondering about what's up throughout the whole movie, and there was actually only one major plot change that I was able to predict (by knowing the length of the movie). Of the maybe 6 or 7 major plot changes, that's a fairly nice score.
Last, I have to mention there's precisely the right amount of explosions in the movie. It was close to being a Hollywood special-effects show-off film, but the movie strayed far enough to avoid becoming one.
Alright; having spilled the good parts, lets get onto the bad aspects of the movie.
First of all; why did Batman sound like a German pornstar? I realize a 'voice changer' would be part of his usual equipment, but the 'new' voice that came out of him was just... odd. It might be personal preference, but I reckon it didn't really fit him.
Second, what's up with Harvey Two-face? Is there any real reason why he went 'bad'? Either I'm missing something in the story or it's just plain weird... The only reason for him to turn his back on Batman was that the Joker killed his girlfriend. If he had any sense of logics left he would've killed the Joker when he got the chance, rather than turning bad for such an awful reason.
Third, there's a bunch of odd goofs in the movie. At one part Batman hides Dent in a building the Joker infiltrates, and later jumps out of the window to save his 'girlfriend'... Leaving the Joker in the building to find Dent. Beats me why he didn't actually do so. Then there's the part where the Joker seems to have an endless supply of TNT, dynamite, and army-bazookas. Sure, it's a superhero movie, but at least Batman's powers are explained trough his suit. Absolutely no reason is given as to why the Joker manages to fill up half the city and two giant boats up with explosives without anybody noticing or him running out of bangbang. And then I'm not even mentioning the fact that all the clowns seemed to be loyal to him for absolutely no reason; one of them even stops another Mafioso from preventing the Joker burning a pile of money, the only thing that would explain why the Joker has these over-loyal employees. Oh, and I almost forgot to mention the joker somehow manages to take a knife with him into custody. Are the policemen totally stupid or just incompetent? This, I suppose, is what breaks the movie for me. It's a superhero movie, sure. But the superhero is fairly realistic. Everything else in the movie is not. If you think twice about everything that happens in the film, you just start rubbing your chin and wondering why half these things are possible.
In the end, I'm still feeling twisted about this movie. By all means, go watch it, it's good. Just not worth number one in a top 250. Even though I reckon about 200 movies in the top 250 are overrated, this one shouldn't be on number one. The film is a movie which gets several aspects right, but not perfect. If you think the psychological aspect of the story is good, go watch Fight Club. If you think the fights and plot were what makes the movie worth a 10, go watch the Borne trilogy. If you think the tension was good, go watch Hitchcock.
The Dark Knight is like a Ferrari; very enjoyable to play around with, but not the most amusing thing out there unless you're a fan of the brand.
Juno (2007)
Why all the hate and a balloon-tempered movie
"Why all the hate?" is what I'm asking myself while scrolling trough all the comments on this movie. The recurring bits I noticed were people stating the language is too 'fake', the movie is too easy on subjects like teenage pregnancy and abortion, and Ellen Page's (apperantly) awful acting.
I must say I strongly disagree with all of these. If you're bothered by the language then in my opinion you are really missing the point of the movie. The quick-witted quasi-wannabe-cool language used somewhat 'lightens' the subject of the movie up. It fits in exactly with the what I'd like to call 'balloon-temper' of the movie. It's a light, easy and entertaining way to look at teenage pregnancy. While still being very true; I think I know a few teenage girls who would opt the same decision.
And the acting was one thing that struck me as pretty much lethally good. One of those girls I've mentioned saw the movie herself and loves it; and I can't blame her, since I reckon she's quite alike Juno. Just look at the way Page's eyes and mouth move when she says simple words like "dude". Bad acting? Pure brilliance is the only words I have for it. A movie character is actually really alike a real-life friend. Tell me how often that happens?
I reckon people who think this movie is bad simply miss the point of it. I for one watched it one evening, became too stupefied to judge it, watched it again the evening after and then decided it's just an incredibly good movie. But a bit like the movie Amélie, I suppose it's something you either like or hate. Just watch the first 3 minutes of the movie, including the parts where the intro credits roll. If you hate that kind of style, turn off the movie. If you like it, you're in for a roller-coaster.