Change Your Image
Neferkara
Reviews
10,000 BC (2008)
Come on, what is this movie really about?????
Okay, fine this was a bag movie, what put me the most was the Director's sense of geography. The movie starts off in Ice age Europe, but then the 'heros' go for a walk that lasts days and then they find themselves in the middle of Africa. How can this be, where is the Mediteranean ocean? Then they go for another walk this time in a small desert which would make one think that it must be the Sahara desert, but that desert is un-walkable by people on foot without water! HELLLOOOOO DIRECTOR!!! Then they get to Egypt which is in the middle of this desert, the slaves were building 3 pyramids at one time. That's impossible for the amount of people shown, they would have died of dehydration. The Nile is also far too small for the time period when the Sahara desert was a lush savanna with a huge lake at the time. That is just the tip of the icebergs when it comes to historical inaccuracies. Then the movie is too much like Apocalypto, I bet the Director is a big fan of Mel Gibson because there is enough blood and testosterone to paint the camera permanently. They comes the big adventure to save the sexy blue eyed girl!!!!! COME ON.......cliché is a complement here. I look forward to NOT seeing this movie again.
War of the Worlds (2005)
A good movie?
This is Spielburgs worst movie I have ever seen, considered the sort of movies he used to make. Overall, it is not such a bad movie, it is well animated and the aliens are well done. Dakota Fanning plays amazingly well for her age, very talented and very believable. That said, she upstages Tom Cruise all the time, who plays terribly. I have never seen such bad acting especially from Tom Cruise. Why hire him?. He acts like a snobby and drunk Saab of a father who has no idea how to father kids. It was not a waste of money to rent the movie, but to own it, it is a let down. But overall, I think they should have cut out Cruise and hired on a real actor who makes the father role more appealing.
Napoléon (2002)
Strange movie
As a historian, I thought this movie was lacking in certain parts. Yet it had a lot of history in it, which I seemed to me to be correct and well done. There are a lot of beautiful shots, wonderful colors and the art department did a great job in this movie. The costumes of Napoleon and the foreign minister was almost magic. I was taken away by the details of the costumes and the scenery. I was most likely not filmed at Versailles or Paris, yet you had the impression that they were filming there. It was generally well edited and filmed. That said, there are several things that bothered me. For example, when Napeolon moves across Europe with his army and confronts the Allied forces or even the Prussians; they animated this by computers. I didn't think this was at all necessary, I think it would have been a better movie if the director simple left this out (that is what most directors do anyway). The maps rather bothered me, too many details; names and dates of battles covered were enough. The other thing that really bothered me was the whole accents. We are supposed to be watching a movie set in Napoleonic France where people spoke French. Most of the actors don't come from France and so speak with a heavy American or German accent. I first noticed this when Murat was attacking the Directoire and so says "attack" in a clear American accent; this bothered me. I would have preferred to have the movie in French and subtitled.
A Sound of Thunder (2005)
spoiler for 'A sound of thunder'
Overall, I didn't think this movie was all that bad. I was interesting. My only problem was that the middle of the film (where the characters had to cross a park once the time-waves where affecting the time-line), was exactly like Jurassic park. The characters get picked off only by one. In the subway scene, there were three left, and I knew that the younger girl was going to be eaten or killed in one way of the other: Wait, 3 seconds later it happened. Then right when they were going to save the world, the baboon-lizard things break in and then a time-wave strikes. Come on, can't get more predictable then that. BUT; the plot is mostly imaginative. There were dinosaurs only during part of the movie and not in the future when it get screwed up. I liked how they made the baboon-lizard things and the eel (which scared the crap out of me). The idea of the future being messed up over a period of a few days because one of the rich guys stepped on a butterfly; was interesting. I don't think this is a 3 movie more like 6 for the predictable parts and being like Jurassic park.
Animals Are Beautiful People (1974)
The best comedy ever!
Okay, I have written some rather unfriendly comments before, but there can be nothing bad said about this movie. In this movie, the director shows how much of a comic genius he really is. The scenes are wonderfully played out, considering the animals are not acting; makes me wonder how many thousands of takes the director must have had. The director plays the role of the narrator in a sort of zoological commentary on how animals of the Kalahari act really like humans, and they really do. They even get drunk like humans. The editing is great and the colours are wonderful, in my point of view. I remember the first time I saw this movie, I thought I would have died of laughter 4 or 5 times, I even had to check my pulse to make sure. That is how funny this movie is. It is worth the money and the time by a long-shot. Enjoy, everyone.
Life of Brian (1979)
A comedy?
Okay, it is about Brian, a simple guy who was born next to Jesus and parrelled his life and such. But this is not that funny, they could have made it more slap-sticky like "The gods must be crazy" or "Animals are beautiful people". For me, "Life of Brian" is the sort of movie one ends their film career with. It is boring and stupid at points, like especially at the end. But I must give it credit, it portrays Palestine correctly and how it was like at the time. The acting is okay, but Brian's mother is annoying and you could really tell the actor was a man, no woman could be that ugly. Anyway, nice movie to rent though for the fun of it.
Alexander (2004)
What is this movie really about?
I watched this movie knowing that it would obviously have nothing to do with the actual historical figure. That the way it always happens. Anyway, that said, I don't understand why they could have least known their subject somewhat. They portrayed Philip as a womanizing pain in the ass who has homosexual tendencies. This is clearly shown in his wedding feast when he supposedly dis-inherits Alexander. But later, there is a flashback which shows this was never the case. The feast was really a homosexual porno scene. During the whole movie, you are given signs that Alexander was homosexual, but then he get married and you are left completely confused. What is going on here, this doesn't make sense. At the end of the movie I really felt let down and felt that my movie was wasted.