Change Your Image
danegem
Reviews
Until Midnight (2018)
Quit while you're ahead, Mr Kazim.
Just like it was with his feature film debut, "A Tale of Shadows" (2017), the director, his cast and crew, seem to be heavily deluded in thinking that the films they're making are fun, significant, well-acted and witty, when in reality they are amateurish, boring, corny, self-important, silly, and unintelligent. Thankfully shorter than "A Tale of Shadows", "Until Midnight" is, nevertheless, a tedious exercise in endurance with no sense of character, plot or story. Worst than all of that, is that there is no sense of danger throughout the "suspense" forced onto us.
The film thinks that, by unraveling the mystery through a non-linear structure, it is as clever as "The Hateful Eight" (which happened to be made by an actual filmmaker), when in reality it is no more interesting than the irrelevant perspectives of "Vantage Point" (2008).
There is a scene in the film where the lead character does his laundry, sits down and observes the running cycle just before his mother calls to ask him whether he is doing the laundry. Cinema in its essence.
Again, like in "A Tale of Shadows", selecting your favourite actor is like choosing your favourite fast-food restaurant; different flavour, all crap. However special mention should go to the house cat in the film. Sublime to a fault.
The cinematography is poor, as are the lighting and sound design, making one wonder what the film's budget was spent on.
You're probably wondering if this review will mean anything in the grand scheme of things, and you shouldn't worry. It won't, because that would imply that this movie has scratched the surface of the cinematic landscape, when it won't even find a crevice to shout at audiences from.
If this movie was a short student project, you could forgive the bland state of nothingness its "heart" & "soul" flows through. However, as it stands, this is a movie to be ignored.
Unless the director is willing to receive constructive criticism, useful feedback, and listen to professionals in how to craft a compelling, thoughtful narrative and how to shoot a film, he really ought to find a new hobby so that audiences won't feel exactly like what they're watching.
Evol (2010)
Very ambitious and well made but also seriously flawed.
I will praise the director for making a film like this with such dedication and seriousness, which really shows that there are lot of great up and coming filmmakers out there who need to be recognized. So yes as an independent film, this is great. As an action film, this has some really brilliant choreographed fight scenes and so many martial arts to demonstrate during the film. However, my problem with this film, really comes down to the story and dialogue (at times). The film really is an excuse to throw in a lot of the many elements of crime/action/thriller films: Guns, knives, bone crunching violence, mobsters, hit men, corruption, determined cops etc. The film really does not have as much depth as it thinks it does, as all the humanity gets lost within the stylized action that the film brings in.
I know, that most people will not care about story when they see what kind of film this is, so I will still give it a recommendation, if you can get your hands on it somehow. However, I really do hope this filmmaker gets more notice someday, and hopefully he gets the chance to deliver an even better film.And no, I don't dislike this film, even though it seems like I am just hating on it, and it does seem like a low blow to pick on a film with such a low budget, but still, I try to treat it with dignity.
Gorilla My Dreams (1948)
Anarchistic bunnies and maternal gorillas? Next....
The looney toon shorts have always struck me as various sketches/ideas/caricatures which would often vary on whether they would cater to one's tastes or entertainment value. Like the Marx Brothers, Saturday Night Live, Steven Spielberg animated shows ("Animaniacs"/"Freakazoid"/"Tiny Toons"/"Pinky and the Brain") or any non-Disney animated Theatrical short, the Looney Toons do what they think is funny, when they think it is funny and how they feel it should be carried out. This short struck me as an intermission between two other shorts, or even as part of a feature length film tracking Bugs Bunny's adventures.
It is simple: Bugs Bunny is in a barrel in the sea, and he is picked up by a motherless gorilla who wishes to have a child of her own. Deciding to play along and indulge her, Bugs goes home and is greeted with hostility by papa gorilla. The short ends with Bugs Bunny besting the Papa Gorilla in a "battle of wits". Honestly, nothing special goes on in here. They both bang each other on the head and chase each other around, but its not very funny; its just plain boring. The opportunities one could have with such a setup are limitless, and it just seems like there was lazy planning and a lack of potential gags and setups. This is one short I will only recommend you watch once, unless of course you are a die-hard Looney Toon fan.
Daybreakers (2009)
Aside from some of the usual clichés, this vampire flick does deliver for horror fans.
I honestly have to commend the filmmakers for giving us a rather unique take on the vampire mythology. While many of the films we are used to seeing involve vampires trying to take over the world, or trying to overpower humans one way or the other, this film begins with a darker world (not post-apocalyptic, mind you) where Vampires outnumber humans. Vampires are everywhere now! In the city the story takes place in, at least, vampires are in charge. The Police Commissioner? A Vampire. The politicians? Vampires. Humans are minorities, and are either hiding or just really damn lucky to walk among the undead. One vampire, a well known, Doctor does not like how humans are being used for experiments, and kept in storage as blood supplies. He is confronted by a group of humans, who he helps and they later judge him to be a decent vampire. That is when, one of them approaches him later with a proposition. I will not go further than that as far as the plot is concerned, just so I don't complicate things.
The movie is definitely very good looking. The use of colours in this film, really bring out the darkness and the brightness of this world, giving you a sharp relevant contrast. Even the blood looks beautiful, as disgusting as it is. And even the opening credits, look so good in dark red lettering (I'm not really being a geek, but damn are the visuals sweet). There are many good action scenes and the story is written in a way that is not silly like a lot of the vampire flicks we have seen before, but it does try to be as serious as possible, making one believe that such a world could exist. The Vampires in this film, do not screw around with their powers. They think of everything and can now walk in the daylight with the use of technology and heavy geared outfits. The actors play their roles convincingly and there is definitely, no winking at the camera in this film.
However,there are quite a few really lame clichés. I mean some of those moments, you'd think would not be written into the script by the creative writers, and they really did bring down by enjoyment of this movie quite a bit.. I laughed at them, and my friend kept hitting his forehead in shame upon seeing some of those scenes. Still,overall, the movie is enjoyable and worth watching.Vampire fans, action fans and horror fans in general should get a kick out of this film, and regular movie-goers should be entertained (This movie does have depth that can be examined even though its style overpowers its substance). I myself did not love the movie, but I definitely found it entertaining. Its not a good movie but also not a terrible movie. Its just a guilty pleasure that could have been something more, were the studio executives more open minded on such a concept. If you do not take the movie seriously, I promise you, the visuals and use of colours, at the very least, will not disappoint you at all.
Spawn (1997)
You have been violated, Ladies and Gentlemen.
Comic Book writer and Artist Todd McFarlane is good at what he does. Creating Dark worlds, with great characters and stories, he has brought people one of the darkest characters in fiction...Spawn. I haven't read too many of the Spawn comics, but they really are works of art. I was only a kid when the movie adaptation came out, and I didn't know who or what the Character was (I wasn't even supposed to since Spawn is clearly aimed and intended for Adults only). Apparently this film was quite hyped, mainly because of the way the visions of Hell were represented here, and because McFarlane was a big name in the Comic book industry back then. As a kid, I liked this movie. As an adult, I think its absolute crap. Why? You take the original concept of Spawn and reduce the great writing that the comic books gave you, to a watered down script serving the purpose of cashing in on the Armageddon theory? This film seemed to be one of many films that came out towards the late 90s, which dealt with the idea that earth was doomed in the year 2000, through more than one theory. This one deals with Satan, who gives Al Simmons (A government assassin who was killed by his own employer, after discovering a genocidal plot) the chance to go back to earth with new Hell-like powers, if he would join Hell's army. Communicating via "The Violator", a wisecracking flatulent Clown who has the ability to shape-shift into a large monster from Hell, the Devil examines spawn and sees how Worthy Spawn is as a soldier. On the side, Simmons's employer has been able to get his hands on a virus that could destroy most of Earth's population were it to detonate. This allows the devil more of an opportunity to take control of earth.
The comic books and the HBO TV Series (Which is an excellent, intelligent, well written television series, which surpasses this film in every single way) combined the film noir, horror and drama elements with a story that dealt with biblical, devilish and supernatural themes. Better written stories existed there, and something like that should have been used for the film rather than the studio approved script for the film.
I will give the movie some credit, Michael Jai White did a good job of playing Al Simmons/Spawn, and you really could see a lot of emotion brought to the role.At the same time, John Leguizamo stole the show with his portrayal as the fat Clown, really bringing some life to the character. Some of the action scenes in the film was well directed but others just seemed to careless. The movie definitely has the Gothic feel and tone that the animated series offers but it hampers down as the more action oriented plot comes into play. Also, the movie certainly is good looking, with some great visuals (Especially the way Hell is portrayed, and the way the Violator looks), great art and set decorations; The story is the main issue with this film. It was sloppily written, destroying the potentially mind-blowing concept that the film starts out with, and ends up being a standard B-movie to cash in on a popular character of a popular medium. This certainly is one of the worst comic book films of all time. Avoid this film if you can, and instead give the comic books and the HBO animated series a chance (even if you are not a fan of comic books and animation) because those will not disappoint you.
Reservoir Dogs (1992)
The birth of the Tarantinoesque doesn't disappoint.
Quentin Tarantino was prepared to shoot his film with some of his friends for a decent sized budget, when Harvey Keitel got hold of him in hopes of producing "Reservoir Dogs". Tarantino agreed, and he still got to direct the film too. Even before the movie, hit film festivals, Tarantino's name was echoed all over town. This film represents the birth of a new genre; The Tarantino. The movie incorporates many different genres into one, complete with Tarantino's own style of film-making with a very unique way of story telling. It is true, as Tarantino admitted, that this film did indeed "rip-off" older films, but the director did not just simply plagiarize, he improved what he took and made it his own (You could say he simply borrowed but did not have time and the rights to explain why he needed to borrow). The final result, however, marks a new trend in cinema; one that many filmmakers have tried to rip-off themselves.
The film is basically about a group of thugs hired by a man named Joe, who commissions them to rob a Jewelery Store. Using aliases (which are associated with colours), the men plan the heist but something goes very wrong during the robbery. The difference between this film and most crime films that came out before, is that this film does not show the actual crime that one is expecting to occur and see, but it is only talked about, before and after it happens. Tarantino allows you to hang out with his characters and lets you either sympathize or hate these guys. You could argue that the film is indeed a character study of all the reservoir dogs. The story is told in a non-linear time-line, which was uncommon back in the day.
Overall, the film has a good story, well written characters, great dialogue (which is usually the most talked about in Tarantino's films) very well acted (Tim Roth could have been a potential Oscar nominee for this film in my opinion) and, of course, pure fun. This isn't Tarantino's best film in my opinion (his second one is though) but it is definitely his second best. One can definitely learn a thing or two from this film and it's filmmaker.
The Godfather Part II (1974)
This should be #1 in the top 250 here in IMDb.
"The Godfather" is basically the bridge that connects to stories in this movie.This movie takes you to the origins of Don Corleone and gave you an idea of how he rose to power and how respected he was in Sicily.While "The Godfather" is a work of art, this is a masterpiece.Everything you saw in the original movie plus more.A lot of character development, strong performances from all actors and great storytelling exist in this Dark Drama.Al Pacino, Robert De Niro, Robert Duvall and the rest are all excellent in their respected roles.With a movie this good, who knew the third one would not be as good as the first one at least? Highly recommended.
My rating: 10/10
Righteous Kill (2008)
What can I say?
Wow, we get to see two of the greatest actors in history team up together in more than just two scenes.This is probably going to be another classic right? Hell no.This movie basically has your average cop story except the cops are played Al Pacino and Robert De Niro. Basically there is a serial killer on the loose and both teams (De Niro and Pacino are Team 1, John Leguiazamo and Donnie Wahlberg are team 2) begin to suspect each other as suspects.I don't know about most people but I predicted who the killer was in the first 15 minutes of the movie.They really could have done something more with the story,I mean its been 15 years with These two legends, who inspired many young actors, and this is the best they could come up with? The acting was mediocre, (Al Pacino got nominated for a Razzie award and De Niro should have gotten one as well)but the worst actor was 50 cent.Try understanding what he says every time he opens his mouth.The story was odd and the "Twist" was pretty weak, pathetic, over the top and does not seem to give you any closure as to why the killer did what he/she did.Unless you want to see Robert De Niro and Al Pacino together in a movie, go rent this, otherwise, its not worth your while at all.