fe_scolfaro Reviews

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)

Some flaws, but overall my favorite film in 2016

[9/10 · 27 December 2016]

Twelve days after the premiere, and everyone and their mothers has written a review, so I'll keep this one short and only address what I think should be mentioned.

Firstly, this is as close to an action film anything in the franchise has ever been, so you have to keep in mind that once the characters have been properly introduced, they'll either kill or be killed, and it won't stop once it starts.

Secondly, and this was a major annoyance, the MUSIC was butchered for the first third of the film. There were interesting variations on the themes and some competent rearranging of the known themes, as a pointer to this film being somewhat a separate story to the true trilogy, however, in one of those moments a snippet of the Imperial March is played inside of one of the rearranged themes, just as a Rebel ship flies off into space. THIS IS A NO GO, it was the most confusing moment in the movie, and had me wondering if someone was switching sides or if I'd gotten the characters wrong. Childish mistake on a series of films built on leitmotifs.

Thirdly, once you get past the bloopers with the soundtrack (which returns to Williams' themes for the last third of the film) and this or that detail that has been failed to be properly considered, the movie wraps up towards a final act of incredible proportions. There's a mind-blowing crescendo towards the end, to a measure very seldom seen in modern productions. Vader's end scenes reach a high note, just as you see the story unfolding towards our known plot points, and delivers the final blow in a way that makes it hard for fans to hold back a tear here and there. The editing and directing here is a masterpiece, very faithful to Episodes V and VI.

Completely worth the watch, and I'd watch the whole trilogy, plus this and The Force Awakens again, anytime. Episodes 1-2-3 are BS, these last two were on point.

Oh yeah, and memberberries. They taste oh so great.

Robin Hood (2010)

Watchable

[5/10 · 1 December 2013]

There's not much to say about this title, except that this is a perfect example of a movie MURDERED by its soundtrack. This has to be -the- worst soundtrack of every major studio productions in the last decade, every scoring mistake possible is made. For instance, a repeating motive for over 2 hours that makes me want to mute the whole thing and shuts my brain down to what's being said.

Add to that the ever pervasive string stabs on the mix, louder than explosions and dialogs alike, and you're in for an unnerving experience. That's very unfortunate, 'cause the story is carefully woven (except for a goof here and there, as usual), and the acting is a lot better than, say, Kevin Costner's Robin Hood.

My conclusion is that with a better soundtrack this movie wouldn't have flopped so bad.

World War Z (2013)

Quite a ride

[7/10 · 4 July 2013]

All in all, it was a very enjoyable cinematic experience. Very fast pace, lots of scares and tense moments, and besides everything I noticed that the movie managed to keep a hold of the whole audience until the end where I watched. There were a couple moments where hysterical laughter and collective sighs were heard throughout...

Now as far as doing justice to the book, it veers off pretty quickly, the main difference being that in the book you get several different viewpoints that end up forming a bigger picture. I had no expectations going in as soon as I read online (about a year ago) that "the zombies were running, they were the fast kind". Every fan of the genre knows that it's unusual for something positive to follow this last two sentences, so I was expecting something more along the lines of "28 Days" instead of "The Dead" series (which does no justice at all to the book).

I can understand people getting angry about this as someone who appreciated the book, that this was actually a waste of an excellent book in its translation to the cinematic format, but since I had no expectations to begin with, the "running zombies" ended up adding to the overall pace of the action, and with the best 3d rendition I've ever seen in a movie, it ended up feeling more like an amusement park ride than an actual movie experience. The only major critique is the way it ended, it left me with the impression that the production topped out of their budget before they noticed they had to end it...

All in all, totally worth a watch. The 3d is natural and gorgeous, and makes the whole experience very involving. Coupled with the pace, it was FUN.

Certified Copy (2010)

Non-sensical gibberish

[3/10 · 16 August 2011]

I attempted to watch this last night, and my god was it boring.

If you want to see a couple facing forward into a camera, their huge melons filling the screen for 95% of the movie and the sets completely disappearing behind their faces, go ahead. For me, at some point I just couldn't breath right and had to push my girlfriend away and open the window, 'cause it felt so constricting and claustrophobic.

Now, if you can get past the fact that this movie might have worked just as well shot inside a shoe box, you'll probably not get past the fact that the text is bad. Just bad. I disconnected from the thing 15 minutes in, when a child said something that only someone who had children already would reason. Then a slight burst of anger led me to the conclusion that if you're going to go all out and act clever with a movie (act because it just isn't), trying to pull off two hours of endless blabbing and full-on closeups, you are not allowed to fumble on the text! And this, ladies and gentlemen, is a bad script, ridden with poor dialogues all over the place.

Don't watch this. It's not a B movie, but it's an unsuccessful attempt at sounding clever. Actually, this is a very clever movie for dumb people. It's an outrage to compare this to "Eyes Wide Shut", Kubrik is a genius, that movie is a master piece from acting to text to cinematography. This is nothing of that. If you enjoy watching "Days of our Lives", this movie is for you.

The Resident (2011)

So many mistakes in so little material

[2/10 · 22 July 2011]

Halfway through 2011, and this is by far the worst movie I've watched this year.

In spite of having put aside my initial prejudice, that this was going to be just another one of those "9 1/2 weeks" lover-gone-crazy movies (which somehow this was), I've put myself through watching it, and boy do I feel I've wasted my time.

The opening score should have served as a hint (as it did, though ignored) that there wasn't going to be anything other than professionally made fluff in this movie. Never has a poor soundtrack said so much of a movie so early into it. I kept waiting for the aliens and zombies to arrive until the last minute, when "Resident Evil" came by to say hi before the closing credits.

As far as the movie goes, somebody apparently used half the budget in finalizing it and making it look pretty, 'cause it fell short in every other aspect except for post-production. The most remarkable scene is a flashback (the scene plus its short continuation are referenced three times in sequence) where the protagonist wears three different shirts, plus what the other guy was doing on screen which just didn't match what was played 15 seconds before it. Just awful.

Some ratings are unexplainable, maybe the other half of the budget (the one that wasn't destined for post-production) was used into hiring an online army trying to compensate for the 1's and 2's this flop certainly got... 5 is way too high for this, believe me (and I'm generous with the voting here)...

Source Code (2011)

Extremely well woven...

[8/10 · 11 June 2011]

Source Code is what "Inception" aimed for, with added coherence and no plot holes that I can think of. Well worth the watch, it keeps the ball rolling in what seems to be a genre started by the "Matrix" and a few less successful predecessors.

The plot takes place in mental space, so to speak, like with the aforementioned titles, and as with both, there is little linearity in plot time. Somehow it also reminds me of "Groundhog Day" and specially "The Thirteenth Floor", again with added coherence as there are no questions left unanswered about "why" or "how" things were happening.

If I had to pick one particularly good point about this movie, I'd say that the script was marvelously written, considering how the time line unravels and how the plot is conducted. The only negative thing about the whole experience is that it comes directly after "Inception", and a lot of elements (specially the soundtrack) can be seen and heard there as direct "consequences" of it, so I doubt it'll significantly impact the industry at this point in time. But other than that, the script itself makes it well worth the watch (irrespective of how it was executed).

I give it an 8 for being a deeply enjoyable experience, although it should be noted that considering what was said above, it isn't revolutionary. As for the science aspect, if you know a little about quantum physics you'll understand why this movie is specially coherent and creative, and again, well worth the watch (not just for science fiction buffs).

The Walking Dead (2010–2022)

When George fumbles with "Survival of the Dead"

[10/10 · 18 November 2010]

Being a die-hard (pun intended) fan of George Romero's dead series, and having waited long for "Survival of the Dead" to be released, one can imagine the size of the disappointment I had with that one. "That's it..." I thought, "the last seriously good zombie flick series has run its course and our super-hero George is not gonna step up to the plate again...".

A couple days ago, while skimming the inter-webs for news about a possible redemptive new installment of the franchise, I stumbled across "The Walking Dead". First thought that came to mind was that it couldn't live up to my aficionado expectations, and that it was bound to be some 2nd grade knock-off like the "Return of the Living Dead" series, which has some entertainment value, no doubt (specially the third movie), but it's never going to rise to the same cult-status as Romero's.

So, having eagerly watched the first 3 episodes, I can see it's AMC to the rescue here.

George himself must be proud that his legacy lives on in a glorious super-production of a TV series. I can only praise AMC for being so careful, so thoughtful and so tasteful production- wise. This series has probably a big budget, excellent writing, and deserves the ratings and awards it's bound to get.

AMC has become a synonym for the highest possible quality in entertainment, and "The Walking Dead" is a testament to the commitment of releasing only top-quality material. This series is so good that it'll probably convert some of the non zombie-aficionado audience, and I can only expect George to live up to his reputation and legacy riding once more the wave of a dearly beloved genre that has gathered such a huge fan-base all over the globe. A cameo from him is probably not out of the question (and would for sure not come undeserved given what was seen in the first three episodes, all big-screen zombie worth material).

From the visual aspects, to the acting, directing and soundtrack, A+++ stuff. Thanks and kudos to AMC!

*** UPDATE *** Five episodes into the thing, I'm sorry to say the story-line is dragging up more than a fair bit. DON'T DROP THE BALL, guys! I had the distinct impression that nothing happened in the last 2 episodes (4 and 5)...

Resident Evil: Afterlife (2010)

Biggest Matrix spoof this side of Revolutions...

[3/10 · 16 November 2010]

Firstly, i'd like to explain why i rated this movie at 3 stars and not ZERO: 'cause it's really visually impressive, credit where credit's due. Just eye candy, from first to last minute. HOWEVER, that's all there is to it, as with many sci-fi wannabe hit movies, but with a sinister twist to it: absolutely no cohesion (visual progression/sets and general story-telling included).

This movie would have generated 20 or 30 good trailers, as long as 2-3 min snippets were kept separate and no one actually watched the movie.

Lastly, this is the movie that most boldly assumes the Matrix Trilogy has been either forgotten or remained unwatched by a younger generation. While i applaud the liberty taken to re-shoot bullet dodging scenes and "bullet time", maybe as an attempt to break the monopoly of the famed -now classic- Trilogy over it, it deeply disgusts me that even the wardrobe is spoofed. Wardrobe, some superpowers, some character development, camera angles and general scene perspective, CGI, the pace of the action, excessive similarity of quite a few scenes (!?), fight-scenes and concepts, self-cloning characters, and even a non-neutral hue throughout most of the movie which gets situationally changed (as in The Trilogy and its greenish hue).

So, this movie isn't really a collection of clichés as some reviewers have said. It's one single giant Matrix-spoof-turned-part-of-a-franchise thing. Really, no one has ever copied it so boldly (or with such a straight face) before. Too bad that being uncreative and sleazily plagiarizing does not a good movie make.

Antichrist (2009)

you cannot expect a movie called the Antichrist to be anything nice...

[3/10 · 6 December 2009]

Well, to begin with, i disagree with somebody writing here that it's not revolting and the gore is less prominent than any horror flicks', it's "psychological gore" for the lack of a better term, and no George Romero made me want to vomit so much as this did, with a 1/1.000.000 of the blood and guts...

It's not about what is shown or about how much blood, but it's about the whole idea and the build up surrounding it... This IS the most shocking movie i've watched as an adult. Years of graphic violence in the media were enough to desensitize me quite a bit, but this is a masterful creation of a psychological setting that causes your insides to churn frequently, like i haven't felt since the first depictions of violence that came across my life...

So the ability to reach into your physiology with images and sounds (molten into the picture of a soundtrack, there is no movie+soundtrack, it's one whole experience) is enough to stick around through this couple of hours of nausea...

So disturbing, that i think 25+ should be recommended as the viewing age... Or no age at all, i still cannot tell if it would have been better not to have sit through this...

About the cinematic aspects, it's all brilliant from beginning to end, camera angles and lighting are perfect all around, and in most scenes you get the feeling you are looking at a good neo-Gothic / abstract painting, with the added nauseating aspect that you also get a vivid first person feeling, from the camera movements (sometimes a sharp sideways snap, then instantly zooming into focus, like looking down to pick-up a toy) to the sound track (like the humming and whistling you hear just before fainting, or after intense pain, or even the "inside your head" sound surrounding sexual content). At times this feels like a new media, electro-digital-acoustic image and sound experience, where the director brilliantly places the set "inside your head", inside your own hearing and viewing organs, and not through a third person perspective from a lifeless camera... Too bad that his message has been so grim, the ability to communicate is impressive in this person (Lars Von Trier).

The acting is plastered inside this media-trap, as models posing to a painter would be, so there is very little to comment on it when you can easily tell that both "he" and "she" were submitted by a torrent of overwhelmingly powerful portraits, where what they did was always ten times more important than how they did it. And the graphic representation of everything is so explicit and powerful that i could understand if barf bags were distributed at the entrance of the movie theater...

So if you finally manage to stick around, you may experience a weird satisfaction that there is still something impressionable inside yourself (such as the inner child that has just jumped out the window), and a deep anger that someone put you through this with such skill. I wish i could write curse words here, but since i cannot, Fank You Lars Von Trier, for ruining my Sunday.

Che: Part One (2008)

watch out for polarized reviews

[9/10 · 21 November 2009]

As such a controversial figure, reviewers and film critics everywhere are completely unable to part with their own convictions while reviewing this work of art, as audiences are while (not) watching it.

Irrespective of beliefs or opinions on the historical character of Che, i don't remember the last movie that felt as immersive as this one. Soderbergh's choices of camera angles, perspective, lighting and all the cinematic aspects give you a permanent first person angle in the action that is so involving that you actually die with Che in the end of the second movie...

In this sense, also knowing how Che's story ends, and regretfully waiting for it to come, proves to be an exercise in death as his own life was, accepting it in many forms with clear revolutionary ideals, fighting to the death against oppression and "sheephood" in a way that simply doesn't exist anymore. If anything, it elicits the need for an idealism long absent in mankind, and above all, the ultimate stand on collective thinking, for all that's good and bad about it.

The first movie feels like it had probably an hour or so of footage that was cut off, abbreviated. The second one has smoother transitions, so i guess that actually the story had to be depicted in a non linear, sort of summarized way to avoid the running time reaching 6hs... So one thing that disturbs me about the first part is that it feels like just an introduction to the Bolivian Diaries, and that it by itself could have resulted in a 2 part movie, since there is actually more happening surrounding the Cuban revolution than in the failed Bolivian attempt. And i think this is where Soderbergh stopped short on his convictions, he could have easily made this a trilogy, which with the same vocabulary and stylistic approach, would have brought up a broader view on Che and history itself.

All in all, this movie is a work of art, playing like a symphony (a bit fractured in the first part though), immersive from the first minute to the last. Coupled with the acting, where Benicio del Toro -is- Che, this is a highly underrated movie in America, where the terrorist witch hunt and the cold war that rages on in the heads of small minded people prevented it from grossing over US$ 300.000.

The Matrix (1999)

Complete...

[10/10 · 25 May 2009]

The most complete and involving trilogy as far as the possibilities of the medium. Greatest story ever told in an exclusively cinematic format, it's obvious that all the possibilities of the format have been stretched by it. From the dreamy atmosphere to conceptual fight scenes, flawless cruising between parallel realities etc. All leading to an epic, climatic finish that sums up and closes every emotional note raised throughout the series perfectly.

Also, to me what was the most stunning aspect of it, was that the freedom in deciding where to take and how to tell the story felt absolute. There was no meddling with it by executive producers or studio executives etc. A piece of movie art, this is where it all leads to.

You can have stories as good as this. But you cannot have better movies.

The Razor's Edge (1984)

a waste of Maugham's precious testimony

[3/10 · 12 April 2009]

to begin with, the story is so skipped between particular points that it just gets meaningless about 1/3 into it...

i have read and enjoyed the book as one of the treasures of western literature, as it creates bridges, and, for the time of its writing, is probably one of the first threads between mass communication and the concept of enlightenment...

it is a spiritual book in its entirety, and the movie has nothing to do with that...

the most important moment in the book passes unnoticed in the movie, and not only that, it can be considered to not have happened in the plot...

and i cannot understand why, actually... its all in the book, the scenery, a description of the feeling to the likes of any spiritual writings you can find anywhere, and NOTHING was translated into the movie...

nothing is accurate, not even the historic period the story is situated in... Gray loses everything in the stock market, yet there is no mention of it in this movie simply because it would call the bluff on the vague epoch setting decision...

Oddly enough, the coin scene is played 100% the same as in the book, depicting the same miracle seeking vision of spirituality that turns something elevated into mundane, like what happened to the book here...

India becomes Tibet, the holy Sri Ramana Maharshi in Tiruvannamalai (a vehement opponent of religion) becomes an unknown Buddhist monk in a monastery (!?), spirituality becomes as pointless as religion...

A disappointment... It would have taken a director with a broader and deeper view on spirituality to grasp the treasure the book is... If you have watched this, please do yourself a favor and read the book... Besides everything else, i have the feeling that there was absolutely no research and no depth also in the director's reading of the book, which is disrespectful to say the least...

The book is a testament on life, this movie is just a story with iconic characters in a 100% mundane setting... Too bad this pearl fell in the hands of a pig who apparently refused to read the book, or had the deliberate intention to break the bridge Maugham created between holy India and the west...

Read the book and you will be thankful for the description (because it is told to not really be fiction) and the broad sense of life you can get from it... Watch the movie and you can only have more of the same confusion you can find in any sitcom...

Shallow, superficial, and a waste of time. Besides, it is just insulting to realize something as a story about a baseball match becoming a movie description of a stadium...

Actually, if i had something to do with Maugham or was from India, i would sew this ignorant director... This movie shouldn't be called The Razor's Edge, it is a destructive non-tribute to it, in the hands of a director that probably thought he was better at telling a story than Maugham himself, or whose constricted religious beliefs came clashing in with Maugham's religion free spirituality...

Or to put it bluntly, i get the feeling that a story about enlightenment was told by somebody that believes in heaven and hell... A contradiction in itself...