Sergio_Ivan_1985 Reviews

Pistorius (2018)

Well documented, well sourced, however it's "balanced" approach is just an act.

[3/10 · 13 February 2020]

This is an entertaining documentary, it interviews a lot of important people to the case, both from the defense and the prosecution (however, no one from Reeva's family, not even anyone of her friends, this is an indication of what the documenary is ultimately trying to accomplish, that I didn't quite catch from the beginning). However, after I finished watching it, I felt a little off, and iffy. A simple google search help me know why.

If you want to see it, you should go in knowing two very important factors:

1) The documentary is extremely graphic. It shows you very GORY images of the murder with no narrative justification whatsoever, with the seeming sole intention of making the prosecution look bad.

2) While the doc spends two full hours analizing the trial from both the prosecution and the defense points of view, it outright OMITS facts and sayings of the Pistorious narrative that would make his version of events look absurd, and it leaves in ONLY the things that make his version of the murder seem plausible. A simple google search can correct this.

So, if you want to see this, you should know that while it is quite entertaining and engrossing, it hides it's true intentions behind a facade of balanced reporting and neutrality that by the end, it is not even trying that hard to maintain, going so far as to making the whole pistorius family look like victims, desevring of our sympathy and pity.

Creed (II) (2015)

Great movie. Loved it.

[10/10 · 30 January 2016]

Not a remake of Rocky, as some people are saying. It does use the same basic plot most sport movies use but, through the use of some bold directional techniques and some of the bravest acting and script choices i've seen this side of the inspirational sports movie genre, it manages to make it's own fresh thing.

Michael B. Jordan excels in the part of Creed, the illegitimate son of Boxing legend Apollo Creed, and his interaction with the Never this Great Before Stallone as Rocky, provide the film with much needed gravitas and genuine emotion. The profound respect the character of Adonis feels for Rocky the character, it's clearly the same respect the filmmakers who brought this project to Stallone feel for the actor, the character, the films and the real world legacy of the Rocky franchise; this is the way you make a sequel to a franchise that seemingly needs no more sequels and the producers of all those recent films that try to hack their way into a paycheck, by taking advantage of our nostalgia should take note: do it right or don't do it at all.

While the story follows the same beats as the Rocky films, it does it in it's own unique way, taking advantage of Adonis' clear young age and inexperience in all things life to give us a different take on the underground stereotype we all know and, yeah, love.While Rocky in the first film was a burnout bum with a heart so big he couldn't cut it as an enforcer for loan sharks, Adonis here is a cocky kid who knows what he wants, what he's worth, what he's capable of and has a swagger and confidence that masks all of the fear and hurt he also feels, not that deep inside him.

Oh, yeah... the boxing scenes... man, the boxing scenes, whether they're one take or heavily and expertly edited, are a thrill to watch. The ones here really are the best in the franchise.

Creed (the film and the character), is a great and deserving heir to the Rocky legacy.

Terminator Genisys (2015)

A terminator comedy

[3/10 · 29 June 2015]

This movie is a blast!, if you enter with the right frame of mind, that is: If you expect to see a comedy that doesn't know it is one.

Everyone here is awful, except for Arnold and Jay Courtney; the first one because he's always great in this role, it's what he was born to play and he's stellar, as always. Jay Courtney because he's so, so bland that whatever he does he doesn't register, so he's not bad, just truly forgettable.

As for the rest of the cast: Emilia Clarke isn't channeling Linda Hamilton, and that's OK, because trust me, she would NOT be able to do it. But she's channeling Edward Furlong, which is a wise move theoretically, but that sadly just has a pathetic effect.

Jason Clarke: He's OK, It's just that the character he plays doesn't have no real motivation and or weight, the shock his betrayal to the cause should be really doesn't register, because they transform John Connor to a run of the mill villain and the way they explain what happens to him is just lazy storytelling.

The plot makes no sense and effectively undoes every other Terminator movie before this, even the good ones, which is a move that's incredibly arrogant and dumb, more so because the contrived and ridiculous plot is really not as great as the hack writers clearly think it is. You can practically see them high fiving each other every time they come up with a cringe worthy twist and/or a "homage" to the original movies that they think it's so, SO clever.

Please don't go see this movie, unless you go with the right frame of mind, i repeat: you need to have the tacit understanding that you're going to see a comedy that thinks it's the best movie not of the franchise, but EVER. Is hilarious that way and you are going to have a blast.

Can't wait to the rights reversing to James Cameron in 2018, this franchise needs to be put to sleep.

Universal Soldier: Day of Reckoning (2012)

A film that dares to be different.

[5/10 · 27 December 2012]

ANOTHER WARNING: This review contains HUGE spoilers, i discuss big parts of the ending of the film.

I've finally seen this film and I had no fun.

I don't like to be spoon feed my entertainment, but i don't like pretentious sh** either. I think this movie falls somewhere in the middle of that.

This was pretentious movie, but pretty honest and open about it and clumsy in it's execution… let me explain.

BEGINNING OF SPOILERS

The big twist? Revealed in the first 10 minutes: John was a cloned Unisol who was supposed to kill Luc Deveraux for the government and was created with implanted memories for that purpose. Then, the movie spends an hour and a half pretending that you don't know it and trying' to unravel a mystery that's not even one to begin with.

I liked that there's no good guys here: the hero is a preprogrammed killing machine doing the government's dirty work: Deveraux has gone crazy and is planning to take over the world, in some vague point in the future. However, I like to be invested in a character, and I like to root for the good guy. Here, being that there wasn't one, I was not invested at all in all the awesome fight scenes. I couldn't care less who got killed or who didn't.

And am i the only one who has a problem with the way they treat women in this movie?

END OF SPOILERS

Overall, I liked that Hyams was game for being this experimental, this is a very brave and ambitious movie that goes places an action movie is not expected to go. I truly respect that, it just wasn't what I was looking for to be entertained though. I feel the same with his Dragon Eyes, both leave you with a similar bitter flavor in your mouth at the end.

It still may work for you, the rhythm is quite even, even if quite slow and it gives clear explanation to everything the characters do, they all have clear motives and it wants to respect your intelligence as a viewer even if it not always succeeds doing that.

Watch it to see what you make of it, just don't go in expecting a traditional action film.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)

so... what was the problem?

[8/10 · 3 June 2009]

With all the bad reviews as luggage, I came into this movie expecting the worst... but, after i saw it, i found myself both entertained and at the same time wondering what was the big problem every critic and fan boy seemed to have with this movie. I think i got it: they all got up in a bad mood in the morning, and, not wanting to be the odd guy out, set out to criticize every flaw this movie has. Which has plenty. But, again, what's the problem? it has the same flaws the previous three movies had: underdeveloped characters, uneven rhythm and a ludicrous plot that tries to handle a hell lot more than it can in just about an hour and a half of running time. But somehow, the first two movies get a pass from critics and fans alike, while "the last stand" and this one get ripped to pieces.

I mean, this movie has it's share of flaws, but has plenty to like too: Hugh Jackman plays this character he knows so well to perfection, as Liev Schreiber does with Sabretooth, the action scenes are nicely done, and quite exciting, an quite a lot. The rhythm picks up exactly when it needs too whenever it falls behind, etc.

People are even complaining about the quality of the effects which leads me to believe most of them saw nothing but the unfinished leaked version and, if they did attended the screening of the actual finished film, they didn't pay attention to it and instead, spend their time thinking ingenious ways how to use the title to mock the movie.

So, in a way, this is the ideal kind of movie: if you're looking for a fun unpretentious and well done, if not perfect, summer movie, this is it. But, if you're looking for a movie to complain about how Fox is the devil, this is it too. Choke on it.

Quantum of Solace (2008)

awful editing

[7/10 · 1 April 2009]

Misguided, horrible editing, clueless direction; Marc Foster was an awful choice for this film. He clearly didn't have a clue how to do Bond so he went full Bourne on us, trying to play it safe.

Except the Opera Sequence, that was clearly Foster, I think, but, really, what the hell was that? I demand to know, I know it was by far the worst part of the film, pretentious, confusing, unnecessary, and, above all, absurd.

It's a shame really, since this reboot started so well with the great, fun, Casino Royale... let's hope Craig's third outing as Bond can pull the franchise up from this embarrassing disaster, let's hope the producers understand Bond does not need to be Bourne, neither it can.

Rudo y Cursi (2008)

Uneven, at best, malicious at worst

[4/10 · 10 January 2009]

Well, this movie had no plot, no rhythm, and never could decide whether it wanted to be an absurd caricature of the world of soccer or a serious drama, and often went from one genre to another many times within a single scene, without any warning whatsoever but a cheesy and poorly placed music cue.

¿Also, do you know how they say Soccer is unfilmable? Well Cuarón finds the perfect way of addressing this issue: by almost not showing the game at all. This hardly qualifies as a soccer picture.

Also, why i Said it was malicious: first of all, the generic "ranchero" accent Gael and Diego use... so, you filmmakers really think all poor people from small towns in the province are this Dumb? Every laugh they get from the audience comes from the fact that this is "stupid small town people" and almost never from the cleverness of the script or the logic within the plot, which, as I said before, is nonexistent. El Rudo y el Cursi seem to get punished at the end of the movie for no reason at all but for having achieved success playing football, as if that was a bad thing. Also, by having a narcotraficante marring the sister of the two main characters and saving the family from complete ruin with his dirty power and money in the process, they perpetuate the myth that narcotrafico helps Mexico moving forward... It Doesn't.

The Good Things: The Chemistry between the two protagonists, this guys can act without a script, just being the buddies they are.

The Cinematography, is great.

The attack they do on Jorge Vergara's Omnilife, showing how he takes advantage of his employees.

Just to finish: Cuarón, recently, slammed the Mexican movie critics by calling them unprepared and jealous of the Mexicans that succeed, because they almost universally slammed his movie first. He has a point, but also the dumb, unprepared, jealous critics who called his movie bad in the first place.

Where Are Their Stories? (2007)

Pretentious, Unoriginal

[3/10 · 1 December 2007]

Much like Reygadas' Movies, but less masterfuly done. This Movie won in the Morelia International Film Fest 2007 in a very predictable fashion: this type of movies are exactly what film snobs like: SLOW, PRETENTIOUS... SLOW, PRETENTIOUS... bloated with images that intend to be menaningful just for the sake of it, but not really trying: For Example: the Director seems to think that if you put poor people in a shot doing nothing and staring in to the distance, during, say, five minutes, that automatically makes it art. I'm not joking, the whole movie is like that. I was present at the Q&A with the director an the guy couldn't explain his Movie, the plot, and not even those very long traveling shots following the protagonist trough the streets, the subway, the market, etc. just walking without the image showing us nothing but the guys behind, ignoring completely the rich ambiance around him (and i know is rich not because the movie shows it, but because Batalla en el Cielo, from Carlos Reygadas, the guy this sap is clearly ripping off here, really shot Mexico City's most mundane features beautifully). This shots, that make at least 50% of the body of the movie, showed absolutely nothing.

This is the worst type of cinema: what pretentious little brats from Film Schools make.

The Simpsons Movie (2007)

I guess it was better than shrek

[3/10 · 27 August 2007]

Let me start saying this: This movie is NOT a return to the glory days of the show, like i've heard people say (i.e. seasons 1 thru 9) Is funnier and better than a lot of the movies that came out this summer, but it's still weak for what the simpsons can and used to be.

A lot of people are loving this and i honestly can't see why, it's fun but not THAT fun, you know? It has the same type of humor of the last seasons and, i don't know about you but i think they all profoundly and ultimately s*ck. It still has a few, and i repeat: a few good jokes and, if you put it against most of the movies that were released this summer, it's better. Still, I don't know if you've been at the theater this past months, but that's really not that much to say you know? Specially, i don't understand why most of the critics (in the US) loved it so much, I think they all sold out again, like they did with transformers.

Alexander (2004)

A movie only Oliver Stone could've done

[9/10 · 12 December 2004]

This epic is the complete opposite to the pathetic wannabe that is Troy: where Petersen's movie felt unnatural an cartoonish right down to the acting of most of the players (O'toole being the one exception), this feels realistic, where that piece of crap was empty and felt like nothing in the end, this is overloaded, it never gives you a rest, and i'm not talking about battles here; Alexander has only two in three hours (the first one has to be one of the -if not the- best ever filmed).

After seeing it the only reasonable explanation i can think of why it got so bad reviewed in the U.S. (RS gave it on star... come *beep* on!) is some unhealthy hatred against Stone's person and risky style of film-making and story telling. While is not perfect and has one or two of the cheesiest and out place lines for an epic movie i've heard, and maybe takes too much opportunities to not so subtly attack Bush's speech, is not nearly as bad as reviews and box office may show. I'll show you just one proof... Come on! even Jolie does a good job here! that HAS to mean something.