Change Your Image
nymeria-meliae
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Swiss Army Man (2016)
Strange film
I had to give it 12 hours to digest what I had just seen. It is easily the strangest film I've seen. However, I am surprised at the large number of people who completely fail to understand what is happening... perhaps because they are being distracted by flatulence.
Firstly, I didn't find it particularly funny. Never laughed once but I did find it light hearted.
Secondly, the only reason this film gets 6/10 from me and not 1/10 is because of the amazing acting. The script sucks, the photography and editing is not much better... but the acting is very good.
Now onto the film...
SPOILER? Hank was never on a desert island. It should be obvious at the end of the film that this was the case. The island is a metaphor for Hank's loneliness and he has chosen to kill himself in the woods near the home of the woman who has captured his imagination when Manny washes up on the shore. The entire film is about Hank's mental breakdown brought on by his loneliness and longing for the woman of his affection... and he never traveled anywhere with the body, it was all in his mind.
Zootopia (2016)
Nice family film
The animation is great as expected. But the film is definitely geared more to older children and adults. My 5 year old was completely lost before we here even half way into the film and it left me plagued with questions from her about what was supposedly going on. She did however enjoy the jokes but she had picked up on most of these before seeing the film from the trailers.
Am I the only person here who has picked up on all the 48 Hours and Another 48 Hours references (the old Eddie Murphy films)? I know it was an old early 1980s film that I've not seen in nearly 20 years but there were a lot of references to these two films, especially the second film. I am not 100% sure but there seemed at times to be a nod towards the Tom Hanks film Dragnet a few times too.
Over all I enjoyed the film... lots of references to 1980s crime dramas and films... made me feel like I was watching an animated version of 80s cinema/TV. But a bit too complex for very young children.
Gerry (2002)
The cure to insomnia
This is quite possibly the most boring film I've ever watched... and it took me three attempts to get to the end because it is a fantastic film for sending you to sleep.
SPOILER ALERT:
Not sure if this counts as a spoiler or not... but the film consists of 10 minutes of two blokes walking followed by 10 minutes of a close up on the faces of two blokes walking followed by 1 minute of very brief dialogue followed by 10 minutes of two blokes walking followed by 10 minutes of 360 degree panoramic shot of the scenery followed by 10 minutes close up on the faces of two blokes walking followed by 10 minutes of one bloke on a rock followed by 5 minutes on top of a hill followed by 10 minutes of walking followed by 10 minutes lying down in the sun The end The lack of dialogue, the lack of anything, and the rhythmic sound of marching just sends you to sleep.
Just an awful film. There is literally nothing good to say about the film. I can only think that positive reviews are from people who have a thing for one of the two actors because there are a lot of close ups of them walking. There is a homo-erotic feel to the film that might be why it gets some positive responses from those who like that kind of thing but except that... what was the point of this film?
The Shannara Chronicles (2016)
Not so bad
This series was not terrible... I think it helps to have read the book. Obviously it didn't live up to the book it is series 1... these things take time before developing a budget and for the cast to grow into the characters. Series 1 of Black Sails was only for true fans of the golden age of pirates and Treasure Island... it was not until the end of season 2 that things start to get interesting... So considering that Shannara is a new series I thought it was reasonably well budgeted.
I wish people would stop comparing every single fantasy to Game of Thrones... it is not Game of Thrones, the story is older than Game of Thrones, so stop comparing. Also, it is not an adult fantasy story... it is a teen fantasy story... the book is a teen fantasy story, I read it when I was a teenager over 25 years ago. If it is comparable to anything then it is comparable to Lord of the Rings... a quest to save the world from evil hordes... while GoT is a political intrigue in a fantasy world.
There is always going to be changes between book and film but one really bad thing about the series was the absence of the Reaper. Without the Reaper the story line is very weak. As another reviewer stated, the Reaper is one of the main plots of the story that keeps you turning the page... the Reaper is what made Elfstones worth reading and Sword boring as hell.
However, I think MTV themselves sum up what they were trying to achieve with this series... teenage eye candy. It unfortunately shows. The series is definitely geared to teenagers and the only reason I watched it to the end was that I had fond memories of the book.
So overall, it is not a bad series but it is not fantastic either... don't come expecting Game of Thrones... if you want something that can take on GoT then you have to turn to Vikings and the thing that makes Vikings better than GoT is that Vikings is based on real history.
The Giver (2014)
Let down by the ending
Overall I enjoyed this film. I would've loved to have seen some of the things brought up in the film explored in greater detail... such as the notion that without words for colour there is no colour... They could've done an entire film just on that idea alone... certainly when we covered this concept at university we spent hours upon hours exploring the power of language in defining our world.
Also the critique of community could've been explored much better. The result of the film is that we end up with more of a critique that borders communism rather than communitarianism and as such we get a THX-1138 or 1984 feel of this society. Although in all fairness the book emerged around the same time as Etzioni was redeveloping communitarianism into a means of government and Bauman's critique didn't come out until much later... as such, my guess is that the book was more of a promotion of neo-liberal individualism rather than a proper critique of communitarianism and as such it is understandable how the concept of community comes across as being more about communism and socialism. However, from talking to those who have read the book, there are enough changes in the film to have allowed the screen writer and director to bring the book up to date with more recent history by taking a communitarian critique and possibly weave in some similarities to things said and done during the Blair and Clinton administrations where government was defined in terms of community.
Meanwhile, the division of labour based on attributes seems like something taken straight from the Divergent... however, this is one of those cases whereby the films of the books have come out differently to the books - in other words, the book 'The Giver' came out a lot earlier than the book 'Divergent' and as such Divergent has probably borrowed from 'The Giver' rather than the other way around - although, I've not read either books and I am basing my review solely on the film.
The acting in the film was quite well done for such young actors. The photography and effects in the film were also well executed. There is also a big morality question over hanging all of this that mirrors that of 'After the Dark' (aka The Philosophers) (2013) concerning whether it is right for a few to die in order the rest to live harmoniously.
Although I would've loved to have seen a bit more development of the issues raised in the film (although it might be difficult to do that without making the film an epic in length), the main disappointment to the film was the ending. It made zero sense at all that the way in which to restore feeling was to break through a 'force field' on the edges of society. It would've made much more sense in the case of the film (I believe the book is slightly different) to have had Jonas do something to the injections that we are led to believe in the film were the cause of suppressed emotion (see THX-1138). Escaping to the edge of society seemed like a cheap ending to the film and if anything gave the film the impression that it had just ripped off THX-1138... and yet through the exploration of the power of language, the critique of community, and morality the film had the potential to be so much more than another THX-1138 rip-off.
The other major plot hole was the restoration of memory in people who had not experienced those memories. It made no sense whatsoever as to why someone who had not been born before the community was created to experience memories from before the community's creation, just because Jonas had passed through the edge of society. While I think tackling the injection would've been the way to have gone, had there been something at the edge of society that allowed Jonas to invade the consciousness of those within the community in the same way that the Giver shared his memories to Jonas via touch... then that may have solved the problems with the ending... it may be something along those lines in the book (I don't know) but if so, it wasn't very well explained in the film - and once again, it would've been better for Jonas to have discovered that he was able to project memory and feeling to others without the need of touching them as being the catalyst for the providing the community with a collective set of memories and emotions.
Overall... I enjoyed the film but felt it was let down by the ending.
After the Dark (2013)
Film genius, missed opportunity, or just over-thinking?
I think most of the other reviews sum this film up quite well. This review is more about me exasperating about a film that had so much potential but failed to deliver.
Take a philosophy class and take the end of the world scenario as set out in the film... now explore the choices made according to different philosophical ideals about morality and you have a great film.
Instead this film works on the pretense of logic based on skill set and eventually sets that against hedonism. To have a philosophy teacher supposedly some sort of genius that people from around the world send their brightest children to Jakarta to learn from him but falls down at his own logic and premise of selection and then fails to recognize hedonism explains how one reviewer can be left angry at the film.
The film also has some glaring plot holes in it...
SPOILER ALERT
Why would they choose an electrical engineer in a post apocalyptic world without easy access to electricity AND why wouldn't they attempt to hack the control panel? But then, as I am sure anyone watching the film would scream at the screen, logic dictates that if your goal is to repopulate the earth then surely any choice would require 8 females and 2 males with the greatest possible ethnic diversity offering the greatest gene pool potential... and skill set would only factor as a secondary choice.
But... we would still be left with a film that failed to explore morality from different philosophical view points which the film initially appeared to set out to explore with the train scenario. Ultimately that is what we as viewers were led to believe that this film supposedly set out to explore... what are the moral principles of choosing one life over another.
What this film actually does is provide an argument that the Arts are just as important as the hard sciences... and that while the hard sciences provide us with the tools to survive, the Arts provide us with the skills for civilization. Without the Arts life is mundane... however, the final exercise scenario provides us with the only other real philosophical position in the film to challenge a logic based on skills... a hedonist view point where it is better to destroy oneself in excess of pleasure than to survive because that is what allows us to live and that is what defines civilization.
It is easy to over-think this film... I could quite easily make the argument that the film represents a picture of the current modern world whereby we live in a hedonist society built on desire and greed that define what it means to be civilized in the Western world and that the excess of civilization is in itself leading to the world's own destruction. This comes from the final hedonist selection of candidates, its final scenario, and the placement of the film in Jakarta but with Western English speaking actors demonstrates that perceptions of civilization stem from Western values. The final scenario set on a deserted island far removed from Western society survives the mutual self-destruction of a nuclear war. However, I somehow don't think the makers of this film had that in mind and any such analysis would be a classic case of reader response theory whereby the viewer is owning the meaning of the film (in this case) far removed from the author's intent.
I do like another reviewer's suggestion concerning the teacher and Plato's cave and I can see where that idea stems from but I have to question whether or not that is merely a case of over-thinking too. After-all the reference to Plato's cave comes in the latter half of the film and it is not made clear at the start of the film that this is what is being set out to explore. It could also be a case of the writers and/or director taking the film in a different direction after exhausting the nuclear war scenarios. The final ending to the film itself certainly gives that impression.
Ultimately, I have given the film 5 stars because it does allow such discussion to come from the film... I don't, however, think the film is particularly well executed and should a film really score highly if the only things taken from the film are those that we as viewers bring to it ourselves? There is an argument for that to be the case... after all that is what Alice in Wonderland is ultimately an exercise in and any film or book that is a metaphor of reality.
Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi (2001)
Hand drawn
Sometimes I really wished that you could reply to other reviewers rather than have to write a full review yourself.
Being married to a Japanese person means that Miyazaki has God-like status in our household. I remember the first time I ever saw Princess Mononoke on TV in Japan and I was blown away by it... the detail in the animation was unbelievable and I just watched it and watched it again and again... I could not believe that anything would ever come close to beating that film as the greatest piece of animation ever created. I was wrong... Spirited Away blew it out of the water.
The first thing I want to address though... if like my family, you buy every Miyazaki film ever released from Japan with all the extras then you will know that Spirited Away may have been animated using computers but every scene was hand drawn first. The second disc in the full DVD package includes the entire film with soundtrack but using the hand drawn pages for the animation. This film is NOT some computer generated excuse for animation like one Tom and Jerry fan suggested. This was all hand drawn and to suggest otherwise is an insult to the animation genius that is Miyazaki.
SPOILER ALERT:
Secondly, story line. The overall plot might have similarities to Alice in Wonderland but it is nowhere near a direct copy of the book. To suggest that it is an Alice in Wonderland rip off is like me suggesting you pulled that reference straight off of Wikipedia. So she goes through a tunnel into another world... big wow... Alice is not the only adventure that goes through a tunnel into another world. If we are going to draw very loose references to stories then it is a rip off of Homer's Odyssey when the crew get turned into pigs for eating forbidden food on the island. I don't remember Alice's parents ever entering Wonderland or the plot of the story centering about Alice trying to restore her family to humans. Alice is essentially about the play of language... and the only similarity other than entering a tunnel to Spirited Away is the power of names.
The plot of Spirited Away is complex... there are several subplots surrounding a main plot. The main story is about Chihiro trying to rescue her parents while trying to survive in a hostile world full of prejudice. The main message of the film, however, is about the evils of greed. Each subplot in the film demonstrates the evil of greed. Just like Mononoke was about the environment. In Spirited Away there is an environmental message included as there is in almost all Miyazaki films - the river God being cleaned... but the main message is that greed leads to bad things happening. However, for me the most outstanding piece was the power of names. My only regret was that Miyazaki didn't take this further.
END OF SPOILER
So overall, the film is quite possibly the greatest piece of animation ever created. It has a story and it has a message if you bother to look for them beyond the bedazzlement of the art work and soundtrack. With Mononoke I watched the film several times and then started getting bored with it as the magic waned... I have yet to get bored of Spirited Away and have watched it almost twice as much as Mononoke.
It is scary for a child but no more so than a Disney film. My 4 year old will leave the room when Maleficent comes on screen in Sleeping Beauty, and she will cover her eyes when the evil Queen appears in Snow White. She covers her eyes at parts of Spirited Away too... but she watches the film to the end. It is definitely a film to be watched with adults though... it is not a film to put your child down and leave them with the TV as a babysitter... but who is to say that all animation is designed solely for children?
Star Wars (1977)
Children's Fairy tale in Space
There are two major problems with this film... 1) the plot 2) the acting
I think this film is so popular largely because of childhood nostalgia. It is essentially a children's film.
Spoiler? The Plot: When stripped to its bare bones the plot is essentially... princess gets kidnapped by evil sorcerer. Wannabe knight is trained by wizard to rescue princess from sorcerer. Wizard is killed by sorcerer. Knight comes back and destroys sorcerer's dragon (aka death-star). With the exception of death-star = dragon, each character is referred to according to those titles. Obi Wan is called a wizard by Luke's uncle. Darth Vader is referred to as having sorcerer's ways. Luke is to train to be a Jedi Knight... and Leia is a princess.
A typical children's fairy tale story... and the twist being that it is set in space.
The acting at times is so wooden that it is cringe worthy.
Everyone has fond memories of this film from their childhood... and the reason why people don't like Return of the Jedi or the prequels is largely because they have grown up and have forgotten that this was a children's movie and was merchandised as a child's movie. However, if you look at it again on its merits as a film... it is actually quite a poor over-rated movie. It's one saving grace other than nostalgia is the model making and special effects for the time of its release were impressive but no more so than some previous sci-fi movies.
Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain (2001)
For me the best movie of all time
I had a laugh at the poor reviews for this movie... I can only conclude that don't watch this film if you like action films.
For me this is my greatest movie of all time and I will proceed to tell you why I think this...
1) It does have a story... it is essentially a love story. I am baffled as to how people can't pick up on that. It is a romance and as such it delves into the fantasy feeling of being in love and infatuated with a stranger who you have yet to talk to and you have yet to know but your entire body aches to be with them nonetheless... that adrenaline that rushes through your body and creates that tingly feeling of nerves in your belly. The film captures that moment perfectly.
2) The film is visual poetry. It is not seeking the harshness of reality... it is seeking to portray the pretense of love - see point 1. The photography in this film is just amazing and the focus on facial expression as a means of dialogue is fantastic. While I like heavy dialogue films that are characteristic of a Tarantino film, it is nice to go back to the facial expressions of the silent movie era... and Jeunet is a master of capturing the face and using actors capable of expressing emotion through the visual. The camera angles, the orange tint in the photography and the choice of colours, the attention to minute detail, demonstrate a true artist at work.
4) The acting... too many poor reviews are given because of the lack of dialogue other than the narrator... So I am guessing these people don't like the silent movies of times gone by... nor will they like harsh films such as Hunger or the acclaimed The Artist. Expression need not be about words... and the actors that Jeunet has gathered around him are artists of expression without dialogue. Their skill at expressing an array of emotion through the face is astounding.
5) Character development... we learn so much about the characters in this story in such a short time through a like and hate narrative that builds upon Jeunet's short film... Foutaises (available on youtube with English subtitles).
Ultimately this film is about capturing a single emotion - the first feeling of passion and infatuation when you glance a person you would love to know better. It is visually stunning and is about expression through the visual. For me the film ticks a lot of boxes that I look for in a film... I want something that celebrates the visual - if I just wanted a plot then I would read a book, that said, I want something that has a story to tell and this film does have a story... it is a romance story. I look for good photography in a film and for good acting and this film delivers on both accounts. I also want to leave the film with a memory of the film and feeling whether it be a warm fuzzy feeling like this film delivers, anger, fear, or hate. I love films that make me think but those thoughts need not be complexities, this film makes me think about the film and how it was shot... that alone makes it one of the best films I have seen... it is great because it makes me think about how it was made as a film. In that sense I can understand how some reviewers can call the film self-indulgent... it is... it celebrates itself... it celebrates the art of film (there a number of little things throughout that celebrate film) in this respect you can draw similarities with Cinema Paradiso.
However, ultimately, what makes a great film for me is one that transports me to another place where I am so engrossed in the film that I lose sense of time and when the film comes to an end, I feel as though I have lived as part of the film and have been away on holiday... a film that sucks me into itself... a great film is one that transports you to another place like a great piece of fictional writing in a book... where your own reality subsides and is replaced with the temporal vision being portrayed. This film delivers in that respect. It shuts out the outside and replaces it with a visually stunning piece of cinema.
Rob Roy (1995)
Rob Roy based on Walter Scott's novel of the same name
Reading some of the negative reviews for this film... one has to wonder whether IMDb need to regulate some of the reviewers... pointing to the homophobic reviewers... albeit, I am at a bit of a loss on that one with regards to this film.
Scottish sentimental rubbish? Clan costumes? Do these people know who Sir Walter Scott was and what he did to promote Scotland? Of course it is Scottish sentimentalism... it is a Georgian Highland Romance story written to appease King George the whatever's fascination with all things Scottish. Scott all but invented Scottish cultural nationalism that we accept today.
Did Rob Roy exist? Well if he didn't someone needs to rewrite the Battle of Glen Shiel (1719) because Robert Roy McGregor and 40 of his men were there.
This film would normally be a 6.7... the acting is fine, the villain parts are perfectly executed... never been a big Neeson fan but he is fine in this film. The story is fair enough with predictable ending. What makes this a great film though is the final sword fighting scene. One of the best film sword fights in cinematic history. Worth just fast forwarding to that fight scene. Plus being of clan Gregor... I can't really give it less than 9.
A Christmas Horror Story (2015)
Fun Comedy Horror film
This was a great fun film. I am at a loss as to how one reviewer can claim that there are better Christmas horror films out there... name one... Gremlins? Rare Exports? Nightmare before Christmas? I wouldn't say any of those was better than this film... perhaps on par with it. Basically, when it comes to Christmas horror you have a choice between slasher or comedy horror... this falls into the latter category.
Don't approach this film expecting lots of slasher gore... if ever a type of film was mislabeled it is the slasher films... 90% of those films should be classified as thrillers not horrors. For me, a horror film requires an element of the supernatural and this film delivers on that point.
Is it a scary film? No... not at all. But neither is Gremlins, Rare Exports etc. And I have yet to be scared by a slasher film... gore and blood is not frightening.
Is it a fun film? Absolutely. I would say this film was very much on par with Rare Exports. If you liked Rare Exports then you are going to like this film.
The film itself is a Tales from the Crypt/The Monster Club type of film that loosely interconnects four tales... each exploiting four classic horror themes... ghosts, teenagers, haunted house/school, monster/slasher in the woods, strange child, zombie, bad Santa psycho. As others have said... Santa vs Zombie Elves could've been a stand alone film in itself but I think this film is well executed and delivers as it is intended... a comedy horror.
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994)
Shouldn't be called Mary Shelley's
Nothing like the book so why call it Mary Shelley's? Victor Frankenstein is primarily a chemist and keeps the process of animating a body secret. There are no dead body parts and there is no electricity in the books. Rather it is suggestive that the body is created by Victor and the animation process is a chemical process rather than electrical process... although it does not say for certain how the 'monster' is constructed.
This film owes more to early Hollywood and Hammer than it does to Mary Shelley. Also my impression of Victor Frankenstein in the books is that he is an incredibly private person. The 'monster' is created by himself over a long period of time and in deep secrecy and after its creation Victor becomes even more withdrawn in himself. I felt that this film does not portray Victor in this light.
By all means keep the film's original title as Frankenstein as a homage to the films of old but to make arrogant claims that it resembles the book suggests to me that the director or the studio officials who decided to change the name to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein have not read the book but instead have relied on watching the earlier film versions of the story.
Mr. Robot (2015)
Brilliant
I wouldn't normally write a review based on a pilot but this one really deserves attention and someone needs to question those low star comments.
Firstly, this pilot episode has good photography, good acting - the lead actor is definitely one to look out for in the future, and a good plot that actually attempts to engage hacking properly - sure they have to cut a few corners for entertainment's sake - you can't spend days or weeks trying to crack a password in a TV drama but at least there are attempts at social engineering and awareness of terms.
Now to address those low star comments... 1) Politics... this drama has a left wing agenda that is going to upset a few of those on the right. However, you shouldn't make a review that is clearly influenced by your politics and not what is on the screen
2) This drama expects you to know some tech-speak... it is not overly complex but you should know things like DDOS attack, Tor, Onion encryption etc. At a guess expect more... judging by the plot, Low Orbit Ion Cannon and rootkit are going to be dropped in there at some point in the future. Rather than attack the program for your own ignorance, perhaps make a note of some of the terms and look them up - thus educating yourself.
3) Christian Slater was probably chosen because of his earlier films like Pump up the Volume and Heathers... that really defined him as an actor, maybe less so for the TV comedy Breaking In.
Outlander (2014)
Better than the books
I have really enjoyed watching the first few episodes of this drama but then I have always been fond of Scottish romanticism set in the Jacobite period. It may not appeal as much to people who are not so much drawn to this period of history and locale.
The story is essentially a romantic love triangle separated by two points in time that provides a contrast to compare post WWII life with 18th Century life particularly around the history of medicine.
After enjoying the story on the screen, I decided to delve into the book which is normally better than the screen. However, this is not the case in this drama. The TV version is much better than the irritating annoyance of the book. For example, in the book there is a point where the author claims that our main character, can smell a clump of clover at her feet... not possible, if she had a nose that good she would be a connoisseur of fine wines or similar... but then later she seems to think that German wine is both strong and the best thing she's ever tasted ... yeh, right, and this is at a time in Germany when wine production was at it's worse because of the German reformation (not to mention it being a Rosé from a region not known for producing red grapes and described almost as a fortified wine from a place not known to produce such things - for most of the time she is drinking whisky and suddenly gets giddy and drunk on a German wine?).
Stick to the TV drama which is proving to be a cracking period drama set in the main just before the final Jacobite uprising and avoid the book. If you are avoiding this drama because like me you think the book is awful, then give the drama a try because it is one of those rare occasions where the screen is better than the page.