Reviews

Peur(s) du noir / Fear(s) of the Dark A collection of 6 different, animated, black and white tales where fear is the main protagonist.

Now each tale has a different story to tell, but they all capture quite well, one of our most primal instincts. Fear. And this is delivered through some rather pleasant animation, each one in a different style and also different tone. Those, I would call them somehow modern fairy tales, are located in a different time and space continuum from one another. So you are never at the same place twice.

You should be experienced in watching independent cinema and maybe be a lover of animated movies.

These shorts make you think, make you ponder, make you actually wonder, what is it that I fear most? Not really scary but worth a watch for those who have a romantic heart. 6 out of 10 is my vote.

Paul It is nothing more then a very typical road movie. It all takes place in the United States and involves two comic creators from the UK that go on a trip, sightseeing the important places where apparently extraterrestrial life form has been sighted. They accidentally meet a quite unique, English speaking, swearing, funny little alien, named Paul. All three embark on a journey to save his life, while he is being hunted down by the government. Of course We all know lead us to, friendships develop, they struggle and fight, fall in love for a girl, etc, etc, etc. Bla Bla Bla.

I can't really say much about the screen writing nor the direction or the photography and the editing in this film as it is quite simple and fit to tell the story perfectly. Nothing that is worth being mentioned or even criticized.

The only thing I might throw in as a devastating critique, is the fact of trying to convince us so hard that the belief in something so extraordinary like God is wrong or simply pathetic. I am not saying that I am believer, but I am not the opposite either. I accept: saying something is not true, while having the proof. And saying there is nothing more absolute then Darwin's theory (evolution, etc), is kind of childish. Specially when nowadays scientist still struggle to find out what is what and are still uncovering facts that might reject the Darwinish theory completely. Nothing is as it seems. And an alien of such knowledge would know that better then us humans.

I was not bored with the movie, I was not really laughing, but mildly entertained. Average for me 5 out of 5 even though there is a quite interesting and un expected turn in the movie. Good for boring Sundays.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011) The certainly most famous detective of all times returns in an action packed adventure of lies and treachery. Holmes and his side kick Watson are trying to assemble bits and pieces of a puzzle to find out the identity of the person who is behind terrorist attacks, that took place in Europe, and foil his evil plans.

After watching over half an hour, trying to find out where all this was going, I found myself closing my eyes (unwillingly) for a couple of minutes, because of boredom, simply bad slapstick comedy and more then horrendous storytelling. The Screenplay is predictable, yet ununderstandable, trying to hard on creating a suspenseful script a la Robert Ludlum. Nevertheless, after an hour we get to know where the screenwriter wants to take us, but the beginning is just messy.

The Direction and the photography (technically speaking) have pros and contras - I appreciated a lot the use of tripods and other technical devices like travelling or steady cam to get some clean still shots at the actors and make the action more comprehensible. Specially nowadays, that most Hollywood action movies are shot with shaky cam. Simply embarrassing. - Less appreciated, was the fact of non innovative narrating, everything is as we expect it to be. The fighting sequences are rather slow, using multiple slow motions, way over used and sometimes repeating the same action too often which kills the surprise effect

The editing is likable in most non violent sequences. During the fights, it is flashy and unbearable at most. Already seen jump cuts in the time motion makes the action anything else then fluid. The rhythm of the whole narration is rather deceiving, boring and maybe too distracting sometimes.

The actors did quite well. But I wouldn't throw flowers on the stage either.

I am not wise in special effects but they are mostly well done and I must admit that I was quite impressed in the forest bombing sequence. The Time Motion jump cut was rather pleasant, I would even say needed if not, actually impressive in that sequence.

Anyway, Guy Ritchie has proved to me once more, that he is a very talented director who lost it all after Snatch. Not even with a Blockbuster, bearing the name of one of the most respected Man on earth ever, was he capable of returning to his magnificence of filmmaking. For me, Guy is a one hit wonder and will always be. 4 out of 10 for an unmemorable movie, but a plus for one impressive sequence.

The invention of lying: Starts like a simple comedy, but in the first few minutes we learn that the world, which is being portrayed in this feature film, is not the world we live in. The screenwriters opted for a world in which lies do not exist. Everybody tells the truth and says what they really think. In the end it tends to be a little bit boring because of the turn that the movie takes. A typical romantic comedy in an utopic world.

Great screenplay, with marvelous humor, in which every character is completely honest. Seldom I sensed so many replies that gave a movie a unique feel. Unfortunately as the story unfolds after the big turn, it all gets somehow predictable and boring in the last 40 to 30 minutes of the movie.

Simple direction, not much more needed. The story is told in a quite classic technical way of directing but gets the job done. Same thing with the editing.

Actors: I loved them, specially Mr. Gervais whose apathy way made him more believable as a the character Bellison and his English accent added the special and even final touch to those funny sentences left behind in this movie.

All in one I'd give it a 6 out of 10 because it was a nice fresh wind in the screenplay writing and because it keeps you entertained for nice and simple comedy. The 4 remaining points are because of the predictable last half an hour.

Being John Malkovich: The attempt to portray the life of an internationally known actor, through the eyes of random people, makes this story unbelievingly funny. Even though I sense that the meaning of all this, might be: "we should not interact into other peoples lives, or businesses" , I therefore think that the movie itself made quite well. You should be someone accustomed into viewing, strange and bizarre stories. The start maybe what seems to be a typical drama regarding a looser puppeteer living with his wife and some animals. We actually get caught into their lives till one day our protagonist finds a secret portal to Being John Malkovich. Starts out to be a realistic movie but the deeper you get the stranger and surreal it gets.

A very well written screenplay in which the information is passed onto us through different characters in different ways. Meaning: We know exactly as much as the protagonist, we know more the some characters and we certainly know way less then someone else.

This brings me to the editing, which is good for it's purpose. It get's the story running, never makes you feel bored and has a good rhythm as well as some pretty interesting cuts.

I would say the directors choice of using two different visual styles, depending on who he focused, makes the story much more understandable as well as funny, some, but far from being really innovative, the screenplay, again makes it so different.

Acting wise… great. Each actor knows exactly the character they have to be and how to make them believable.

All in one, I'd give it a 7 out of 10, for being absurdly funny, unrealistically true and above all entertaining, leaving you a quite indescribable aftertaste after watching the movie.

I think we all know what this movie is about, but yet I don't understand the purpose of such a film.

A high standard call girl is in a relationship with a personal fitness-trainer. She goes out with some clients, dinner, talking, almost never sex.

Steven Soderbergh, a famous director with only a few good movies, was in charge of such a disgrace to cinema,

There is no screenplay, the dialogues have no consistency and don't contribute anything to the non existing story, there is only one main character and a second. There is no character development. The direction (excuse me if I say so) is f***** up. The cinematography was an amateurish intention of being professional. I understand natural lighting, but I don't understand how a full team accepts totally out of focus shots throughout, almost half of the movie and having a digital camera on automatic. I think the editor was more than frustrated to edit a movie like this. Honestly in my point of view, there was nothing to edit, they could've changed all the footage, put the order the other way around, it wouldn't have done any difference because it's outcome would be the same.

In the end I was just watching Sasha Greys pornographic performances which were way better then what she accomplished in this masterpiece of boredom.

Once the movie was finished I just noticed that the movie hasn't even started. I shall give Soderbergh a lesson in cinema, for sure he'll learn something interesting from me.

This french thriller has nothing of a thrill but a sleeping pill. If you want to go to bed watch this movie. It'll do you some good.

A cop who's partner (boss) and friend of his, gets killed, He wants vengeance and does so infiltrating a drug dealer gang who transports Drugs from Marocco to France. Basically nothing you haven't seen before

Story wise... I thought the story was more then typical, full of clichés. All the characters actually are the same, no emotions at all. They all do speak a few words and nothing more. Only the girl does some acting but then, for me it seemed over acted. Like she tried to hard. The direction of the movie is a plain disaster in means of originality. It's typical nice shots and usual shots, mostly blurry by the way (new way of docu style maybe), it was intentional, therefore it doesn't work as an artistic visual asset. The editing may be the only good thing, but then you ask yourself: Was there anything more to edit and who edited it? Editor or director? Basically the magic of editing is the rhythm of a movie and this one fails. No rhythm at all.

The music itself might have been a good asset, but I thought the directors choice in putting the music where he believed it belonged was just wrong. Most of the movie no music at all and when there should have been, there wasn't and when u expect no music, there is. I have the original soundtrack which is a masterpiece when you ride your car, but in the movie all this art from the hand of Agoria Dj, was butchered.

In my opinion if you want something new with a lots of speed and action packed road flick, I still recommend Mad Max (the original first movie). Leave this one out cause even bad teen romantic comedies are better.

After downloading this movie I am going out to buy it on DVD. I was very pleased with it.

A Spanish - french production that portrays the more than typical story of the little boy afraid of the dark. Tipical? Maybe. But after you watch it you can be sure to be submerged into a childs world of spookiness and pure visual poetry. The story unfolds as stars start disappearing. So the boy meets the cats shepherd, whose purpose you will learn during watching this delightfull film, who will help little Tim (the boy) to go on a journey throughout the night. As the world is being devoured by what Tim fears most. He must struggle together to save the night.

I wouldn't say a touch of Tim Burton, but definitely this typical french and Spanish touch of Gothic visual in which nothing is straight but curvy and angled. A very pleasant eye catcher is the architecture of buildings in this little piece of art. It is what makes the whole ambiance plus the different light scalings and brightnesses. This movie is mostly in a blue tone which emphasizes more the suspense of darkness.

In the end it unfolds to be very predictable somehow but still a Wow for the lovers of old visual poetry as I use to call it.

Reminds me of summer nights looking up in the sky and staring at the stars with a full moon and some nice mellowy clouds.

I love Tykwers work because in comparison to other spectators I do appreciate his feel for cinematography and his touch of originality and unexpected, above all unpredictable turns and plot constructions in the screenplays. Second, the camera is his eye and he does explore a lot with this and exploit it also to maximum in his movies.

But let's be honest: the international was his worst film so far. Typically new intelligent Hollywood. Nothing interesting in there, slow as hell, no sentence, in my point of view, that a makes a hell of sense to me and technically, direction, camera, special effects, editing quite uninteresting. Only the acting gets some credit from my side.

Once you see that film you you will get to the conclusion that anybody averrage director made this film. No signature of Tykwers in this one. I think he lost originality for good, once he turned to Hollywood budget film-making. Another wasted talent in the big bad industry of cinematography.

OK, people say this movie is disturbing. That might be because it is the only movie of this kind they have seen (so I think). I am already experienced with this genre of semi-reality no storytelling movies, as I call them. The reason I rated this movie just with two is because since the Cannes Film Festival exists we all have seen movies of this type. I mean a plain and more than simple direction that doesn't tell any story but showing us true life in some sort. I, in my opinion, disagree with directors of this kind of movies, like Hanneke sometimes, because they try to get the most out of reality without understanding that a real thing is a plain documentary without any comments. Just by putting a camera somewhere you are already implying your point of view. There for subjective and not objective. Anyway, as I am to experienced with this type of movies I can't understand why they keep having success. there's nothing in a movie like this. You do it once or twice OK. But tell me a story now and then. Don't just grab a whole team to film something that almost everybody can do. No credit from my side. I must say that bullshit movies like Die Hard 4.0 is almost better then this and I thought it was one of the worst movies ever.

I went to see this movie with my mom, I didn't want to but she was hoping to see that movie because she heard of all the good reviews. I don't understand why people think this movie is good. But basically here on the IMDb almost every movie is overly overrated.

-The screenplay... well there is basically no screenplay because I don't know what the director wants to tell me with this movie. -The dialoques are some of the worst I've experienced on a big screen. -The rhythm: there is no rythim at all. It all goes from one thing to another sometimes you don't even understand where the actors actually are located in space. they go, then they suddenly reapear. -That brings me to the editor who didn't do his job properly in telling the director that he actually screwed it up.

My mom and I wanted to leave the theater after twenty minutes. I work in this industry and cinema is going from bad to worse. PLEASE SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY SUCH A GOOD GRADE ON SUCH A STORYTELLING.

OK, first of all, I think Kathy Big is a talented director but who in my point of view just wastes my time with Hurt Locker. I loved her early works, Point Break and Strange Days. But what I don't understand is why do most of the people think this is such a good picture?

For this movie was plain boring. Nothing happens throughout the whole film and the only maybe breathtaking scene in that film doesn't take place longer than one minute. I want to educate people to learn that movies are not just a bunch of images cut together, it is about telling a story. But nowadays it seems to be in, telling stories with no PATHOS. In other words: message or meaning.

The direction and the editing are more than obvious and very predictable. Direted like many other war movies that have been made and better than this one. There is nothing new in this film, therefor, fellow readers. A good director is also a director who changes the way of telling a story.

Thanks for your time.

This is a documentary about the experiences everyone had on the set of the movie "The Blade"

Tsui Hark is explaining how he came up with his ideas of doing this film, by doing it in an unconventional way (Formula as he describes it) of doing films. In other words this movie is half an experiment. Xiong Xin Xin, the choreographer is talking about his experience on the set as he lived it, complete chaos, which actually is also the philosophy of this movie. And last but not least, the screenwriter telling what a hard work it can be to create a screenplay with no dialogues at all and how to bring it up on screen.

I recommend this documentary to everyone who is interested in the truth of doing movies. Which means, not all movies are done the way the academy teaches us.

Excellent insight in the point of view of non occidental masters.

Behind the scenes.

Ia m trying g to watch the movie at the same time I am writing this comment. To be honest with all of you, I know there are man different kind of tastes but this sis simply too much for me.

Johnnie To is one of the greatest directors ever in this century, but with this movie he showed me at what kind of a level a good director has to drop down so you get at least good money income in theaters. How is it possible that the people are so dumb to go watch rubbish like that and wanted for example. And the worst case scenario is that the actors don't even seem to think about what kind of movie they are acting in.

Bad special effects, a plot with no sense at all, bad directions from Ka Fai and to and I think, the worst acting ever in a chines movie.

I really wish people start to change and to go to cinema to see some good and interesting movies so the directors with talents can go back to their former passion of doing a movie.

Poorly told movie, none of the Batman essences is here, It looks more like a realistic, movie about terrorism where two completely insane lunatics in weird costumes battle for the security of so called Gotham City. To be honest with you all, I just liked the batman movies done by Burton and since than Hollywood made one trash after another. This one included. Batman begins was really awful, to turn the story into such a way where you actually destroy the true starting of batman and now a Batman who is supposed to fight against his own ego, is powerless. I mean it's quite good when a super heroe has his problems fighting the bad, but here I didn't see what he is fighting against. Only good thing, is very well done special effects avoiding all this CGI fx. And maybe Heath ledger has done well. But that doesn't make a good movie. And oh yes, who the hell is Harvey Dent? For Christ sake, making out of bad two face a good two face. They should have given me the script in the hands then people tell would tell me now this is a truly dark film. This one was poor, too much light, too shiny and to luxury to be the dark gotham like I know it from the first comic books. I almost fell asleep. Sad.

Since "The Duel" Steven Spielberg was going down for good. Of course he did a few very good ones but the crystal skull is to be ashamed of. I really tried to understand the "how" is it possile to make a movie where everything is following the exact scheme f a tipicaly bored thriller screenplay. And Shia doesn't even look like he could be a hard boy. Very bad Storytelling, you know everything what's going to happen and bad special effects too. I didn't see one good thing in that movie. This movie is not even worth using it as a sleeping help. Next time I go watch a movie, won't be because of the advert or the critics they say on TV.

I have never heard of that movie, yesterday when I was going for buying DVD's, I Found this movie and it looked quite interesting. What a mistake it was.

I saw it right away, completely and I thought you cannot have worst actors and a killer that needs some military training to be a professional hit-man. I'v seen movies with lower budget that are much more breath taking than this one. Of course the Idea of it is not bad. But honestly: A wannabe director should learn the meaning of pace and suspense.

I give it a three because I hoped that non professional people would do better than Hollywood nowadays. But I guess I was mistaken.

I've seen this movie today for the first time and I never heard of it before, probably because of it's poor message.

First of all, the directing itself is quite good, the actors played well and the CGI (I'm not a fan of CGI) is magnificent. But that alone doesn't make a movie. No story at all, no message behind beautiful exploited talents.

Or do I have to make people remember, the art of a director is not only your vision but to know how to tell a story. And this is what's missing the whole 7 minutes.

There for a simple 4 rating.

I Must say that I have been awaiting this movie for a long time. I hoped to, finally see a movie and that would have somehow taught us or make us think about unwanted pregnancy on teenagers.

But to my loss of joy forwarding to this movie, I just think that both, the writer and the director forgot about the telling of the message. If it has a message it's certainly not about nowadays unprepared and uninformed teenager. This movie has quite nothing but Ellen Page who is always marvelous. And so the one who played her dad. The directing itself was cozy but hey, I'm not a pro yet, but for sure this could have been done better.

Nothing special, They completely missed the point

If this movie is considered good, than I am a genius.

I saw that movie yesterday with my date and I feel bad for this loss of time we could have spent home watching DVD's or in bed.

Al Pacino has the expression of a retarded (always an open mouth like a puppy) and tries to be funny somehow. The screenplay has no justifications in anyway and the direction itself of the actors is more than poor.

I wont tell anybody what it's about but I can tell you this: It's the typicall thriller that tries to make you believe that everybody could be a potential killer and in the end they come up with something totally predicable.Just rubbish, so please someone tell me why, the rating of six.

I beg everyone to read my comment because this is for crying out loud.

I bought this movie today and I was very excited to see chinas new big event. But unfortunately this movie is not a movie. It has absolutely no plot, it is very slow, you don't understand the actions the characters are taking and all the chroma effects, as well CGI, are poorly shot and done. I know what I am talking about because I am working in this business.

If that's what people like and will be the future of cinema (300 another poorly made movie) than I want to work as a street-cleaner.

I don't understand how people prefer all this fake images instead of all the real thing or do I have to remind you older Chinese martial art films, with more difficult action scenes and no CGI.

Of course the sequence with the Buffalo's or what ever they were, is kind of difficult to create in reality, But the fights and all the running?

Anyway, it seems people like very fake and boring things like Shoot'em Up or 300. Because there is nothing original about that.