Change Your Image
spam_ebay_al
Reviews
Gunpowder Milkshake (2021)
Just don't expect too much, and it's OK to pass time, but still...
Well, the cast has a number of good actors (already seen even the girl in another movie, and she is really good), and the fact the basic idea of the story is nothing too original, is not a problem in itself, so, it's OK. But... Could not give it more. Too many basic goofs and some too big plot holes. Some actors not believable in the role by age. The idea of having though ladies is fine (not the first movie with that), but it really gave me the impression of being the "hollywood post metoo" kind of forced thing just to show off that they are not giving this type of roles and stories only to men, and I have seen Karen Gillian in other movies, and even in fighting role was OK, but did not find her believable as the killer (was better in a moment in the diner). Though I did also appreciate the use of the music in some scene.
Torden (2020)
Well done despite the budget, though...
Gave it six stars, because from one side it's true that visible that was done on a limited budget, but from the other, the acting seemed solid enough, the special effects were surprisingly well done, and the Norvegian scenery was captured well.
There is only one point that I admit made me doubt whether I should have even lowered it a bit.
Maybe the Norwegian version of some myths was adapted a bit differently, but the tree, Asgard, Thor, etc. Were all part of the religion and myths of what we call the Vikings.
And there is the doubt that the movies suggests and follows the idea of Thor as primarily a warrior god, like in the Marvel comics (which actually, I like) - in reality, by all the account, Thor would fight if needed as others, he was the God of Thunder, but he was "thunder and rain", with a big belly and actually a nice good humoured guy.
Basically, the god helping the peasants.
X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019)
Probably the worst of all (and no, I am not a huge fan of "Endgame", at least not part 2)
I just saw an user review of someone complaining about comparisons with "Endgame", which came around the same period, as being the reason for bad reviews.
For me, the two films have nothing to do with each other, actually, I liked Endgame part 1, but I think Endgame part 2 ruined it for two things that were clearly inserted to follow a certain trend, but in a way that was ruining the coherency.
The "new mutants" is darker than others, but it is much better than this, although it felt not as developed as it could have.
The reason for giving this a very low score is not that it is darker or more "adult" - if anything, it is in more than one aspect less adult, or better, many of the characters are more like spoilt adolescents.
Acting: bad in more than one part of the movie, giving kind of shallowness to the characters, even by actors that are otherwise good.
Find especially doubtful Sophie Turner acting as Jean Grey, although I admit is more an "up and down", with some good moment, than being "down" all the time.
Appreciate they say she tried to document herself about people with trauma, and the red haired look was good for the part and certainly looks good on her, but that is not enough (though I admit I had reservation on her acting as Jean Grey already on the previous X-men movie).
Was good, or anyway on the part, in Game of Thrones, not the same here.
In reality, have, and had in the past, same reservation about Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique.
One that seems consistent in a positive way, is Fassbender.
Script and dialogues: the idea of taking the "inside struggle" (as "inside the person") is not new, but still worth it.
Unfortunately, in many moments the dialogues are kind of flat.
Also, I read and liked the very old X-men, but I am not a fan, and the Phoenix sorty arc is more recent than my X-men readings, but it seems the story was modified.
I don't know if it is true, but even if it is not true, some elements seemed really put there just to follow a certain fashion.
Movie quality, really even as the image: in many parts bad, really looked like a movie for the TV, and not of the best, though the special effects in general were good.
Music: good.
Off-Piste (2016)
Big awards and lot of action ? No, but good (really that budget ??)
OK, I have been in Ireland, worked with Irish, etc., even someone from Belfast (but did not have a very heavy accent), but maybe are right the ones (actually, I think one) complaining a heavy fake Belfast accent (I guess the accent from Dublin, that I know better, is different).
Also, I may agree it is not the best film around, but... Like many others, I was expecting a kind of action Hollywood "kill all" movie, in non-Hollywood imitation sauce - instead, it comes out as being a somehow intimate movie, with just enough action to keep the story, but a lot of focus on psychology of the characters, very good use and perfect choice of the scenery, good choice of the music, and at least some of the actors and dialogues are actually good.
True, the characters could have been developed even a bit more (though rather because they were already clearly in the right direction), some of the actors were a bit "too little French to be in France" ;-), some dialogues could have been better, maybe some of the passages of scenes could have been done better - but I have seen more than one movie from Hollywood with good budget and even some big name, where the acting, dialogues and the movie were tons worst.
And if the budget was a number of times what advertised, it would still be an very good result for the money, but for that money, it is exceptionally good - yes, I admit this last aspect and the aspect about the characters psychology have upped my rating a lot.
Not the first title would come to mind to suggest to someone from an entertaining night, but I am definitively happy with the choice of watching it (and by the way, see what another reviewer wrote, no, I am not part of the family of anybody involved with this movie ;-))
King Arthur (2004)
If only it wasn't for the "history"... :-(
Well,
First, the positive. Overall good acting, and not bad as movie, could have got happily twice the stars.
So, why did I not give more ?
Some elements are correct, e.g. the "tabula" with wax and the stilus (yep, the stylus was not invented with tablet computers :-)), but form a film that at the start pretends to be a true accurate historical reconstruction...
Well, another comment made a list of 7 points historically wrong (though making some reference that could itself be disputable, e.g. Picts are in general considered part of the vast Celtic family), in reality, the list can be much longer, but just two examples...
The Sarmatians were known for their cavalry, but it was heavy cavalry more similar to the "knights" (though not with the same type of rigid armor) than to what shown in the movies. Also, the "vallum" (by the way, that is the origin of the word "wall" ), to be historically accurate, should have shown the ditches etc. (effectively, a "vallum" was more than just a wall). And while it is true that in ancient time having hostages and tributes including slaves was not unheard of, the mechanism shown in the movie about enlisting in the Roman army is completely wrong.
Is Hollywood famous for its historical accuracy (thus is this film really such a bad exception) ? Definitively NOT, and many times it goes straight into "propaganda" - that why some movies use the non committal (lawyer approved ;-)) "inspired by true events" ("inspired").
Again, the problem is that it that pretense at the start to be "THE" historical reconstruction. To enjoy some time, and see a different reinterpretation on the "Arthurian cycle", it's one thing, but do NOT pretend after seeing this movie that you know the story of "true Arthur", or the story or situation of the Europe, the Roman empire, or England in that period, because you will not.
Inhumans (2017)
some mistakes, but the worst are two characters (and it is not the acting)
Premise - I read only one story of the inhumans many years ago, and I actually like all this type of things, but I am not a fan, so this is not "fan disappointment". Some things are indeed absurd, like the fact they are used to Earth gravity even if they were born on the Moon, without any kind of explanation style "artificial gravity" or whatever they could invent.
But what really ruins the show are two of the main characters and some of the others, and some moments of the other characters as well - some of the actors may not be the best, but I don't think it is a fault of the actors, or at least not only theirs, it goes with the characters definition and the dialogues. Especially Medusa and Maximus, and even some of the minor ones from Earth, could be OK if the whole was meant as more of a "we don't take it seriously" thing, but become a kind of abused cliché the moment they are meant seriously, and even some of the other main characters seem a bunch of spoilt little children.
Before they do a second season, they better rewrite some stuff, hoping they don't go for some cliché in the second one (even about enemies, etc.)