Change Your Image
Sinth01
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Walking Dead: Last Day on Earth (2016)
Walking Dead bites the dust
I, like several other fans, waited half a year and a 3 month break in-between to this ultimately hyped episode, because we had read the comic and seen what happens there. I was hyped up for an unforgettable television scene in the series I've followed since it started.
Instead we got a 90 minute build up to an ultimate finale where the writers didn't even need to add anything to that scene, even following the comic scene by scene would have made it memorable and blown up the internet.
And what did the writers do? The whole 16 episode season climax was spoiled and turned into the biggest let-down cliffhanger you have ever seen. What do they actually think they will accomplish? Do they think fans will bite their nails for 6 months waiting to see who did Negan kill? At least for me seeing the brutal climax death scene and ending the episode shocking the shocked faces of the main characters had been the best possible cliffhanger and I would have for sure returned back on season 7 after such an emotional roller-coaster ending. Instead what happens now after this flop is that in 6 months, I'll lose all interest to the series and when the next season starts, I'll just read online spoiler who dies and say "cool".
A giant let-down and a massive missed opportunity. My final feeling is that I want my wasted time I spent on this season back if this was all the hype was built for. A huge middle finger towards the fans from the creators of the series.
The Innocents (1961)
A clever haunted horror movie
One of the original haunted house and its haunted history movies, Innocents, does an interesting difference to the later haunted house adoptions. Although the plot has become nearby a cliché in the later horror movies and it is not too hard to guess how the events turn out, the movie still feels refreshing. One of the main reasons for that is the clever use of the camera and not to rely on silly shock effects like in today's horror movies. Also Deborah Kerr was a joy to watch and when she gets in the middle of the things, I actually felt sorry for her. That is something that doesn't happen with today's silly horror movie babysitters. Innocents is from the beginning to the end an interesting, clever and amusing movie to watch.
Ip Man (2008)
Chinese Heroism
As a friend of the movies like this, I have to say I enjoyed the movie very much. The tension and the fighting scenes in the movie are joy to watch. The war gives the movie it's own special look and nice difference to other martial art movies. Also the historical storytelling makes the movie feel more realistic and makes it easier to feel stronger reactions towards the Chinese. The downside of the film is the way Yip Man is made to be like a superhuman. At no part of the movie it is not hard to guess how the fights end up. Of course the praised hero of the movie cannot lose, can he? It can be seen that Wilson Yip have watched more than few Hollywood movies because some of the scenes have exactly this Hollywood hype feeling. Especially towards to an end. On the other hand this is how the best way to make sure the movie will become a hit and an audience magnet. Yip Man is a wonderful film to watch for the amusement. It might not give out deep thoughts but it works as a feature film to watch together with your friends.
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Stunning but overrated space adventure
2001: A Space Odyssey is often titles as one of the best movies in the world and the landmark movie of Stanley Kubrick. The visual look of the film is stunning and the plot is ahead of its time. It is hard to believe that the movie came out as early as 1968. Still my opinion is that the movie is far too slow. There are many ridiculously long scenes without any true purpose. Some people have proposed to just relax and enjoy the scenes but my opinion is that the movie cannot be counted as a movie in that case. Also some people have praised using drugs and watching this movie under their effect. I don't think a movie can be judged as a masterpiece if it requires you to be high to be able to get through with it. That's why, although the movie was visually and technically stunning and far ahead of it's time, I dare to disagree calling it as the perfect and one of the best movies in the world although it is definitely better than average. The music created a good atmosphere to the film and the moaning sound of these strange stones were brilliant and chilling. The biggest downside was the famous "intercourse" scene that I find to be absolutely unnecessary to the movie. I disagree in every aspect calling it as a brilliant move. Finally the famous "lsd-scene" was just way too over length watch and my interest to the movie died over there. As a shorter scene I could have called is as visually great but the total length of the scene was just ridiculous. Kubrick might be a stunning director that fights against the mainstream movies but I find 2001: A Space Odyssey is far too overrated movie. If the criteria for a masterpiece movie is that you need to be high to get impressed from it, then I could agree that this movie is a masterpiece.
Thor (2011)
Superhero adaption lacking the spark of depth
The movie adaption of Marvel's superhero story Thor is a decent one with the common superhero movie themes. It is a bit shame since some of the characters could have easily been far more interesting, especially Loki. The lack of depth in characters is the biggest flaw of the film. I ended up wondering whether the writers and the actors knew what kind character they are playing or not since there was obviously some themes lingering around that made the film to feel a bit more unique than average. Also some of the sceneries are awesome and very well made and they turn out to be the most impressive thing in this a bit over the average super hero movie. It was amusing superhero movie to watch and made a difference between other superhero movies. Unfortunately sharpening the characters and adding more depth into the plain good versus bad, the hero versus the villain could have made this a remarkable movie.
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)
Illusion of love
It is really uncommon to find a Hollywood movie where from the very first moment, you absolutely hate the main characters of the movie. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is a movie like that. From the very first scene, I was already boiling because Martha, played by Elizabeth Taylor, was so unbearably frustrating character and I have lived with people like that by myself. The other people of the movie feel more humane at start, but as the drinking goes on and they reveal their true colors, there are no characters to be liked in the movie. It is like a roller coaster ride, the way the characters just change their sides. At one moment you feel like liking the character, the next moment you hate him/her again and when there's a little break in the shout fight and the character tries to talk about feelings, you feel like liking the character again until the illusion is crushed in the next moment when the shouting goes on again. It takes a lot of talent from both the director and the actors to keep this furious feeling and the tension of the characters alive in every scene of the movie. Although 131 runtime for a movie like this feels a little bit too long but on the other hand it mirrors how long the never ending fighting goes on and how numb it makes both audience and the characters. It is no wonder Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf is counted as such a classic. Rarely have Hollywood films and their love stories been as furious and cold as this one is. Even after decades, it is still as strong mockery of Romeo and Juliet as it was when it was released. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf really shows that the everlasting love is only an illusion and one single drunken night is enough to bring that illusion down. Snap.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
A positive comeback.
I am uneasy person with long sequels and I was prepared for a disaster when I started to watch the movie. I am not Harry Potter fan either so after the over-boring Chamber of secrets, my expectations towards this one were even lower. Luckily this part was a positive surprise. It was but a darker and more exciting sequel it was also funny to watch. It seems the creator team really paid attention to the details and didn't rush with this part same way as with the previous part.
The new creatures, "the demendors", were very interesting and frightening and gave the movie totally new power and danger. The overall tension of the film was also way darker than in the first two. This time the danger was something real and in presence all the time.
On the other hand the movie had not forgotten the humor either. The first episode in "real" world was refreshing and very fun to watch.
In the Chamber of secrets, the wonderful outdoors were more forgotten and we spent unnecessary long time inside the dark halls with little of interesting details. One of the few scenes outside in that one were actually inside a greenhouse which points out how forgotten the outside world really was.
This time we will see the wonderful visual side of Hogwarts once more and it is even more detailed than in the first one. The creator team seemed to have realized the infinite possibilities what kind of a world they can create and how well the nature can be combined with it. Along with the nature we will be introduced with several new interesting creatures of the wild too that all have their meaning and part in the movie.
The growing up of the actors bring the own spice to the movie. It opens up the chance for elements which were not possible with the children. It seems the old actors are starting to get used to with their roles since they felt more comfortable and seemed to handle their characters better than previously.
The biggest flaw with the old movies was the way most students were left behind and the "hero trio" seemed to have the spotlight on all the time although the events were supposed to affect the entire Hogwarts. This time that matter feels more logical because the danger is more centered to Harry Potter, not to the overall school life. Also the teachers seem to be more alive and actually take a contact with the events and the students. In the first movies they seemed to wish someone would get hurt.
It still doesn't mean the movie is perfect. It has its own flaws with some of its illogical and slightly paradoxical scenes. Also although the movie lasts for nearby 2½ hours, it still feels like it needed something more. It doesn't fill the idea of a complete feature film with the beginning, the halfway and the ending. To be honest the sign "to be continued" would have suited to the ending very well.
Overall the movie is a refreshing return to Hogwarts. The story has gained a new strength the actors are more confident with their characters. Also the atmosphere of the magical world lingers in the movie again. As a non-fan, I found this movie to be a far more successful sequel than the previous Chamber of Secrets.
The Night of the Hunter (1955)
Lamps of the night
In The Night of the Hunter Charles Laughton showed his incredible talents at directing a movie. It is a shame that the reception of the movie crushed his will to direct anymore, because like they say "the true artists are never respected in their life time, only after they're gone".
The Night of the Hunter is an excellent suspense movie and could be nearby called a horror movie. The masterful use of shades and the darkness is something really chilling and unique. On the other hand the movie got also its beautiful scenes in the nature like the wonderful river scene. The very unique thing in the movie is the way the evil and the religion are connected. The religion is connected with everything and with every character in the movie. The biggest spotlight falls on Robert Mitchum's villain who's stating the bible and attempting to justify his acting with religion and God's words. This might have been one of the reasons why the movie was turned down when it originally came out. But today it can be seen as a radical and very effective way to create the suspense out of something pure and untainted. This is what makes the villain so unique. The way he believes he's doing the work of God while haunting the children, who are described as a lambs later in the movie.
The actors are are pleasant to watch in this movie. Not to forget Robert Mitchum's frightening role as a villain, or the cheering and warming role of Lillian Gish as Rachel Cooper, the biggest weight of acting falls upon Billy Chapin's shoulders and he does his role very well too. Tecnically the only actor I didn't like was Sally Jane Bruce's Pearl Harper but that might fall to the fact that normally I can't stand child actors and their frustrating behavior in the movies. This is why I find Billy Chapin survived his role very well because he didn't give me that feeling.
Overall the movie is a milestone in the history of suspense movies. It is one of the few suspense movies that manage to challenge Alfred Hitchcock's suspense thrillers and even beats the most of them with its unique directing and clever use of its visual aspects.
The Night of the Hunter was never understood on it's own time but today it is a masterful suspense movie of classic cinema and a remind of what kind of a director Charles Laughton was and would have been.
Oblivion (2013)
Lifeless trip into oblivion
What kind of expectations do you have when Joseph Kosinski, the creator of Tron: Legacy announces a creation of a post-apocalyptic sci-fi movie with a budget around 120 million and the movie will be starred by Tom Cruise and Morgan Freeman? My expectations were high because the movies like this rarely disappoint you. But unfortunately this movie did that.
Tom Cruise in the role as Jack is just terrible to watch. The actor that once shined in Minority report is now as stone faced and bold as Nicolas Cage in Wicker Man remake. He doesn't manage to create any interaction with any of the characters in the film. Same with Andrea Riseborough as Victoria. There was no interaction or emotion between those characters, not good or bad, it just felt like they were reading their lines from the paper. Olga Kurylenko and Morgan Freeman were the ones who managed to point out from the characters lacking all depths but unfortunately it didn't save anything because their characters were written so badly, lacking all depth.
Instead of limitless possibilities how to use the sceneries of eerie and post apocalyptic earth and its abandoned cities, the only thing we will see is a lifeless, CGI desert. In the poster we can see Jack walking on a collapsed bridge with an eerie, beautiful background. This is something we won't see even single time in the real movie. Where Mad Max and Star Wars films managed to create stunning visions of deserted planet, this movie gives the audience just vain piles of sand over and over again. Few scenes with the CGI forests and the nature are as lifeless and dry as the scenes on the CGI desert. Same goes for the scenes in tower 49. Instead of million ways what kind of visual appearance or small details it could have had, it is nothing more than a gray, dusty headquarter with nothing that could catch the eye of the viewer.
The plot itself is nothing special, nothing that we wouldn't have seen already. Still it might be the strongest aspect of the movie and the only reason why the lifeless movie doesn't collapse completely.
I fear the crew and the director calculated that a gigantic marketing for a science spectacle in post-apocalyptic earth, directed by the creator of Tron: Legacy and starred by Tom Cruise would become a hit and pay itself back in no time no matter how flat the movie itself was. And that is most likely what the movie will do in no time.
The sad truth is that after all the hype the only thing we see is a mainstream Hollywood movie with a mainstream plot filled by low-quality acting and low-quality sceneries directed to mainstream audience with low-quality tastes.
A movie that will fade into oblivion in few hours after seeing it.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)
Monkey Business
I usually find prequels are just a way for the producers to squeeze a little bit more money from a popular movie. Practically just a waste of time. Luckily Rise of the Planet of the Apes felt more than just that. The movie had its point and the creators of the movie bothered to give it a unique touch and look while respecting the original Planet of apes too. The plot itself is pretty straight forwarded and doesn't have big surprises that you wouldn't see coming. The characters of the movie are fairly ordinary and with the first look you can already see who's the good, who's the bad and who's the ugly of the film. On the other hand the 3d-effects and the environments of the movie are stunning. These 3d monkeys of the movie are very realistic looking and well done. Only the "main ape" points out from the crowd with his more humankind face, as the movie makers for sure intended to. The red woods look breathtaking and give a nice touch of the nature to the film and a great contrast to the city life where the main part of the film takes its place. Although the main plot is very straight forwarded and we already know how it is going to end, the small details and references to the original Planet of Apes are the spice that keeps the interest of the audience up and the movie goes through pretty fast and easily. With little improvements in the plot, the movie could have easily become more than just an average movie. I assume the producers and the directors wanted to avoid risks and create a straight forwarded smooth movie to avoid negative ratings the prequel might have with a more radical plot. The result is still amusing to watch and honors its original masterpiece.
Iron Man (2008)
A rusty but amusing superhero reboot
I am a huge fan of spider-man and batman comics. Unfortunately I've never been so interested of Iron man. To me he was always just a part of Avengers, nothing big. I was hoping this movies would give me a spark of interest about him and I would start to be a fan him too. Unfortunately it didn't do that.
After Sam Raimi elevated Spiderman to the wide audience and Christopher Nolan rebooted the Batman legend into a masterpiece trilogy it is not a surprise all other superheroes were on queue for rebooting too. Iron man seems to have his audience and movie gained some positive ratings and massive fan phenomena but overall the movie cannot be compared to the previously mentioned or plenty of others superhero movies.
The big problem with the movie is that it takes nearly one hour before any interesting action begins. The whole desert scene is very slow and somewhat ridiculous. Also the main villain is fairly easy to recognize since the first moments. Final fight with him is more of comical than epic. I couldn't help but laugh to this growling giant robot.
On the other hand, the movie isn't hopeless and it has its moments. For example the sky and the flying scenes are very well made. They have a very nice tension in them. The fallout from the sky actually feels in the stomach.
The character, Tony Stark, is a positively different kind of a person in his normal life. Unlike overprotective Peter Parker or Gothic, lonely knight Bruce Wayne, he is very open and even ruthless millionaire which makes a nice difference to the other superhero reboots. The ending where he breaks the cliché of the secret identity is a really effective ending to otherwise fairly average movie. Robert Downey Jr. seems to obviously enjoy his role as Tony Stark and he is a joy to watch. (Although my problem with him was that I saw his Sherlock Holmes movies first and I couldn't help but thinking him as Holmes kicking criminals' asses in robot suit after getting bored of his restricted detective life where such actions weren't possible.)
There is a possibility that I outlooked this movie because I have never been interested about Avengers but I can still safely say that this movie wasn't near the other successful superhero movies like Spiderman, Dark Knight, Watchmen or even, IRONically, Kick-Ass. Although this was a somewhat pleasant movie to watch, I still suggest watching those movies first before spending time with this one.
Smultronstället (1957)
Journey back to the childhood
Smultronstället is not a movie about a plot with many twists and great tragedies. It is a story about an aging man and his journey spiced with the memories and the dreams he witnesses about himself. Ingmar Bergman creates the tension and the feelings from minimum amount of events, from which non remain unnecessary and from a small amount of characters that all have their own personality and place in the movie. The gorgeous Swedish summer gives a life full background and a great contrast to the old professor preparing for his end.
Although the movie is definitely not made for everyone's taste due to its minimal action and the very slow storytelling, it is an indescribable strong and wise movie about the aging, youth and the life itself. journey that will help us to gaze back into the past and help us to remember our own wild strawberry patch.
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
Chamber of Dusty Secrets
Harry Potter the incoming great sorcerer returns to Hogwarts! After watching the first Harry Potter movie, I wasn't sure what to expect from the second one since I am not a fan of Harry Potter movies and I usually don't care about sequels. But because I knew Harry Potter saga works as a complete growing up story, I gave it a try thinking it wouldn't feel like a sequel. That the movie would actually take the main story forward. Unfortunately it ended up feeling like a fill up sequel.
Where the first Harry Potter film already showed us the magical world and it's Oz kind of atmosphere, the second movie is located inside the dusty halls of Hogwards and got only little bit of the original movie's atmosphere. The plot and the ambiance of Chamber of Secrets is overall much darker than in Sorcerer's Stone. The first encounter with Dobby makes us aware of it too. The darker ambiance is at the same time a positive thing that makes this movie a different from the first one but at the same time we lose the Wizard of Oz feeling and the movie becomes more like one of Tim Burton's Gothic movies.
After arriving to Hogwarts we are let known that something scary might be going on and the movie becomes a detective story where the three main characters are working out to solve the ancient secret of the school without anyone else in the school even minding or caring about it. This time the teachers are a bit more alive in the school and the new teachers give some new spice to it and actually seem to even care about their students lives but still way too many characters are nothing more than a background. This is very visible in the scene where Gilderoy Lockhart releases the pixies and points out "Well, I'll ask you three to just nip the rest of them back to their cage" totally ignoring the existence of the rest of the class excluding the main character hero trio.
On the other hand the movie got also its funny moments. I was first afraid that Dobby would turn out to be an annoying unnecessary characters but I find he did suit to the movie very well and was balanced between comical and serious. The last scene where he got his freedom again smoothened the film and helped to get rid of its dark parts. Also the return to the dark forest and meeting up the spider kin was an interesting and nice scene with it dark tension which, unfortunately, might have been even darker and more powerful than the final encounter with Voldemort and the basilisk.
Overall the plot has improved from the first Harry Potter but at the same time the atmosphere, which was very detailed and interesting thoroughly the first movie, is a bit more forgotten in this movie. Music is still giving the nice touch to the film same way as in the first one. I still can't say I liked this movie as much as the first one though. Movie seemed like a fill up sequel that didn't take the main plot forward at all. It was an amusing, balanced and safe movie to but didn't wake up any big feelings or leave any remarkable moments to my mind which would force me to consume the next part right a way. I'm still sure the true fans will enjoy this sequel as much as the other parts of the saga though.
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
Wizards of Hogwarts
"The New Wizard of Oz' of its time. A complete triumph" -Richard Roeper
I have to admit I'm not a fan of Harry Potter films. I haven't read any of the books either and I tend to avoid films that cause a huge fan phenomenon. My friend was telling me I have been too critical towards Harry Potter and I should give it a new try and watch it again. So that's what I did.
I find the atmosphere in the movie from the very beginning to the end is the best thing in entire movie. Some scenes indeed contain the same kind of magical feeling and same kind visual details as Victor Fleming's Wizard of Oz. Also the music fits into the movie very well.
The first 1/3 of the movie, where Harry Potter prepares his journey to Hogwarts, is very amusing to watch. The very detailed world and its unique, interesting characters owes very much to Wizard of Oz without a doubt. The amount of small details, like moving paintings and newspaper pictures are a joy for an eye.
But then there are the downsides of the movie. The runtime of 152 minutes is just way too long. On the half way the movie made me to yawn and hope for something to happen. Also second downside is the way how all students and teachers, excluding the main characters of course, in the school feel totally unimportant. They are less alive than the moving paintings on the walls. The final and the biggest downside of the film is it's plot full of holes. It seems that teachers in the school got no interest to find out anything what what going on the school. When the killer troll breaks into the school, teachers are unable to do anything about it. Afterwards life continues like nothing ever happened. Nobody cares to wonder where did the troll come from. The same happens with unicorn scene too. It seems the teachers in "the most secured school in the world" wish that someone would get hurt.
I guess things are more explained in the book and the book covers up the main plot holes that remain in the movie but it is still not an excuse to forgive them.
Overall I find the creation of the magical world and the atmosphere are the greatest things that save the movie. I can understand the phenomenon this movie has caused in the world and I can understand calling this film as new Wizard of Oz although I do not agree with that by myself.
Although this movie is not something that would touch me into the heart, it was still a pleasant movie to watch and I managed to the ending credits with a happy, good feeling.