Change Your Image
video1212
Reviews
Burlesque (2010)
OK, I saw it... but I'm still not happy about it
Well, well, well... I don't even know where to start. Eh, I'll try anyway. I think the main problem with the modern American cinema is around the fact it becomes more and more untrue to life and distant from the one can call reality. Yes, yes, I know the movies are supposed to sell us fairy tales and to make us entertain for the two hours we paid for as every other entertainment, but it is besides the fact you must not speculate with it. What I mean. Musicals are supposed to have a plot, even a thin one, but it's part of the movie and it is irritating when it is so distant and fabricated. I am putting aside the fact that singers involved (excluding Sher) cannot act, especially Aguillera. But please, please, do not try to be so ridiculous in the plot! Are we supposed to believe that a newcomer girl employed several days ago to dare to give advices to her boss what to sing and what to perform in stage? Not gonna happen EVER in real life and it is so boring. Wooden lines, just not believable situations... well, you can do what you usually do in porn movies. I mean, fast forward all the talking and watch only the songs. Too bad I wasn't able to do that in cinema as well.
3/10 from me, sorry folks. 1 for Aguillera and 1 for Cher (for the singing alone) and 1 for the effort. This movie really cannot deserve more.
Somewhere (2010)
Oh God, oh my dear God, someone please just shoot me...
For the third time I beg, no, I entreat IMDb to please give it's users the possibility to vote with minus values!
This "movie" (I cannot continue without quote it) is the perfect example. Remember when I first heard of "Seinfield" and when the whole fuzz about this show was flowing around - "this is the best show ever, the show about nothing" - and exactly what it was, a nowhere to go show about nothing, putrid, inane and unfunny.
"Somewhere" is worse - it is classified drama with no drama elements in it, it is just stupid, pale, bleak example of a documentary movie shoot with papa's millions on hand-held camera and presented as a movie. It is truly bad - the Coppola fans will find it slow, boring and empty - as if they made ten or twenty long unedited scenes with their Nokia's and then put it together into a movie - without editing and without thinking it might hurt.
The moviegoers who like art and non-ordinary movies will also be cheesed off. I adore these movies, but hey - slow movie does not mean genial one; it needs something more to be good instead of just showing several hours/days/weeks of a someone's lifetime. I can give you a thousand examples of art movies in which ostensibly nothing happens that are a head ahead this one, but I think it's simply not worth it.
I am truly stunned why this turkey has received Golden Lion in the last year's Venice festival (which attracted mucho personal interest in the movie in the first place); my only guess is that they are paying tribute to her father who deserve praise by all means; but God, how am I disappointed they did that for this particular piece of trash!
This movie lines along the other pseudo-intellectual pseudo art movies in the last year, such as Inception, The American, Black Swan. Movies for the masses, movies for about nothing, made in such a way redneck would say at the end "I don't understand a sh*t of it so it must be genial!" and then rushes in IMDb pressing undoubtedly 10/10.
Shame on you, Hollywood! You failed, but not just this time...
The Office (2005)
No, not this one
I really think that IMDb *should* give us the users the possibility to vote with minus values. Being a Bulgarian, not British, I am devoted to the European way of life and humor. Which is not that I hate American one; in contrary, I adore *old* American comedies and I am pretty much watching it in my spare time. It is just that the modern sort of ... fart? no, humor made in USA is not that easy to swallow, especially if you have more that two brain cells.
Since there are Yankees around here who are offended of what Brits think of their lousy remake, let me say this: in my opinion this is the most inept, despicable, pitiful, wretched, miserable, lamentable, deplorable, pathetic piece of celluloid to ever hit the TV screen. This is a show much about nothing - stale characters, no comic moments, unoriginal and most important thing - not funny story. This is the impossible but yet absurdly pushed up to the limits stinker - an totally unfunny comedy! Having seen the complete first two US seasons here in Bulgaria I am sincerely convinced we and the Americans have absolutely nothing in common because if they are really thinking THIS STINKER is funny, then nothing is.
I feel sorry for you, guys, I really am. Take care.
The American (2010)
Well... hem... hem... let me explain something...
I will add myself to the group of people bashing this movie, but I will be so kind to tell you the exact reasons why. First of all, do not be offended, but the reviewer before me - nysalesman100-1 is absolutely right at his assumptions that a group of people who does not understand the basics of cinema and the European cinema at whole saw something they don't understand (in other words it is not coming straight to their brains as all Hollywood blockbusters nowadays) and they call it brilliant and magnificent. Do not delude yourself, this is decent movie, but far from brilliant, let alone classic one. In fact, this is very pretentious movie that George Clooney has produced namely in order to position himself in the art movie circles (but just in the mind of the low than average US audience) and maybe to line himself up to names like ... let me see ... Jean-Pierre Melville, Louise Malle, Fransois Truffaut, Rene Clair, non-french ones like Aki Kaurismaki... Jim Jarmush... many others? Well, let me tell you something, Mr. Clooney - in order to make movies like those of monsieur Melville, you have to be Jean-Pierre Melville himself (R.I.P). I am quoting the name of the big master monsieur Melville very deliberately, because it's him who Anton Corbijn and Clooney want to copy and namely his masterpiece "Le Samurai" from 1961. Well, they are far from getting any this time. Not only that the dark and precious atmosphere of the 60s is missing, monsieur Melville is missing too, because only he could have saved this movie from failure. Comparising Clooney with the dark, steel hard and impeccable Alain Delon in this movie is out of the question - never mind the fact Delon has allowed to speak very rarely in the movie he plays the role absolutely perfect, making it the top of his career in these years. What do we have here - random scenes "Clooney have a cup of coffee". "Clooney having sex" (I am not against erotic scenes in the mainstream movies but 10 minutes mindless copulation is far too much, the only reason why it is there is the female audience and not the essence of the movie and in the book) The script is full of holes, illogical and totally fake, something JP Melville had never been accepted. Some major questions remain unanswered and if you still think this is because the movie was art, you delude yourself for the second time. In general, an good art (and not only) movie does not scream the whole time "I AM GREAT BECAUSE I THINK SO" - it is good just because it is good, there is no need to be over explained or underlined. I am not going to precise the script holes, because there are many of them and I am as short as 1000 words, but let me say again that it is not sufficient to copy the greatest in order to be great - it needs to be exactly them in order to do so.
Sorry, Mr. Clooney, you failed this time.
Salt (2010)
Dangerous movie to all POVs. SALT - one to avoid!
First off, why am I dawdling with writing review for this disgusting piece of rotten sh*t called movie? Because it is dangerous to the extent of being put as a national enemy #1. I'll try to explain in short the reasons why.
For those of you historical illiterates, SALT means Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, these are diplomatic bilateral talks between US and Russia taking place between 1979-1986, US has withdrawn in 1986 with no explanation whatsoever. Since then many things happens, the most important of which is that the Soviets fall apart in 1991, there has been other agreements, called START, resulting in cutting each other's nuclear powers to the expectable minimum, there is no more USSR or other Communist reunion in Europe, with Commnism taking place in a handful of countries in Asia and the Carribeans. But that seems to avoid from the attention and knowledge of the Hollywood screenwriters. Hey you! Things has changed, Communism is no more, Cold War is over! Get it into your shabby heads once and for all, for Christ's sake! The main reason why this miserable and disgusting movie has been given green lit is to keep Joe the average American under the veil of fear. Make the illiterates and poorly educated average people fear and you've won them forever. You can then squeeze them for ages to pay all the military needs you have for empowering "the nation". Clever, but not enough. I hope there are still Americans who entrust more the common sense and loves to think instead of blindly believing what the media (cinema) says.
With that said, I must point out the most illogical moments in the movie which cause the whole tower of cards named screenplay to fall apart. First, it remains unclear why the Russian defector (played by Polish actor apparently) is pointing out his most valuable agent? In the movie at the end it's being said that Orlov was made to do so under pressure as to make the agent patsy so other agent can do the job. And it has been done because ... she might of become unstable because she fell in love with her husband when she was not supposed to. Bull sh*t! But the main point is - this is all pointless! Because there is no need to do so - since nobody in CIA knows a sh*t about the operation at all - hence no reason to display the assets in advance. Imagine what would have happened for example if Soviets, having second killer in hand, exposed say Lee Harvey Oswald a day before the assassination of JFK to CIA so they can have him as a patsy so the other agent can do the job? Nothing would've happened except maybe the CIA's CEO laughing their a**es off, then double, triple, 1000-le the president's security so no one can have a chance to ever take a glimpse on him, thus making the task completion impossible. More things on that subject, but I am limited in 1000 words, so...
Living in delusion is much more dangerous than living humble and sinless life. Take that in mind and do NOT watch this tripe.
Zift (2008)
Well... not good indeed...
As a SWF I was literally taken into watching this movie by a friend and I truly regret every minute of it. Later, browsing through Bulgarian blogs I stumbled upon something I think I should translate to every non-Bulgarian native viewer to see. Since I hate plagiarism, I'll post it:
HOW TO STEAL ZIFT
First: We steal the plot from the movie "Crank" with Jason Statham (2006)!
Second: We steal style from the soundtrack of Kill Bill
Third: We steal a dozen of a military jokes !
Fourth: We steal Felini's characters!
Fifth: We steal Kusturitsa's background!
Sixth: We steal the Phillip Marlowe's monologues, created decades earlier from the great writer Raymond Chandler!
Seventh: We steal episodes from about at least 10-12 worldwide known movies, I don't have spare time enough to count the details!
..... we mix all the things on black and white and voilà! We get worldwide applause and we amaze the already berserk Hollywood:((( At least this is the info taken from our "objective" press (excuse me)!
What the heck are we left with? We can "steal" the same movie at some torrent site and to at least know that we're not in for it financially from all this SH*T! We steal, we watch, we swear and we delete the movie afterward. At least if we have the opinion of our own.
The movie "Zift" is super pitiful... at my personal estimation! I don't give a sh*t about the competent jury, about mass advertisement and box office records in Bulgaria's standards! The mere tries for the movie to look like Metallica's video clip doesn't save the production at all. It is just that every minute of this movie you're guessing what exactly movie you were watching the same thing in and you try to guess the title :((( We have good level of actor's play, that's only positive thing, WITH THE EXCEPTION of Tanya Ilieva, who pushes lines with the power of expression of the green euglene in the non-fertile age. At least her tits are nice :))) Aaaa! And this "Nosferatu" from the Bulgarian Big Brother 4... Tzvetan! He shows as a mockery with mustache, obviously made out of plastic tape.
What we have at the end of the long run: that the "Modern Bulgarian Cinema" is not Modern, is not Bulgarian and is not cinema at all :((( Not to mention that chewing asphalt in the years when chewing gum Ideal was becoming cult, is true perversion!
I don't like this movie!