Reviews

There is a difference between a rare and a bad film. Cosmopolis is rare, but is bad too. Robert Pattinson could be a good vampire but is not Cristopher Walken, and some times he seemed ridiculous is this role. The movie is boring, the only good scene is the one with Juliette Binoche, was awesome to see her in that role and she did it wonderful. The rest of the film could be a good therapy for insomnia. Everybody knows that Paul Giamatti is a great actor, he cried a couple of times and did his part, but his character was wasted as most movie characters. I like Cronenberg style, I enjoyed naked lunch, scanners or videodrome, there were rare and good films, but this is very far away from that. I found this film a group of random thoughts, that could be polished better.... and whitout Pattinson.

I think this is a movie that all viewers could not enjoy equally. I am a fan of the work of Hitchcock, and Psycho is my favorite movie, therefore I think I enjoyed it much more than someone who doesn't know the filmography of this talented director and much more still has not seen the symbols that exist in performing Psycho. Personally it was like see a new film of Hitch with him has starring, I read reviews on a Hopkins overacting, but who saw the trailers of Hitchcocks films or presentations of his TV shows, knows that Hopkins work was outstanding. Helen Mirren was sublime in his performance, leading the plot around her in many passages of the film. The cast was chosen exceptionally, Anthony Perkins, Vera Milles, Janeth Leigh and Stephano were perfectly interpreted. Perhaps there were details that were overlooked, as the absence of Pat Hitchcock, daughter of Alfred and Alma who performed in Psycho the character of a secretary, or the color of the underwear of Marion Crane, white before stealing the money and black after. However there are fantastic details like Hitch's constant conversations with the murderer of the book (Ed Gein). That made to me admire more Hitch's work because suggest that he intensely lived every moment of his films. In summary, if you are a fan of Hitchcock films surely are going to enjoy this movie, otherwise it will be like going to a concert of a band that never heard before.

That movie is amazing. When I went to the movies to see Antz (8 years a go), I expect to enjoy a movie for children. There wasn't the time of Incredibles, Shrek or Madagascar, movies that parents an children enjoy together. But Antz was really a surprise in it time. There wasn't just animated ants with the voices of famous stars, there were characters in the fight for the prevalence of their ideologist... Yes!!! this is not a joke... is true!!! In this movie the audience can see a Kingdoom, then an state in emergency, then a dictator and then a democracy... and all the tricks and strategies necessaries to win. Antz has all the elements that we can see in other animated movies, but I think that was the first one to introduce elements that only adults can understand.

This movie doesn't give to the audience anything new. The director didn't found an own style and the story is an abstract of a Mexican soap opera. The actors were good, nothing out of this world but good. Is important to comment about the nude scenes.... why??? There were not necessary... why do the audience have to watch a nude couple talking in a kitchen about nothing??? The movie sometimes was funny but.... nothing else. Another thing... that almost open ending... everybody could note what becomes after the movie... then why did the director ends the movie in other way??? Un dia sin sexo is a B movie hide behind a sign of independent movie... independent movie is not the same of movie without style

Yes, maybe my comment will surprise to the readers, but I'm going to be sincere and say just that I saw, excluding the golden globes and the Oscar nominations. Brokeback Mountain for me is a good movie, but is not a cinematography success. The direction is great, the cast was good, the ambientation is good too, but the script is not different to other love stories except for the homosexual relation. That I try to explain is that if it wasn't a love story between men, nobody will talk about this movie. So what are we trying to project if homosexual relationships are seen like a normal thing in these days... what's is the sensational thing of this movie? Sometimes slow, sometimes boring... I'm just an objective spectator, and I din't find nothing extraordinary here.

Jim Jarmusch has a particular mark. He has an own style and in this time of special effects it seems to be rare. I really enjoy when is possible to remember the director in all sequences of a movie and "Broken Flowers" is a very good example of this. Is remarkable the use of silence by Jarmusch, scenes with "long seconds" full of symbols that talks more than words. My standing ovation for Murray, is the perfect actor for this role. Is difficult to express so much without words, without movements, without smiles... and Bill Murray projected all that his character needs. The supporting actresses were great too, in each visit I fall in love. How can you don't be in love with Sharon Stone or Jessica Lange in that roles?? The end.... what end???? Life continues...

Is a good try. The mistakes in illumination makes difficult to give a higher grade. But the story and the way to narrate it are trapping in a lot of times of the movie. The "semi-open" end could not conform to the audience. In stories like this, we want to know what happen later. But in the other side let it to the imagination is a good choice to make it perdurable in the audience mind. The cast is great. Actuation is a good surprise. The script is good. Direction does not give as nothing new but result is good. The movie is funny. I insist... is a good try. This filmmaker has a big future. I hope that big companies give him a hand to make more movies in future. "Mañana te cuento" confirms that is possible to do a good movie without much money.

Yes... it was a very funny movie. At times I could forget problems and just laugh. Owen Wilson was great and Vaughn found his target. I hated him for a lot of years after his sacrilegious interpretation of Norman Bates, but now I can understand. He was born for comedies. He is one of that comedians like Buster... they make you laugh but looks always angry. I'm not going to stop in details like script mistakes. Perhaps my congratulations to the edition work... but I think that this movie wasn't made to analyze, it was made just to enjoy and everybody in the cinema did it. I didn't see anybody after the movie without a smile and that is enough to say that is a good work.... sorry director... congratulations too.

The title of this movie could be "Lord of the apes" or maybe... "King Kong goes to Jurasic Park". Maybe I'm to hard in my comment but I expected some more. I like too much directors with a distinctive style. But one thing is a director's style and another is that all of his movies look like the same one. This version of King Kong just needed Frodo to be the fourth part of Lord of the Rings. In the the sequences in the island I could perceive an excess of special effects. I think that with a half of parasites, scorpions or dinosaurs, the final result could be better. That recharged elements makes me to think that Jackson is the Spielberg of the new millennium. If you watch the scene of the dinosaurs avalanche out of context, more than one will be sure that is a delete scene of one of the Jurasic Park movies. Is difficult to remake a masterpiece... that's true. But I think that Jackson could do a better job. Maybe he needs to think less in Frodo and try to do something different with his own style.

For Ecuadorian people who loves the movies was a frustration to don't have an iconic filmmaker. Now we are very happy because we have Sebastian Cordero. In his opera prime "Ratas, ratones y rateros" we saw a lot of elements of our country. It made me to considerate that movie like a fine domestic product but "Cronicas" is different. Cordero was faithful to his convictions and made a movie in his style, but "Cronicas" is a movie for everybody. There were some illumination problems and a few in-congruences in the script but there were insignificant when we appreciate this movie at all. The performance of the actors were magnificent. Leguizamo and the monster were excellent and Cordero was fundamental in this. I'm proud about Cordero. He will make big things with more money.

These are going to be the last five minutes that I'm going to dedicate to this movie. I accept... It was my fault. I saw the qualification of this movie and I went to watch it. For some critics my grade could be generous. But I want to explain that my 2 is for the monsters. They were the less bad of this movie. The audience can see when the filmmaker is trying to do a good work and when is selling a commercial product. This movie is that... a commercial product hides behind a monster gang. I don't know and I'm not going to investigate about how much time of this movie are just screams and teeth. See this movie was very uncomfortable. There was no argument, there was no script, the performance of the actors was poor, and the director's work was abashing. My congratulations to the marketing team. They made me go to see this movie. I'm absolutely sure that is the worst that I have seen this year and an insult to the lovers of good horror cinema.

There is a before and after of this movie in the history of movies. Hithcook may be the director with more "new things" in his time. Is difficult to know how big could be he now in this special effects time. Psycho is a perfect combination of a great director, a great cast and a great script. Perkins makes his best job in this movie. Norman Bates is a legend. A lot of people did not see Psycho but everybody knows who is Norman Bates. The movie has a lot of symbols and the music is the best. Hitch confirms in this movie that good actors and good staff is enough to make a good movie. North by Northwest was excellent, but it cost 3 or 4 times more than Psycho. It is more than a cult film. Psycho is really a masterpiece. Psycho is a movie that you can watch 20 times and every time that you see it, found new elements. Is full of details. The subliminal presence of the mother figure is present in all the movie. The color of the under ware of Marion changes to black after she left the town trying to express that she feels dirty. And the scene of the bath... is maybe the most famous scene in the history... is difficult to perceive after that yo never saw a naked body and never so a knife inside of the victim. But during the sequence you're sure that it is happening. Psycho is magic... is a lesson to everyone who loves movies. I think that is necessary to watch this movie before to comment another one.