Change Your Image
lspijker
Reviews
The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)
Pretentious nonsense
This movie seems to aim to be some kind of "higher" for art, symbolizing stories from Greek mythology. Applying stylized dialogs and cinematic effects to give it an arthouse feel.
Well, in my mind it utterly fails to do so, and unfortunately when not seeing it like a highly stylized form of cinema, you are left with a confusing, irritating, stiff dialoged, inconsistent kind of psychological thriller-horror that complete fails.
If you put aside the ridiculous references to Greek mythology, you are left with a weird mix of The Gift, maybe a bit of Cronenberg's Spider all embedded in a David Lynch like absurd universe. However, in that case it so completely lacks the stylistic quality of those movies, that you are left with nothing but pretentious nonsense.
Only good thing is the acting, in sofar possible with the absolute terribly directed dialogs. Nice to enjoy Collin Farrell in a more serious role, and I almost always like Nicole Kidman.
Summary, if you like stylized display of mythology, go and see an Opera, a Greek play in the theater; if you like weird movies then pick one from David Lynch, but skip this one, unless of course you just like this kind of pretentious stuff.
Gravity (2013)
Unbelievable shallow story and play, with nice pictures
This movie has been rated 8.7 here on IMDb for a completely unknown reason. The movie is nice, 3D, stunning visuals; yes, you see George Clooney, solid as usual; and you also see Sandra Bullock, in bathing suite. The latter seems to be the only main attraction of the movie as far as Bullock is concerned. The characters are completely flat, a half hearted attempt is made to give Bullock's character some background (drama with a lost daughter), however it doesn't make you feel for her character. The scenario is as shamelessly predictable, even for this kind of movie. Hopping from station to station to reach earth, that's the story. Basically only an excuse to showoff the nice 3D pictures, however a demo, documentary would have sufficed for that, no need to call it a movie. Also, the little parts where something happens is really completely shaded from any luster by clichés, cliché camera standpoints, cliché music building up that completely predict what is happening.
So, nice for the 3D, but that trick is shown after 10 minutes. And yes, you see a nice milf in bathing suite, if that is the attraction you are looking for. Further, you got 10 minutes of screen time with Clooney. However, that completely sums up any value or interest that this "movie" might have.
Don't go, watch a video free from NASA, watch Speed or The Net with a more younger and sexy Bullock, and see something else with Clooney; but don't waste your money and time on this piece of celluloid that is supposed to be a movie.
Inglourious Basterds (2009)
Proper antidote for all WWII and Nazi poison
This movie is not alone worthy of Tarentino, funny and entertaining, serious in describing the emotional horror and giving release to the bad guys getting what they deserved.
What it is making fun out of one of the most hated person, Adolf Hitler and his equally hated group of SS and Nazis.
How he depicted Hitler as a uncertain, over the top, desperate, suppressed homosexual kind of laughable character is most brilliant and healing. The way Hitler shouts his "Nein, nein, nein!", out of control, desperate, almost jumping and feet stamping, is absolute brilliant.
From now on, when I see one of these bald ultra nationalist right-wing types, the Hitler admires and other scum, I will not be able to help myself but start out laughing loud, having this image of the ridiculous Hitler in mind.
Pathetic, that's the word, he made that what is evil, hated and featured into pathetic figures. Weak and ridiculous.
That for me is enough to hope this movie gets at least an Oscar nomination for this tremendous achievement. He did what Harry Potter was taught when waving his wand against the bogeyman : 'Ridiculous' and the evil was forced naked, vulnerable and pathetic.
Live Free or Die Hard (2007)
Unbelievable plot, action packed, but certainly no Die Hard
This movie for me was disappointing. I had three main expectations: 1) a continuous 'grabbing' plot, that could be 'movie' believable. 2) a human John (Bruce Willis) who rescues us from evil and we can relate to. 3) a good sidekick that has his/her own place in the plot
None of these expectations were met. 1) The story was really too fantastic to be believable, too far reached. 2) John wasn't John anymore, he was turned into superman, which made it hard to relate to him. This is the main reason why I rated this movie low. Die Hard has the charm that, all be it in fantasy, that you could be John Mc Clane, you can identify and live with him, and so together rescue the world from evil. That concept has been killed by this new Die Hard 4. 3) the sidekick in the form of the hacker, Matt Farell. His performance was good, but he was too closely tight into action with John and was too weak to stand out. He is no Samuel Jackson, who stands out as strong as Bruce Willis and forms a tag team with him. Here, both in the plot and in acting, Matt Farell was more a drag then a tag team player.
Conclusion: The movie was certainly action packed. The acting was good (except for the bad guys, that was really weak in my opinion. Though Maggie Q played a deliciously evil tough woman that performed a Die Hard worthy fight with John). The plot really out of reality and too fantastic. It was definitely no Die Hard, that was severely disappointing.
Children of Men (2006)
Not worth the fuzz - basic chase the rabbit story
In itself the movie has an interesting theme: what does the world look like without children, if we are all dying, no new breed comes. Unfortunately this theme is barely touched by this movie. It says so in the intro, you see some pictures of deserted schools, etc.. And of course the main character is special because she is the only pregnant woman in the world. However, the rest is just the evil chasing the pregnant woman against the hero protecting her and helping her to reach her goal, the ship 'Tomorrow'. I must admit that in itself the acting is good, especially the hippie like character Jasper Palmer by Michael Caine. But other than that, there is nothing interesting going on. So, if you like high school like chase movies, then please go and watch this one, it is thrilling. But if you expect that the main theme of the movie is worked out and some kind of vision is given, then please skip this movie, it isn't worth your time at all.
The Da Vinci Code (2006)
An insult to the intellect and nothing more then a powerpoint slide presentation of the book.
The Da Vinci Code is a missed opportunity, it has a fine cast, a potential good plot, great locations, but it is really not more then a moving powerpoint presentation of the main episodes from the book.
The director, Ron Howard, should be sent to a permanent vacation and should only concern himself with making slide presentations of a book, but never ever be allowed to make a movie again. The guy is an insult to the intellect.
For instance, there is a scene where the main characters are fleeing from France to England. They are waited upon by the police in England and face the problem of escaping from the plane. The plane has landed, Sir Teabing and his driver steps out of the plane, but Langdon, Neveu and Silas are not there. Later, when Sir Teabing drives away, they happened to be hidden in the back of the car. So far so good. However, and this is really insulting of that Ron Howard, then a flashback occurs. In this flashback it is explained how they got away. You see the plane landing, while the plane taxis, the door opens, Langdon and so jump out, run to the car and hide there. A whole stupid and intellect insulting scene during a minute or so. Really, they should fire that Ron Howard!
Other example. The film is shot on location, in the Louvre! An excellent opportunity to provide some nice shots and close ups of some art and the environment. But, nothing of that. Only the absolute bare essentials are brought into picture with respect to the art and the Louvre architecture. But when Langdon arrives at the Swiss bank to obtain the secret box, there is a scene where the access code is tried. This scene is meant to build up tension, intended to be in awe whether the key is correct or not. They punch in the number and a whole freaking minute is wasted with a close up on an ugly green, semi-futuristic display showing the punched in key and displaying a message that it is accepted. A whole minute wasted with an ugly way to build in tension, while all that beautiful art in the Louvre didn't get one minute of extra time.
Good, my conclusion. If you haven't read the book, it is a nice youth thriller. If the reli-conspiracy genre fits you, you might appreciate it even more. However, if you have read the book, you come to the conclusion that it has nothing extra to offer over the book. It follows the story line like a slave, and adds nothing to it, doesn't take advantage of the fact that is a movie, not a powerpoint slide. Furthermore, the atmosphere in the movie doesn't come out, like it does in the book. The movie doesn't give you that reli conspiracy feeling, like it should. Finally, there is no chemistry at all between the two main characters, Sophie and Robert, despite the fact that Tom Hanks is playing Robert Langdon. Clearly you cannot blame Tom Hanks. So please, do not see this movie, and boycott that amateur of a Ron Howard, that isn't able to mix all the fine ingredients in something that tastes good.
Batman Begins (2005)
Nice special effects, good for fans but boring
Batman begins has lots of special effects, spectacular fighting scenes and basically a good story. The cast is very good, and acting as well. There are many moments that really keep the tensions and expectations high. But the downside of the film for me was that it was overall too slow. The film has a duration of 134 minutes and that is too long for just the basic story, unless of course you are a long time fan. The scenes introducing batman's youth and trauma, the 'education' he got high in the mountains are lineair, predictable and far too long to keep the attention. The rest of the story depicting Batman saving Gothman are nice and spectacular, but also, very lineair in story line and hence a bit boring and predictable. Bottomline is that Batman Begins is a nice Hollywood spectacle and good for the fans, but with a very thin storyline that is brought in a very predicable, unexciting way.
Solaris (2002)
A more accessible version of Solyaris (1972)
I think Solaris is a very good film over the human mind, our longings, conscious and permanent state of not knowing. This version of Steven Soderbergh is more easily digestible than the original of Andrei Tarkovsky, it is more polished, and the long monotonous scenes of the 1972 are either cut or shortened. However, it is still a very interesting film about the human mind, how we mistake love for an attachment to previous memories of a person, how we project those feelings for some experience in the past on a new 'love', failing to see what it is: a product of our imagination. I would certainly recommend to see this version first, and if you like it, if it makes you think, then please, go and see the original of 1972 as well.