toshikk Reviews

28 Days Later (2002)

"Zombie flick"? Are you kidding me?... (possible spoilers)

[8 July 2003]

If ignorance is bliss, than the IMDB comment board must be the paradise. And today I found another proof for it: the fact that half of all the people that commented on the "28 days later" here were actually discussing things like (sweet jesus!) differences between "real zombies" and the infected guys in the movie, for god's sake!

People! What the heck is wrong with you? Wake up! What is it with Americans always trying to put everything in some kind of a supid framework and then bashing everything that doesn't fit? Aren't we supposed to be unbiased and unprejudiced? You've been told that this is a zombie flick. It is not. Big deal! This is not what the movie is about... And this is not what you should be thinking after watching it...

Now the movie itself. Simply put, excellent. Just what I've expected. Sca ry enough to make me jump a couple of times (and it takes a lot to scare a person like me), and smart enough to make me think about some things I don't normally think about after watching a sci-fi movie. First, the whole "kill an infected in a heartbeat" thing. You don't normally see that in movies like this one. Usually the character manages to say a long sad tirade, shed a tear, and apologize a thousand times before killing the good-guy-gone-bad person. Here, it's a bit more brutal and realistic. You get bitten - you're going away. Then, the deserted London sequence. Brilliant. The similar sequences in Vanilla Sky and Devil's Advocate are nothing comparing to this one. This is probably the scariest part of the movie. Hollywood horror flicks directors should learn from Danny Boyle. Silence and absence of monsters (filmed properly, of course) work much, much better than "creepy" music and presence of one. Also, one of the best scenes in the movie is the "dialogue" between Jim and a "disloyal" soldier while they're waiting to be executed. The camerawork is excellent (just as it is throughout the movie... i'm not describing it here, so just go see it), and there is some kind of a message (something you rarely see in modern movies). The saddest part is, a lot of what the soldier characters in the movie say is ultimately true. There is nothing abnormal about people killing people just for the sake of killing, for it is happenning all the time. In this case, they just speeded up the whole dying process a bit...

Also, the last 20-30 minutes of the movie is not Hollywood at all (although the actual endling is a bit cheesy): what you see is not Save-Two-Girls-You-Barely-Know-Hero-Wannabe Jim. It's more like I-Wanna-Save-My-Own-Butt Jim. Just think about it: the soldier who is to be executed with him tells him England's quarantinned and the rest of the world is doing just fine. Then, after he escapes, he sees the airliner in the sky. And THEN he goes back and tries to rescue the other people... You figure it out.

Anyhow, this movie is definitely worth seeing. In my personal opinion, it could've been a bit deeper (I'm a big fan of philosophical movies, and I have a certain prejudice towards thrillers). 9.5/10 . See this instead of T3 (which was a piece of junk).

The People vs. Larry Flynt (1996)

Good movie... but not for "devoted Christians"

[31 May 2003]

One of the best movies on the topic (freedom of speech, I mean... not pornography) I've seen. Even though it is a bit idealized, it nevertheless is controversial, interesting, smart and not "moralizing" (something that I really hate about movies on democratic freedoms - they are way too simple and spit the message right away). Definitely worth watching.

Oh yeah.. I was surprised by the number of people here doing pretty much the same thing that "the People" did in the movie - expressing their hatred towards Larry ("I wanna blow your godless head off" type of hatred... a sign of a true christian, by the way). Whatever happened to "Blessed are the meek...etc." (Larry's paralyzed, as far as I know) and "Love your enemy"? Personally, I think that hating a movie because of the main character is a very, very stupid thing... Anyhow, if you consider yourself a "devoted Christian", I would advise renting "Ten Commandments" (starring our good ole' friend Charlton Heston... in 1956 he was preaching "Thou shalt not kill" from the screen...now he's trying to get every American to have a gun as a head of NRA) instead of "People..." Everyone would be better off.

Final Destination 2 (2003)

Oh... another teen thriller...

[23 March 2003]

I have to confess - I really enjoy watching "regular American teenagers" (pretty much like myself, although I'm not really "American") getting run over by cars, ripped to pieces, shot, stabbed, hung, drowned, thrown off high buildings and burned to ashes on the big screen. I have no idea why - maybe because I do not tolerate violence in real life. Anyway, in my personal opinion, if a movie is not thoughtful, if it does not have a message within, and if it is not a comedy/melodrama, it has to have violence in it. The more, the better (preferably, at random moments). And, yes, it has to have a happy ending (a little twist in the end, with a hint to a sequel, is allowed though).

The sequel to Final Destination falls under these conditions perfectly. Like in any other teen thriller (see Scream or I.K.W.Y.D.L.S.), there is really no plot - who needs it anyway? There is also no "message" behind it. Don't look for director's views on life, death and all that philosophical junk in it - it's just a bunch of people getting killed in very interesting ways at most random moments (the director should be give a credit for that). And, yes, there is a happy end (sort of), and there will be a sequel (most definitely).

One good thing about this movie that makes it so different from other teenager-oriented junk thrillers, is the absence of any kind of candyman in white mask/fiserman's outfit. People just get killed. Sometimes, in really odd and suprising ways. But - alas - this concept is (like any other thing in today's so-called "blockbusters") a rip-off too. Go see 1976 "Omen" and you'll understand what I mean.

Anyhow, if you like blood, gore and violence, it's a perfect one for you. It's a little better and smarter than all other "teen thrillers", but it is also not burdened by any kind of philosophical meaning (the latter is what I like it most in the movies - that's why I'm giving it a 4/10 on an overall movie scale and a 8.5/10 on a teen thriller scale).

Solaris (1972)

A few comments on how to watch it

[10/10 · 23 March 2003]

One of the users in his/her comment to the 2002 adaptation of Lem's novel said that this types of movies should be given a new rating, BRBV (or Brain Required Before Viewing).

Unfortunately, I have not seen the Sodebergh's version of "Solaris" (I'm pretty sure it can't beat this one, but, given what other people think about it, I can tell that it's worth seeing), but I can assure you that the same can be applied to this movie too.

Guys, it's not boring; it is SLOW. There's a huge difference between the two. Boring movies (Daredevil and Attack of the Clones, for instance) make you fall asleep, good slow movies make you think. If you are a kind of person that comes to movie theater just to see some blood and guts on the screen while chewing on buttery popcorn (popcorn eaters are, probably, my biggest pet peeve when it comes to going to the movies here, in the US - there's always some guy sitting right next to you, eating it so loud that you can't hear a darn thing...), this is not a movie for you. And as for those of you who don't fall into that category - well, you also have to be in the right mood for it. If you are constantly thinking about something important that you have to do or if there is a lot of people making a lot of noise around you - don't watch it; you're still going to like it, but you'll lose a lot. You have to concentrate on the movie, it should be the only thing on your mind. Just sit back and... no, not enjoy. Think. Then you'll enjoy it.

I am not going to restate the entire plot of the movie, for a lot of people have already done it. Instead, I'm going to try to give you a few clues about some confusing moments in the movie. (Yes, SPOILERS, if that's what you want to call them).

1) Oh, that "boring, boring, boring" car ride scene. Attention, popcorn lovers - this is not 21st century Moscow (in fact, it's never mentioned, where the "Earth" part of the movie takes place - it can be Japan as well...). This is not supposed to give you the insight of what the future is like. It is there for one simple reason - to show you that the astronaut in the car, as well as all other characters in the movie, has got nowhere to go. It's all just an endless road.

2) Seaweed - it just stands for nature, Earth, as the characters know it. It's there for a reason too, not just to bore the hell out of you.

3)The final scene - Kris is not on Earth. He's on Solaris. He himself is a part of the planet's giant "thinking" Ocean now, just like Harey was.

Once again - forget about this movie if you like action the most. Go watch Daredevil or wait till the new Matrix comes out. For all others - watch it, it's a sure 10/10.