lekavalio Reviews

Castlevania (2017–2021)

interesting in concept but flawed in execution

[5/10 · 28 June 2021]

Castlevania is focused on Dracula's romantic attachment to his human wife and the story of revenge he unleashes upon the world after her demise in the hands of the church. This sets in motion the workings of a vampire opera, with over the top reactions by all the set pieces leading (through four seasons) to a dramatic finale.

In theory that makes for great entertainment but does it deliver?

Uninspired dialogue in 9 out of 10 cases and horrible voice acting (why is every actor sedated?) prevented me from enjoying this. Plot twists in most cases are there just because the audience expects them but you see them coming a mile away. The motivations of the characters that forward the plot are very often ludicrous or some times simply unexplained (why did a mage decide to turn a whole city into zombie-builders? Probably because he was..."a bad guy"). The most interesting characters are the ones that make cameo appearances because anyone who gets more stage time eventually ends up boring and trivial through repetitions of clichés. That is especially true with the protagonist couple of Trevor and Sypha who just blubber nonsensical one-liners because literally they are never given a true reason for talking. The dialogue writing is so lazy that many times, even during the duration of a single episode we hear different characters deliver to us the same information, in fact the same info that we deduced by ourselves by watching and needed no verification from them (hello! There is a night creature in the basement...).

On the bright side, the visuals throughout the series are stunning with interesting POV camera movement and well drawn settings. The design of the night creatures after the second season are getting more creative and thus quite entertaining. Some good action scenes are thrown in to reward viewer patience and gratuitous violence , especially when the forces of evil slaughter the unarmed population, will surprise many (who haven't watched anime for adults).

I had been prepared to give Castlevania a perfect 10 based on its visual merits but the inevitable boredom that a bland scenario generates brought it down to a mere 5 stars. I literally sat through the whole thing (falling asleep way too often) just for the pretty pictures and nothing else.

P.s: Watch blood of Zeus instead.

Sister Act (1992)

Good old fashioned fun

[10/10 · 28 June 2020]

Not sure what expectations who trashed it has from this movie but it delivers everything it promises. A funny feel-good movie shot early 90s but with a distinct 80s vibe. Great story telling that will keep you hooked. So many tricks and jokes that you don't get to see in today's comedies, make this a valuable lesson in film making. Great music. Great acting, especially by the supporting roles. Great camera work makes the chasing scenes a pleasure to watch. A great movie that makes me happy every time I watch it.

Wonder Woman (2017)

Very entertaining

[9/10 · 15 June 2018]

Very good for a superhero movie. Good action scenes, enough visual effects to wet the appetite but not hijack the film, a decent plot with not too obvious holes. The characters of course lack any significant depth and emotional evolution but the leading actress is so sexy she more than makes up for it. In all, another good transfer to the big screen of a lesser paper hero, like in the case of captain America.

John Carter (2012)

Joyride!!! Pure and simple

[10/10 · 16 January 2017]

What a delight this movie is! I've seen it countless times and it never gets old. This is entertainment at its purest form -not an easy thing to come by these days.

Visuals: The CGI here is excellent! Stunning settings and very life-like alien creatures. Special effects used with good taste. Perhaps the strongest visual appeal of the movie for me is the use of colour. The end result is strongly reminiscent of technicolor aesthetic and this is even reflected on the film's original poster!

Plot: The characters are very believable if somewhat plain (as expected in works of pulp fiction). That simplicity is delightful however as not all movies need to carry some hidden philosophical meaning. The script is clean-cut and unpretentious and keeps a very good pace while managing to avoid PLOT HOLES that can really ruin a movie of this type. At the same time it manages to include some very original plot elements and twists and it even avoids completely linear narrative -so there is something that will appeal to the most demanding viewer while it won't throw the casual ones off. Good performances both from actors and CGI and the leading stars are very likable!

The bottom line: Stunning visuals, great performances and a sturdy plot; a perfect mix between comical, dramatic that will also thrill any true adventure lover. A great movie to watch alone or with company for a pizza night in. I really wish I see more movies like it in the near future! A sequel would be most welcome too.

The Machine (I) (2013)

Excellent especially if low budget is taken under consideration

[9/10 · 14 January 2017]

This is a perfect example that exceptional movies can be made on a low budget and without an all-star Hollywood cast. No abundance of explosions or unnecessary splatter here either but the film remains thrilling and captivating throughout.

I dare say the script is not completely original (but lets face it, what is completely new these days?) and it has strong connections with many gems of the genre. Some mentioned "blade runner", "ghost in the shell" is the first that comes to my mind. It is rather obvious to me that whoever directed this has studied the sci-fi anime genre thoroughly and adopted the style perfectly to the norms and limitations of a conventional acted film.

The performances of the leading actors are exemplary and together with all the supporting roles and the rather modest movie settings, they create a very believable world where the viewer can immerse himself. All the parts come together very well and lift this film from potential mediocrity to the status of visual poetry.

Productions such as these, both emotionally and philosophically engaging, renew my faith in the artistry of film-making. Congratulations are in order for the director James Caradog!

The Three Musketeers (2011)

Why oh why Hollywood???

[3/10 · 13 July 2016]

I will never understand the sick urge that Hollywood producers have, to twist the classic tales that everyone loved in their childhood into unrecognizable and nonsensical messes that are destined to be forgettable at best. So many millions squandered, so many work hours, only to result in something that looks so haphazard. Mediocre visual effects and visually pleasing settings (alas historically inaccurate) can not redeem the abysmal writing of the dialogues, the terribly developed and frankly annoying characters and the overall school- play quality of acting.

Some rhetorical questions: Could they have chosen someone more insignificant as d'Artagnan? Is the purpose of Orlando Bloom's hairdo to hurt our eyes or terminate his career? Was the king of France a girl with mustache?

Alternative title: "a book-lover's nightmare"

The Babadook (2014)

A horror gem

[9/10 · 14 February 2016]

Excellent horror movie that will surely entertain and creep you out.

Plays with subtlety between the supernatural and the psychological, avoiding to clearly pick a side. Great acting by the leading mother-son duo, great screenplay and photography, aesthetically pleasing... I am almost tempted to give it a solid ten!

I haven't seen such a good choice of a leading actress for such a role since Mia Farrow starred in rosemary's baby.

Just watch it if you feel like watching a classic haunting horror story with a modern twist!

It is hard writing 10 lines without giving any of the plot away...

Dominion (2014–2015)

Marginally watchable

[5/10 · 14 February 2016]

A series that draws its plot from a liberal interpretation of the biblical tradition is bound to attract some attention. A big fan of the Prophecy saga with Walken in the role of Gabriel I was excited to hear about this show that would indulge my craving for bigger doses of heretic theology.

Unfortunately the show failed to deliver. It brings nothing new to the scene, no new ideas or concepts; it simply recycles the age old cliché of the war of good and evil and some "chosen one". Add a trivial love story to the mix along with some kitsch aesthetics and pompous acting and presto! You get Dominion.

I could have overlooked the trivial plot had the Dominion offered it in a more enticing package. Unfortunately such a thing didn't happen. The show is burdened with a slow pace, many uninteresting subplots, undeveloped characters that you'll never miss once they're gone and to top it all up, unbearable pretentious British accent for no bloody good reason!

I am surprised this show saw a second season when other much more interesting series get cancelled.

Total Recall (I) (2012)

what happened to the art of story telling?

[5/10 · 25 December 2014]

I suspect something rotten lies underneath all recent sic-fi and fantasy films and the remake of total recall is not making a good job at convincing me otherwise. An original story by none other than the grand master of fictional narrative Philip K.Dick already made into a great movie once with great director and cast and full of suspense is reinterpreted into a lukewarm film, too long for its own good and laden with twist and turns that in an attempt to keep the viewer interested they manage to exhaust. The book and the original movie adaptation are very good to begin with so the new interpretation already starts with a handicap, having them to compete against. Sadly this is where it falls short as what it has to offer is devoid of novelty and lacks terribly in both content and style.

An anaemic protagonist making a sad attempt to present his character likable and moving is on the run for almost the whole duration of the film. The pace is monotonous and frankly very cartoony. Every surreal charm the first movie had is gone and all colour and humour where lost along with it. The new interpretation instead feels sonorous and quite full of itself, like it has some important political message to convey. Gone are the mutants and now the three breasted woman is here only as a reference to the original film along with the fat woman in the airport. Also in an attempt to make the story more believable they felt it was necessary to fill it with pseudo-scientific "facts" and swap Mars for Australia (what a let down). Too much shooting, too many explosions and the frantic running and dodging of bullets don't make up for the lack of character and the main ideas that are used as an excuse for all the ruse have been already debated in other films with a whole lot more charm.

In the end the film was a bit of a drag for me but I suppose it can be much more entertaining for others, especially if they don't compare it to the original as I did. Unfortunately I feel compelled to compare this to much better examples and I cannot find it in my heart to forgive this flick for its fear to dream big, the common element of most recent attempts in sci-fi and fantasy genre. A sign of our times I guess, even cinema suffers from depression and a lack of inspiration. I can only hope that the art of captivating audiences with story telling and the occasional "smoke and mirrors" will make a come back at some point.

Stranded (V) (2013)

I can only take this as a joke

[1/10 · 20 November 2014]

After watching this movie I decided to take the initiative and open a support account for Christian Slater. The guy is a great actor but he is obviously in serious economic distress if he willingly decided to star in this joke of a sci-fi film. There isn't much to say about it other that it is below the standards of a high school play. I don't feel bad trashing it because the budget must have been someone's lunch money so I imagine that even if 2 people payed to watch in in the whole world it made some profit. And yes, the space suit helmets are painted motorcycle helmets and Slater IS talking to a book flashlight through the movie. It is THAT ridiculous.

Maleficent (2014)

all about Angelina

[8/10 · 10 June 2014]

I was sceptical about this new Disney film being somewhat frustrated with the recent trend of taking classical tales and distorting them beyond recognition. I was however quite smitten with the trailer and decided to watch it anyway.

I am glad I did. It was a very pleasant experience from start to end. The revisionist approach to the classical fairy tale of sleeping beauty shifts the focus from the fair maiden to the evil-doer (as the name states) witch (in this case a harpy looking, horned fairy). While I have a few gripes with the way this change was executed, the overall result was very good and convincing and the reasoning used makes perfect sense.

The film is rather the visual feast with many effects, flights through beautiful scenery, magical creatures and an impressive palette of colours but the most stunning element has to be Angelina Jolie herself. Maleficent could be THE best role of her up to date career that fully showcases her natural looks as well as her acting skills. She does an excellent job at portraying the dual nature of Maleficent, a character torn between good and evil, love and revenge. For all the action this film has to offer, the best scenes are Angelina's close ups, where her nocturnal sensuality fills the screen and one can get lost in the battle between shadow and light that takes part around those magnetic eyes. During those scenes I was reminded of a charm that directors knew how to capture from old Hollywood divas and contemporary films seem to be missing. I am talking about that Lauren Bacall, Greta Garbo, Kathleen Turner type of charm, that look that lets the viewer project all their desires and fantasies on that face on the screen, and then they carry that image with them wherever they go.

Maleficent is a film with a sturdy plot but in reality structured around Angelina Jolie and as such there are points where it is unbalanced and a bit unfair to the other characters. The king, the prince, the crow and Aurora as well as all the secondary or tertiary magical creatures that inhabited those magical lands were mere sketches, occupying only the margins of what was essentially Maleficent's/Angelina's huge portrait. Because of that there where several scenes that felt like a grand illusion rather than an interaction between characters, as if the central character (usually Maleficent) was tripping. In some parts of the film the mechanism of a narrator is employed to cover the shortcomings in character development and bridge the gaps in plot.

Even with those imperfections though the movie is very good and a worthy addition to the fantasy/fairy tale genre. A director's cut with some extra scenes dedicated on secondary characters would be perfect!

Tales from Earthsea (2006)

Saddly, not worthy of the Miyazaki name

[5/10 · 10 June 2014]

*I watched the English dubbed version of this so some aspects of this review might not apply to the original*

I watched this thinking it was a Hayao Miyazaki film. Only after watching it I noticed it was his son's work, Goro.

Unfortunately this is no Hayao work in any respect. The best term I can use to describe it is "flat". Really, from characters to settings, to plot, even colors, drawing quality or music score, this is a pale reflection of works like princess Mononoke or Nausica and Spirited Away. Why a famed studio chose to release such an unworked movie and a bad adaptation of a famous fantasy novel is beyond me. The film did a very poor job in capturing my attention, and it managed to extract very little sympathy for the characters and their adversities. Much of the plot seems naive at best and many supposedly sentimental scenes centered on inner conflict made me yawn. During the very lengthy song scene I had my eyes closed because there was nothing interesting to watch. The degree of elaboration and overall style in graphics reminded me of a very old Hayao Miyazaki's work for TV, Heidi done in 1974, not a very favorable similarity by today's standards.

In all, this film fails to create an inhabited universe that the spectator will feel intrigued to explore or a credible plot that they may follow. It is watchable, and perhaps moderately entertaining but utterly forgettable. Too bad, another missed chance for great literature to find good representation on the big screen. If magic ever filled this world, it had disappeared long before Goro Miyazaki decided to depict it.

This is what the author thinks about the film, very enlightening: http://www.ursulakleguin.com/GedoSenkiResponse.html

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (2013–2020)

the trivial truth is out there!

[2/10 · 31 March 2014]

The series is an attempt to build on the least fascinating, almost mundane idea of an FBI like agency that exists in the wake of the superhuman stars of the Marvel's universe. SHIELD is actually somewhat of an afterthought, an attempt of Marvel's creative minds to show that the US state and the human world in general are not insignificant ants in comparison to the more gifted characters we all dream we could be like. Well, the plan was flawed from the beginning, because this is exactly what they are, insignificant, trivial characters that lack any purpose and focus. SHIELD comes as a child's imagination of what being an FBI agent means, and that child has been fed too many series on the subject already (NSA, NCIS, you name it) but also has a soft spot for the x-files.

In this case, a bunch of ridiculous but oddly happy characters scour the globe, leaving huge carbon footprints with their big plane that houses a bachelors penthouse inside (go figure!). While doing that, they never fail to exhibit their sensitive, emotional human side and confront each other for no good reason, usually while in the middle of a super trivial mission or (not so) mortal danger. All the clichés apply in spades so we get a mix of rebel, macho, dark and brooding, Asian, Newyorker, computer geek, British PLUS Scottish accent (boy! they really overdid it there). Obviously the mix doesn't work because you could be having this play in the background with the sound off and still not miss much. The series don't have anything to offer either as plot or as pure sensory pleasure. Not even special effects or sexy bombshells were employed to capture the audience. This is why the writers had to resort in "clever" gimmicks like the name THOR being mentioned at least once every other episode to make your head turn and look at the screen.

If you are so much taken by the recent Marvel superhero movies that you are suffering from withdrawal until the next one hits the big screen then by all means watch this. It will perhaps help ease your pain. Just don't expect any kind of thrill from it. For the rest of us it should be a pass.

I, Frankenstein (2014)

Soul-less like it's hero but also brainless like a zombie

[1/10 · 22 March 2014]

Even from a movie that is obviously made to capitulate on the success of a certain genre one has some very basic expectations, none of which were met by this sad monster-piece. Watching through this I had the constant impression that everything was haphazard and sloppy. A plot that seems to have been based on a nightmare an elementary school student had after watching a more acclaimed Frankenstein flick and consecutively frying their brain playing video games for 20 hours straight while consuming sodas and candies. The paper thin plot doesn't allow for real characters to evolve from it. Each action a hero or antihero takes seems predicated by the laws of stupidity. Everyone seems one dimensional, predictable and eventually insignificant to the point that a nuclear holocaust that would destroy the picture's universe wouldn't shock anyone. What shocked me was the implied possibility of a sequel at the end! The nerve some people have!

Nowhere near the underworld saga in quality and far below any successful monster flick, Dracula, Mummy, you name it, even the mediocre Van Helsing. On the bright side, it could be nominated for a Golden Razzie in almost any category.

If you have some time to spare on a movie that you'll forget even as you watch it go ahead. If like me you get irritated by sallow plots, bad dialog, abysmal acting that come with a serving of bad makeup and cheap cgi, then make yourself a favor and watch something else.

The Innkeepers (2011)

watching this through to the end was perhaps the most difficult thing I ever accomplished

[1/10 · 2 May 2013]

Lets try a different approach to reviewing and comment on some of the reviews this film has already received here...

1.One of the worst films I have ever seen (I don't thing there was anything bad in it. There wasn't anything good in it either...)

2.What a piece of crap!! (more to the point)

3.Like watching Paint Dry (best poetic metaphor of "nothing ever happens" yet)

4.The Innsleepers... (indeed had to watch it in more than 10 segments as I kept losing my concentration and falling asleep. On the bright side, found a cure for insomnia)

5.The Sickening... (yes, felt like that too, I lost sense of time and orientation several times. Watched the same part more than once because my mind would not register any events)

6.i want my hour and a half back... (sadly it lasted more than that and felt even longer)

7.I made an account just to tell you how horrible this movie is (been there, done that. We are all the altruists... deep down)

8.Yet Another Ti West's Disaster (I am happy to report I had no previous experience and don't plan on future ones either. So I guess this makes the Innkeepers kind of special...?)

9.Fake High Ratings by by many of the film crew & their friends (if only I had a nickel for every time I made that same thought)

10.Makers of Scary Movie - did you guys See this? (They did. They taped 8 hours of static and snow. It was a bit scarier than the Innkeepers and deemed to be not so much a parody as a sequel. It will be released in the cinemas as Innkeepers 2-The Suspense)

11.Blech (If by that you mean Bleach then yes, thoughts about drinking a bottle or two occurred to me during watching this)

12.Worst movie of the year... although it's only January 3rd (I would very much like to contact this fellow and ask him about other possible gems he might have discovered)

13.Scooby Doo but Slower and Not As Scary (and with less of a plot I might add)

14.The type of movie you walk out from (...or crawl out from, in the case your feet have become paralyzed due to extreme boredom)

The Perfect Host (2010)

remember sleuth?

[9/10 · 25 April 2013]

I watched this after a friend's suggestion. She was very excited and insisted that it would be just the right movie for me. Usually I don't take these claims too seriously. Too many times I have sat down to watch the perfect movie for me to end miserably disappointed, particularly from the idea people seem to have of me.

This was not the case. In fact I am only writing this review so I can give a boost to the inexplicably low rating it has on IMDb. It is a brilliant movie that more people ought to know about and what makes it even more so is that it was obviously made on a small budget. I won't go into detail because I feel the less you know the more you'll enjoy watching it. It is clearly not for everyone and I clearly understand that some viewers might be put off by the what might strike them as over the top plot. Perhaps it demands from its viewer a suspension of disbelief but to me at least, it is all worth it!

Excellent performances and a game between two characters, each with a dark side of his own, takes life and captivates the viewer. A third, female character that is mostly absent through the film plays the vital role of setting this intrigue in motion. Does it ring any bells? To me it was very similar to the original Sleuth film. Playing between thriller and subtle comedy with a neo-noir luster this is a must-watch for all lovers of the difficult black comedy genre. Further more, it proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that you don't need famous people, special effects and a mountain of money to make good cinema.

Arrow (2012–2020)

the sad demise of straight men

[2/10 · 24 April 2013]

If I was to give an alternative title for Arrow, "the sad demise of all straight men" would be it. In a parallel gay universe, our robotic hero goes through a series of ordeals armed with a ridiculous bow and arrows, barging head first, like a fool and spreading havoc among his numerous enemies with his terrible make up and constipated acting style.

The series started with an interesting episode chuck-full of parkour stunts (which are the strong asset that made me stick around for more) but sadly followed the well treaded path to Trivialville through Soggy Valley. At the moment it stands well into the region of Unwatchable where nothing-really-happens-ever!

The script and dialogue are badly written and use vague and simplistic words that don't really say anything, in a futile effort to suggest that there is something going on. How many times does one have to hear of "the undertaking" or "the bad guys" before he changes the channel? The lack of plot or real action is supposedly balanced by drama and moral dilemmas. Well, let me tell you, a bulldozer could run over any of the main characters of the series and I wouldn't blink an eye because a. I don't care about any of them and b. they are paper thin, they couldn't get any flatter. They don't even seem to care for each other: someone disappears and no one mentions him again after two episodes. Stereotypes like the ex-marine, the computer geek, the criminally rich, the (not really) beautiful and sensitive idealized female, the tough cop, the spoiled playboy and the "cursed" but moral hero all appear in their most unoriginal incarnations possible. Biggest minus of the script: no male character seems to be genuinely attracted to women...

Biggest minus of the series lies with the cast of mediocre actors. Several sport fake English accent for no apparent reason, one speaks terrible Aussie and there is a British one that fakes American accent... go figure. Best actor in the show would be the central character's mother and that's just because everyone else is soooo baaaaad. Worst actor goes to Oliver-Arrow, the star himself (there are several other horrible actors but they don't get to annoy me for as long). How can anyone base a show on this guy is beyond me. His acting skills are next to null and he tries so hard to appear like a bad-ass that he usually accomplishes the opposite. In doing so however, he serves as a comic relief and perhaps can be watchable when the intention is to laugh at someone.

For me this show accomplished something that I didn't know was possible. It made me dislike the comic as well so I give it a point for originality there. Also for the laugh I occasionally got from Oliver's acting (especially when he does his serious walk, or he tries to look pensive, or emotional...) it gets another point and this brings us to the total of 2 instead of 0. OK, seriously now. The one thing that Arrow has to offer and I genuinely enjoy is parkour, but it seems to be getting omitted as the series progress.

I leave you with two questions: Is Stephen Amell the worst actor on planet earth? Does anyone wear more make-up than Katie Kassidy?

Wrong Turn 3: Left for Dead (2009 Video)

fun fit for zombies

[1/10 · 23 December 2012]

This could be fun if you had decided to somehow drop your IQ for a couple of hundreds of points (Who am I kidding? Just watch something else). The movie is full of blatant inconsistencies of the aggravating type that you need to be braindead to overlook. In fact the whole thing is simply a series of kills of a rather large but instantly forgettable cast by what I could only call a halfwit leper leprechaun.

The victims are just so plain stupid, seemingly lacking all instinct of self preservation, making one bad call after another (much worse than the previous titles of the series) and jumping head first into their own death, that there is not a shred of sympathy to be felt. I just wished they were dead sooner so I could go on with my life that I put on stall to view (and now review) this piece of crap.

The villain is equally uninteresting as the victims, not scary, simply a person with a badly made Halloween mask. The first Wrong Turn was not a model horror movie but at least had a shroud of mystery surrounding the villains and some excellent details of deformations that made the cannibal hillbillies truly repulsive. Now we have a trained monkey to be scared of, BUT a monkey that can travel through time and space as it seems, because this is the most annoying feature of this flick.

Should you choose to watch this, despite so many warnings here be prepared for this recurring scene. Someone knocks someone else down, he doesn't bother killing the helpless person, instead he chooses to run in a straight line as far from him as possible and after a few seconds he ends up being ambushed by the helpless person. If this is not space-time travel, I don't know what is. The time traveler will usually be Three Fingers but others in this movie have a go at it too (mainly the bad-ass convicts). Seems to be a thing in these woods. Another thing might be how the hillbilly seems to wander around the woods with such ease with a truck when no one else can find even a simple dirt path. Anyway, this list of anomalies could go on forever but it's not worth it.

Bad acting, bad dialogues, bad camera work, no suspense, ridiculous scenario, childish special effects and many more flaws leave no redeeming qualities for this movie. I cannot understand how this went in production in the first place but how it left the editing room or found distribution is beyond me too.

Ghosts of Mars (2001)

Is this for real?

[1/10 · 22 November 2012]

OK, this is not funny. I can't believe this is a Carpenter film. Perhaps he signed flicks he hasn't made just for laughs to see if his loyal followers will defend them? I really don't see any reason for the positive reviews this celluloid garbage got here. How can someone compare this with the "Thing"? To say that this is a typical Carpenter film is to say Carpenter is blind and his fans retarded.

The poster should act as a warning, made obviously by someone lacking basic Photoshop skills. This is a movie made clearly without any direction. The acting and sets are what one would expect from a school play. The costumes made from what can be found in a recycle bin. The dialogs are simply an anthology of clichés from movies of all shorts (mostly western/cop/action movies). The characters are caricatures, not in the least interesting, let alone amiable: white cops, black thugs and a cornucopia of expendables (mostly peasants) to get rid of in silly and not the least terrifying ways. The fight scenes are way too slow and lamentably amateurish. There are no real visual effects, apparently the minuscule budget was spent on bad make-up and fake piercing (not a real point in any of them). Every character in the movie manages to sport an impeccable hairdo through this whole low gravity massacre, apparently an attack by possessed cannibals is no reason to undo your ponytail or for a less than perfect parting. The music is what a tone-deaf person with a keyboard can make in one afternoon (to annoy non tone-deaf people).

So, it all comes down to this. This movie will not offer you visual or any other type of sensory pleasure. It will not produce any type of emotion -let alone scare you.The story is as trivial as it gets but good movies have been made from less. This is simply a case of poor execution. If you want to watch a better version of this, any of Marilyn Manson's videos will do. I'd give this zero if I could

2012: Ice Age (2011 Video)

Save your time and read the phonebook instead

[1/10 · 18 September 2012]

I am writing this as I am watching that amateurish pastiche of gags on TV just to warn others so that they don't waste their time as I did. Every event that comprises the story line can only be characterized as ridiculous. The actors have got to be the most uninspiring protagonists of all time but of course their ridiculous lines don't give them any points. We have to watch three braindead dummies, apparently born without personalities. The angles chosen by the director, the photography, the visual effects and the props (in the rare occasions they are used) contribute to making my eyes sore. Plain bad in a plain bad way.

Inception (2010)

An architect's movie

[10/10 · 25 October 2010]

I just can't say how pleased I felt with my self for choosing to watch this movie despite everyone who had watched it and told me it's incomprehensible. In my experience so far, "incomprehensible" is a title given to movies by people of very limited concentration skills and when I hear it I generally take it as a good thing.

Inception is a movie that combines many genre's and cannot be said to be pure science fiction or even fiction. It deals with some classical (and for some, detrimental or outdated) philosophical issues with a very exciting and engaging way. The structure of the plot and the unveiling of information is done masterfully, and even the most fictional aspects are given in a very down to earth and "solid" way so that they don't undermine the climax of the viewer's emotions. Superb acting is happily married with breathtaking and very believable visual effects and photography that will satisfy even the most demanding of audiences.

If I had to point out a problem I would say that it is a movie that demands attention as the plot is so thick that even a momentary distraction can limit understanding. That being said, it is not a "cerebral" movie since the emotional narrative with it's many bitter-sweet pleasures is what shines in the end and makes this architectural fantasy a movie that anyone should see.

Harper's Island (2009)

Self Sacrifice (I watched it all so you don't have to)

[1/10 · 1 June 2010]

I give the series the worst score possible, mostly because of the disappointing end.

The show was plagued with inconsistency from the very beginning but as any thriller fun, I was willing to oversee that till it got REALLY annoying. The series is a test of the viewer's tolerance with the awful dialogues, the lack of any reason behind the behavior of the characters and the emotional depth of a teaspoon. Should you choose to watch this (I strongly recommend against it)expect to be astounded with the sheer number of times that people will put down their weapons only to say something incoherent (like a wedding proposal while a murderer is after you is simply the best thing to do) and then find their death from a pen knife. The characters are so gullible that they simply don't deserve to live. In Harper's Island world you only need to write something in paper (like John is the MURDERER) and everyone believes it. In such a pathetic fashion the writers tried to create twists in the plot.

The final blow to this marathon of lameness came with the finale. Should the explanation be missing, the series would still be watchable but no, they had to go all the way with this masterpiece of awfulness. Is really breaking up with someone reason enough to make you a serial killer? NO! Is finding out that you are adopted any better of a reason? I DON'T THINK SO! For me sticking to lame reasoning is the worst sin a thriller can commit. I would be far more willing to watch this if the motives were supernatural or simply unexplained. Not all thrillers need psychological depth. If the psycho was simply a psycho it would be all well (although the apparent omnipotence of this middle-aged man would still need some explaining) but they had to go all the way and provide us with a lame excuse that in their feeble minds seemed to bind it all together.

After wasting many good hours of my life watching this patchwork of human stupidity I can say it was not worth it. Sometimes flicks like that are so bad that they are good but Harper's Island goes all the way to infuriating. Makes you want to kill off every screenwriter and then pick their brains to see what's wrong with them.

If I didn't have such a compulsive persona, I would have stopped watching Harper's Island after third episode and do something more intense like origami. At least paper-cuts are a real threat...