Change Your Image
gilfortuna-74120
Reviews
Vice (2018)
Just the facts.
If it isn't clear why some people are giving it mediocre-to-low ratings, just check the post-credits scene.
Vice is not just a biopic. It is a political statement, shamelessly so. But it is more about specific characters than politics in a more broad sense. It is, after all, about Dick Cheney, a man who isn't portraited in a clear-cut fashion, but rather in several different shades of gray. Power-hungry, greedy and unscrupulous, but also very family-centered. Competent and incompetent, dumb and incredibly cunning, a mere lackey at first and one of the most powerful man in the world later on. Mostly amoral. The film doesn't exactly give Dick Cheney sympathy, but doesn't indulge in beating him to a pulp without trying to paint his character with at least a fair share of ambiguity.
Some might argue against this film for being too satirical and breaking the fourth wall too often. Yet this was an absolutely necessary technique for us to be able to enjoy this movie. This story is just too dark to be able to do without some humour thrown in the mix.
Praise should be given to Christian Bale, not only for his outstanding performance, but to be willing to gain so much weight just for a movie role, when other techniques could be employed. That can't be healthy, at all.
It Follows (2014)
10/10, no doubt about it.
If you, like me, look up ratings on IMDB to decide which films are worth watching, there's a chance you could miss this gem. There's a lot of people who apparently didn't like this movie. Let me tell you why: because It Follows is different from what people got used to when it comes to horror. It is a slow walk, not a rollercoaster ride filled with jumpscares at every turn. This film understands that horror isn't about that, it's about an idea, something that activates a primal instinct of survival deep within your brain. It Follows is about imagination, it is about what you don't see, what you don't know. So many horror movies make the mistake of trying to explain everything, where the monster comes from, what are his motivations, his abilities, etc. It Follows understands that there is value in mystery, that it makes things so much more interesting and terrifying. The film relies on the viewer's imagination to fill in the gaps, and it then either confirms his/her expectations or subverts it. Sadly, not many see it this way. Some think the film must give you all the answers, or tie up all the loose ends. It doesn't.
Warcraft (2016)
Not quite as good as fans want it to be, but better than critics say it is.
So this is my take on Warcraft, as a long-time WoW player.
This is yet another example of how critics and fans can have such radically different viewpoints on movies. And honestly, there's nothing wrong or particularly surprising with it. Average movie-goers just want to have fun. Critics have the job to actually look further into a movie, to detect its faults and praise whatever small details are deserving of such praise. What's happening with Warcraft is that fans are giving it way too much credit, and critics are apparently unable to look past its shortcomings.
As a fan of the video game, I enjoyed watching the movie. However, I can't help but feel that some things have been handed miserably. The story is based on the first video game, Warcraft I, but it doesn't follow the script at 100%. Such changes could bring a breath of fresh air to the Warcraft lore, improving what might otherwise not have been good story-telling choices. However, pretty much every of those chances have been a turn for the worst. Take Garona, for example. In the video game, she kills King Llane because she is being mind-controlled by Gul'dan, not because the king tells her to "kill him so that the world has a hope to have peace", which is a pretty stupid justification. How would Garona personally killing him do that? Furthermore, there's that cringe-worthy love-story with Lothar, which serves absolutely no purpose. Warcraft the film is filled which such side-stories that don't seem to develop anywhere that made them worthy to be in the film in the first place. As a result, they are often unbelievable. Lothar's son dies in battle, just in front of him as he is left to watch without being able to intervene. What could have been a great scene, even by the standards of film in general and not only the niche that video game film is, loses all the impact when 1) Lothar shows pretty much no emotion, in one of the worst acting examples of the entire film; 2) the audience never develops an emotional connection with his son because he is seen so few times in the movie and never meaningfully. Then there is the dissidence from Orgrim Doomhammer, which never goes anywhere, because in the movie he doesn't get to face Blackhand. Instead, Lothar does, which never happened in the game and has no good reason to be in the movie either, instead for a cool looking action scene that reinforces the cool-guy type of character that he is.
Going back to the chances from the original lore, we can blame Hollywood on this one, because most movies nowadays don't seem to be audacious enough to do any kind of ending but happy endings. In Warcraft the game, Stormwind city is razed by the orcs, and Humans, lead by Lothar, are left to seek refuge north, and form the Kingdom of Lordaeron. In the movie, no such thing happens. The movie repeatedly seems to take the parts that make Warcraft lore so compelling and audacious and turn them into bland, generic Hollywood clichés, in an attempt to appeal to a general public that, honestly, will probably never care that much about the film and would probably enjoy the original story a lot more. And here is where most critics go wrong: they'd rather bash on Warcraft for doing the best they can than on Hollywood producers who don't want to take risks and would rather have every movie follow the same formulae.
On to the acting, yet another part where the film falls short is that the orcs are somehow so much more believable than the humans. Humans' acting is a bit poor and unbelievable, passable at best, Medivh being one of the worst examples, in my opinion. It doesn't help that their armor, their swords, their crowns, etc., seem to be made in cheap plastic. Compare it to the orcs, which are maybe one of the best examples of CGI done right up to this date. Orcs are believable, show a great range of emotions, they at the very least seem to have some weight. However, dwarfs and elves also show up in this movie, and they don't seem so believable. Elves' ears look made of plastic, their glowing eyes made of very poor CGI. In general, though, the CGI is done right, with beautiful environments and special effects. But it is also done very poorly at such times.
The movie isn't all bad, though. Action scenes are decent, orc scenes are amazingly well-done, the environments are beautiful and there's enough humor and drama to keep you entertained, if you like the fantasy genre and/or are a fan of the Warcraft universe. But it falls short because it could have been much more. Those who know the Warcraft lore know how rich and compelling it truly is. Warcraft the movie is afraid to take risks, and follows a formulaic path instead that is so common to Hollywood blockbusters. There is enough Warcraft here to keep you entertained, but it's no Lord of the Rings. If they fix some of its shortcomings in an eventual sequel, however, it may manage to become more than a mere video game movie. Until then, that's what it is. Entertaining, but ultimately shallow.
The Revenant (2015)
Poetry in film form. Dark but beautiful.
It's not about which story you tell. It's how you tell it that counts.
Now, while the accuracy of this statement might be debatable, it is certainly the truth in the case of The Revenant. Take the simplest story you can think of, and tell it in a way that is artistically striking. Not all films can pull it off, but this one does.
Sure, some viewers will leave the theater with a feeling that there was not enough substance here, that the movie drags itself too long, that there isn't enough character development, that some scenes are pointless as they don't advance the story, and may find the overall experience too shallow.
I advise you to look past those preconceptions. We're all too used to the typical Hollywood formula. But we should not be afraid to try a different approach to cinema. And honestly, this film isn't too alien in that regard. It walks a fine line between film for the masses and film for the artsy, hipster types, never drifting too far from one or another, and so it achieves a perfect balance. Your average movie-goer will be entertained throughout the experience. There is enough suspense, action, drama, tears and blood to satisfy the needs of such a consumer. But there's also more than that. There's some kind of poetry going on, that you may feel but may not be completely aware of. Is it due to the absolutely majestic environments? To the incredibly smart cinematography? To the gorgeous soundtrack? To the slow but steady pacing? It may be due to all those things, but there's also something more. And that extra mile may have something to do with the very believable acting. You don't feel like you're watching actors, you feel like those are real people, with real, dangerous, short lives. You can feel their emotions. Their fear, sadness, joy or anger is also your own. Even the cold from the snowy and icy landscapes seems real, and every time a character lights a fire, you can feel the warmth coming back to your bones.
There are, however, a couple of points where the immersion seems to fail. Sometimes, the amount of punishment that Glass (the main character, played by Leonardo DiCaprio) suffers is just too great for him to realistically survive. It's not that it theoretically couldn't happen, the thing is that, at certain points, you can feel it all comes down to convenient story-telling. But don't let it deter you from watching this movie. Any minor flaws are easily forgettable and forgivable.
Also, Leonardo DiCaprio nails it. As he always does.
London Has Fallen (2016)
Cringe-worthy, cliché-ridden, blatant propagandist cash-grab.
SPOILER FREE ZONE
Do not watch.
Seriously, I warned you. This movie is so bad I felt the need to create an account on this site to tell people the truth about it.
If you're a citizen of the USA who is overly nationalistic, if you buy into the hype of famous actors who end up having less-than-average performances, if you just started watching movies last year and aren't yet familiar with all the clichés you will find in this movie, if you think a blurry, confused action scene is a good action scene, and if you don't mind the poorly done CGI explosions and the plot-holes, then this movie is for you.
If not, and if you're really curious about it, just watch the trailer. The entire movie is there anyway.
SPOILER ZONE
Here is how it goes: Main character is a typical American-marine-special-agent kind of dude. He is a reckless, aggressive, dominant alpha male that can't go one minute without saying a cheesy one-liner. In fact, almost all his dialogue are cheesy one-liners. He has a pregnant wife, which is the typical stay-at-home American mom who cares for his husband.
Then there's the typical strong, maternal black women who dies courageously, the typical hot white girl female fatal which you "do not f*** with", the strangely naive USA president who is afraid to pick up a gun and shocked that so many civilians have died because of him (yeah, right), the typical eastern villain that hates America, the faceless enemies with storm-trooper syndrome, the traitor that thinks the system is flawed and accepted a bribe, and Morgan Freeman, who is presented as a major character but ends up playing a very minor role that could be done by any novice actor. Yes, from now on, beware of films with Morgan Freeman. It's not the first time (I'm remembering Oblivion, with Tom Cruise) that his face is plastered all around just to make the movie sell, but ends up being an insignificant part of it. He may have played great roles in the past, but now it's clear he is riding his own fame.
Even then, Morgan Freeman is probably the best actor there. Others are just not competent. Part of the blame is on the dialogue. It's too cliché and far-fetched. As told before, Gerard Butler does nothing but throw down one-liners. He has one or two facial expressions: The angry look and the tender, loving father look. Which makes him an one-dimensional character that you won't be able to build an emotional connection with. He is also an insufferable Mary Sue. The USA president, on the other hand, is pathetic. They try to make him a determined, strong American leader, but the contrast with his best man is just too big. It makes him look tiny, fragile and incompetent. There is not much to say about other actors. All of them play minor roles and are easily forgettable. And all of them play stereotypical, far-fetched roles.
Then there is the plot. Oh, god, the plot.
It's bad. The pacing is horrible. Action scene, chase, small break, action scene, chase, small break, repeat. Not much happens in between. In part because there is no decent plot. It goes like this: the most heavily guarded funeral in history ends up having some serious security flaws. And all because one dude in the USA security agency betrayed them. That one dude is apparently so powerful, or the security agencies (American and English) are so pathetic, that his simple betrayal goes undetected and cause the entire defense operation to fail. How did he do such a feat? How could half the guards in that day be enemies in disguise and that go under the radar? How could the prime-minister of England "die in his sleep" and then no autopsy having been made in time to clear any suspicions of poisoning? Why is Gerard Butler the only one who "feels" that "something" is about to happen? Why is it that the most important target (USA President) is the ONLY ONE that stays alive, and the LAST ONE that the enemy tries to shoot at? Every single point of this movie is far-fetched.
Okay, I'm aware that this is a mindless action movie, and plot and actor performance shouldn't be taken too seriously. BUT THE ACTION SCENES AREN'T GOOD EITHER! All of them are ridden with that annoying, off-putting blur and camera-shake effect. And they aren't original either. Oh, a last-second save. Oh, a car chase. Oh, the helicopter crashes and they are all alive and without a scratch. Except the black girl, of course. Oh, the enemies just send themselves at the hero at the most stupid fashion and end up dead, every single time. It's tedious, predictable and shows that they are lazy and didn't really spend any time to think on good ideas.
So if the point of the movie is bad, and everything else is bad to, what's good? Well, I find the stereotypical representations of the other heads-of-state to be somewhat enjoyable. There's the female German Chancellor that is clearly Angela Merkel, the womanizer Italian prime-minister that is clearly Berlusconi, etc. But all it shows is that this movie could have been a parody. It is certainly a parody, with all the exaggerated nationalistic lines and the plot and action scene clichés, but it's a parody of itself. Its crucial sin is that it takes itself seriously. But it certainly doesn't deserve more than to be a punchline of a joke. A bad, boring, predictable joke.