sati´s Reviews

Displaying 1 - 5 of 121 in total

  • Written by sati on 02.04.2010

    I get annoyed sometimes at how many films Christians have depicting their beliefs and atheists have none. That was until i saw Darren Arronofsky's 'The Fountain' which depicts completely rational view on this world, that yet, somehow, remains magical.

    True, the movie uses some of the christian symbolics like the Tree of knowledge and the Tree of life but for the purpose of a methapor - there is no heaven, there is no hell, we all can have consolation only in the fact that one day we will be granted a chance to become one with the person we love. Trough death we shall reunite.

    The movie's visual side is breath-taking, there is actually quite a lot beauty in the story behind the shooting of the movie - Arronofsky didn't get as much money as he hoped, so what we see on screen as stars and planets are actually bacterias filmed under the microscope. That fits the movie message about universe creating one, connected matter even better. The music is outstanding, I think many will agree that Clint Mansell's score is the best piece of music ever created for the movie.

    I don't like Hugh Jackman, but at least the guy is always plausible and 'The Fountain' along with 'The Prestige' are only two good films of his and two of his great performances. Rachel Weisz on the other hand, a great actress, in a few scenes she is, shows us perfectly what she means by saying 'I'm not afraid anymore'.

    Beautiful movie, actually a bit more than just a movie. It is a past, present and the future of every single one of us.

  • Written by sati on 02.04.2010

    I am rarely suprised by the movie. After seeing 5 seasons of LOST and tons of shocking twists and endings in movies I thought I can guess every single movie twist. That movie proved me wrong.

    Not only that - I was pleasantly suprised by how good it was, 'The Da Vinci Code' was simply horrible - the only good things about it was finale scene, Paul Bettany and wonderful score from Hans Zimmer, the score that was so good the movie didn't deserve it. Here we have his stunning compositions again along with beautiful visual side of the film, I was enchanted by all the monuments and buildings, majority of which, it is in my understanding, was built and created in CGI for the movie, since the Vatican authorities denied director's request for being let into eg. Sistine Chapel. It all looks remarkable, there is only one shot in the film, where the characters enter the Chapel - the CGI was so bad there it hurt my eyes.

    Apart form that, I really cannot complain about anything. The biggest mistake of the first movie was that so many great actors didn't get enough screen time. Here we have only 3 well known people - Hanks, McGregor and Skarsgaard. Tom Hanks is really good here, he is somebody the audiance always sympathizes with and he looks like I imagined Robert Langdon (ok, when I was reading the books I imagined him to be hottter, but that's me^^). McGregor is excellent, I like this actor a lot - he never fails.
    I was really suprised by twists and turns of the intrigue, the movie was very engaging and the story itself was, despite what many reviewers write, quite logical and made sense in the end. There is also one spectacular scene in the film - the explosion of the bomb, I was simply stunned by how beautiful the scene was - it was almost as good as the final scene of 'The Da Vinci Code' with Hanks kneeling in Luvre, above Holy Grail - but let's face it with wonderful 'Chevaliers de Sangreal' by Hans Zimmer, the piece that is easily in my top 5 movie tracks of all time, nothing could top that scene.

    I adored how Howard gently ridiculizes the Church - all he had to do was to show it, really - the bomb is ticking and they worry about formalism, also the splendour and the secrecy - I bet if anyone could go into Vatican library he would find enough dirt on them to bring that entire organisation down.

    To sum up - the movie is entertaining, the acting is very good, the music is wonderful - Ron Howard can do miracles when he has a good story to tell.

  • Written by sati on 02.04.2010

    I went on 'Angels and Demons" and "Terminator Salvation" with no expectations and I left the cinema amazed. I went on "PE" with very high expectations and when I left the theatre I felt like someone has taken a huge dump on my head.
    I am so disappointed.
    I loved Michael Mann's "Heat" were Al Pacino and Robert Deniro had terrific showdown and the only scene they have together in this movie is so powerful and filled with tension everyone who saw the movie was moved and talked about that one scene for days. When I heard that Johnny Depp, fine actor who is not bad to look at and Christian Bale, for whom I'd give up my own kidney share just one scene in that film I thought "wow this is going to be exciting!". It wasn't.
    The editing, which was terrible and the dialogues, which were just weak and forced killed it. The movie is so chaotic at one point I had no idea who is dead, who is alive and what the hell is going on. Worse yet - it is confusing - I had no idea why Bale's character didn't just arrest Baby Face at first ocasion, I had no idea why Dillinger was so psyched about Billie and many other things.
    It is my understanding that the movie is following closely what really happened but some scenes in the film were so ridiculous I actually exhaled "Wtf?!" - when Dillinger walks into police departament to the room filled with his pictures and nobody stops him or when Billie is arrested and he just wanders around dozens of policemen with gun in his hand.
    The music was fantastic but it was terribly used - I felt like they played "Ten million slaves" and Billie Holiday's songs on repeat. The shaky hand-held camera made it even more annoying. However, I did enjoy the shootout scenes, which were very reallistic.
    But the acting in the movie is wonderful - Cotillard created very strong character, Depp wasn't pulling off any of his old tricks and was very cool in his role and Bale was as always terrific - his character didn't get much development but Christian is one of truly few actors who can give outstanding performance when the script sucks.
    One more thing - when the movie ended I nearly said to my friend - "finally! Bale made it unharmed through entire movie!" but I couldn't - a line appeared saying "agent melvin purvis left fbi a year later. Then he took his own life". Damnit, Christian! do a romantic comedy where u live for a change?

  • Written by sati on 02.04.2010

    (spoilers ahead)

    First time I decided to watch this movie...it was 6 months before I actually saw the whole thing in one sitting. MD was on tv and after 15 minutes, when the bum behind the winkies appeared I was so utterly freaked out that I screamed "oh, fuck it!" and turned the tv off. I had vivid memory of the time I was watching Twin Peaks and the image of Bob crawling towards Laura Palmer's cousin was stuck in my head for few months.

    But few weeks ago I finally managed to see entire MD, promptly fastforwarding through Wiinkies scene. The movie is amazing, but I don't like Lynch. I hate how, whilst the music, some of the cinematography, the plot, are artistic and magical something is disgustingly ordinary about his movies. I don't know if it's the incredibly unattractive supporting cast, the fact many shots are shown in broad daylight or some weird manner in which the movie is shot - in all his films I saw the most magical, surrealistic shots which are then strapped out of their glory because of their contrast with retro, ugly, normal scenes. Like with Betty and Coco, with the obscure room Dale Cooper was in and 80% of Twin Peaks, with Kyle Mcchlachlan's life in Blue Velvet or with terrible flashbacks of Lula's past in Wild at Heart. I could show prettier things in my room, shooting them with a mobile phone camera. I know movies aren't about beauty, but there is some sort of quality thing that fails here - it's like showing you flowers and then crap, flowers and then crap for 160 minutes of the movie. Maybe that's why the things Lynch shows in every movie are so creepy - he takes normal stuff and turns it into something so bizarre that it becomes creepy.

    The story here is relatively simple, when you have the key, when you know how to watch this movie. Once you have that key the story is really fascinating, the hints Lynch left about the main heroine are great and the parallels between real world and dream world are so clever that I was astonished.

    Dreams are elusive. We often forget what they were about, we have difficulties remembering even the tiniest details. For a filmaker to present the dream universe with sound, music and cinematography is enough of a chalange, but to do that with plot structure and the construction of entire story, to show the logic of a dream by using dialogues, objects and symbols - that's a true craft and the most beautiful of arts. I've only saw three movies in my life that achieved that - Cameron Crowe's „Vanilla Sky” and Ingmar Bergman's „Wild Strawberries”. Third one is MD.

    I often read about the movie before I see it. Before watching MD I've read almost everything I could find about it – I knew that David Lynch's films require massive preparation before watching them. And „Mulholland Drive” is one of very few movies that loses absolutely nothing once you know the plot, the ending, all the twist and turns. Because seeing it unravel on a screen is such a unique, fascinating expierience that even though the movie was horribly disturbing, even scaring, I will come back to it many times.

    Naomi Watts's performance is hands down the best performance given by an actress in a leading role I've seen in all my life. Never had I seen the performance that varies so much throughout the movie, yet still remains plausible and gripping – at the beginning of the movie Watts's plays innocent Betty – witty, joyful, naive, with her lovely smile and detective-like curiosity. Then, abruptly, when Diane wakes up Watts's performance switches severely – she presents broken woman, deeply depressed, destroyed by the reality of her life. That role, so brave at certain times in the movie, shines so bright that Academy must indeed be blind. Watts's performance in this film is worth all the awards in the world.

    Laura Harring plays Camilla/Rita, she is incredibly beautiful and she does good job at playing, at first very lost and confused person and the reality-part of the movie, strong, very manipulative woman – I was very impressed that the actress managed to show the nature of Camilla/Diane relationship in just few scenes. The rest of the cast is quite good, but the centre of the movie is of course Betty/Diane.

    Mulholland Drive is an exhausting, fascinating and inspiring work of art. It is more than just a movie – it is an experience. It is also a very beautiful, but incredibly tragic love story that takes place in the city where so many dreams died and so many innocent were lost.

    I think's it's the best Lynch's movie, but I still don't like him. If I ever met the guy I'd run away as fast as I can.

  • Written by sati on 02.04.2010

    Wow. just wow.Tarantino never fails. What I love about him is that all of his movies are different but they all have something in common - his signature tricks - long scenes with amazing climaxes, incredible dialouge. great humour and outstanding music. IB has all of that and more - the true beauty of cinema is shown here. Because of the movies we can show love, death even God or magic. And because of them we can create alternate past. And Tarantino's version of past in this film is brilliant.

    His movies are not supposed to be realistic - they are movies after all. The sequence where the cinema is burning down is so poetic that even if somebody didn't like this movie should take a bow in order to honor Tarantino - the justice is served, maybe only for a few minutes, maybe not in reality, but still - it is served. But my favourite sequence of the movie is truly tiumphant usage of David Bowie's Cat People - this may just be one of my favourite sequences in Tarantino's movies.

    The actors are great - Brad Pitt shows that his comedic talent is incredible, yet again - especially in hilarious 'italian accent' scene, the rest of the Basterds are really good too - especially Til Schweiger as psychotic nazi killer. I liked Christoph Waltz's performance as Hans Landa, although I disagree with the amount of praise he is getting for that role. I know I'm probably the only person to say this but Stanley Tucci deserved Oscar more. Landa is a great character but it is thanks to Tarantino in 60% and only in 40% thanks to Waltz, the actor relies on script and dialogues and those things are so good in Quentin's work truly anyone with menacing enough persona could do as well as Waltz here. The writing was simply that good.

    I kept wondering during the film if Tarantino ever seen 'Wicker Park' - in this movie Diane Kruger's character has a shoe placed on her feet, in the variation of 'Cinderella' and the same scene occurs here, only in dramatically different circumstances.

    I love how Tarantino presents his heroines - it is always graceful and full of admiration. The movie has many things in common with Kill Bill - the chapters, Ennio Morricone's music and the theme of revenge. the story is filmed in the incredible way - the scenes are long but filled with tension - I was expecting any of the characters to snap at any time, and when they finally did the effects were immense.

    This is already one of the best and most memorable movies of the last 20 years.

Reviews written by