Reviews

How can a creature the size of a huge stadium sustain itself by eating the odd horse here or there? That makes no sense whatsoever.

I understand the metaphors but you have to make an entertaining movie too, and this is not it. It starts off by decently building suspense and mystery, but once it's revealed that the "ship" is a creature, all the mystery goes out the window. Nope reminds me of a Wes Anderson movie, in that all scenes seem forced and unnatural. Another major problem for me is that the rules for this thing is never explained, completely removing the ending of its suspense. The creature can't eat you if you are inside a house.... But then it can? Nope reminds me of The Happening, it even has similar themes.

The first one did not by any means have an original story, but at least it had a story! The story in Avatar 2 is all but nonexistent, this feels more like a three hour benchmark video for the latest graphics card.

Jake and Neytiri are more or less supporting characters, the focus is on their children. The movie really shoves the nuclear family agenda down your throat. One wonders if James Cameron has spent too much time in Pandora to realize that the world has changed, and a family doesn't have to be a nuclear family, if one even decides to start a family in the first place.

Jake keeps repeating the gagworthy line "A father protects his family. That's what gives him purpose." Only problem is that throughout the movie he FAILS to protect his children over and over again. Because despite the vomit-inducing family theme, their dumb children break the rules repeatedly. Here would be nice place to have some character development that Avatar 2 sorely lacks. When one of the brats breaks the rules for the umpteenth time in a row, they could come to a conclusion: "Maybe I should actually listen to what my parents say?" They problem then would be that this is the only way that the movie progresses the plot. A child does a stupid thing -> We get "drama".

I saw the movie in HFR, and it boggles the mind why the framerate is so inconsistent? It is very noticeable and takes you out of the action.

The characters have no depth, a big problem when it comes to Jake's identical two sons. They are impossible to tell apart. 14-year old Sigourney Weaver has almost no purpose except the ending, same with Spider.

I think the pre-credits scenes and the first quarter or so of the movie until they go to Cuba, is evocative of Craigs best Bond movies, Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. The more serious Nolan-esque harshness mixed with that little bit of charm. When whats her face takes off her wig the movie nose-dives and never gets back up on its feet again.

When watching the film it is very obvious that there was a lot of re-editing and rewriting done. The main plot is about nanorobots "infecting" people and killing them, as long they match a certain DNA code. Yet when we get to the villain's island lair, he is growing... ? Something? Someone didn't quite think this one through, nanorobots might be microscopic, but they are machines. Growing them makes about as much sense as growing a computer in your garden. The plot must've started out as Safin using his skills with poisonous plants to grow some sort of deadly virus-like weapon to contaminate the world with, but they thought it was too close to the Covid virus that nobody wants to hear about now. So they had to change it, but had probably already filmed all of the scenes on the plant, possibly early on in the production.

The serious tone of the movie's first part is sneakily replaced by a much more goofy Marvel-esque vibe that just leaves a very sour taste in the mouth. In parts it feels more akin to Austin Powers, for example in the scene where all the Spectre agents are killed off. If you took all that time setting up Spectre in the previous film, why just kill them off here like Snoke in The Last Jedi?

Bond is emasculated to the point where it feels like a mercy killing when he dies in the end. Where is the Bond character from the previous 24 movies? The cold-blooded womanizer? Who is this bleeding-heart family man? Please, if you do character development, don't do it for no reason whatsoever after the character has stayed the same for decades.

The most remarkable thing in the movie must have been seeing SUV's being driven not in the center of a city. I fully understand that these movies cost a small nation's GNP to create and that product placement is a must, but come on. That was just 10-minute commercial within the film.

I hope the coming installments in the series can find its way back to the glory days and reinvent them, without resorting to the sort of pandering this film is responsible for.

I've read the book and while it's not the best ever, I liked it. It's an interesting premise although as it turns out the premise of trying to prevent JFK's murder is more of a mcguffin than what the book is actually about. The book sets up Jake's character perfectly by starting off right when his wife has left him and his mood right there and then (he feels bad about it but doesn't cry). This is a perfect introduction to his character, and it's sad how it's handled in the series. He just haphazardly signs the divorce documents and that's it. And they are already at Al's diner where in the book it takes a long time for him to get there. I feel this difference represents well what has gone wrong in the adaptation from the book to the TV mini series. It's very rushed and completely omits many important details when dealing with characters, scenes and places. And it does this over and over again.

In the book the diner scenes are during nighttime, which I feel is VERY important. It adds to the sense of mystery and danger, the sort of film noirish vibe that permeates the entire book. The scenes in the diner in this series are shot during broad daylight. Did the screenwriters even read the book? If they did they certainly didn't "get" it. Al's diner is supposed to be run-down and during it's last legs, a representation of Al's life itself coming close to its end (and Al spending most of his time in the past by going through the rabbit hole). In the series the diner looks 100 percent BRAND NEW. In the book when you go through the rabbit hole you end up in a back lot kind of place where no one can see you (makes sense). In this series they end up in a goddamn crowd of people as if on a stage. You can easily go on and list the horrible omissions and mistakes they've done in every scene out of misunderstanding the source material. A lot of it comes down to poor screen writing, but much of it I think has to do with a limited budget, a book like this demands a big budget or it will fall flat.

I've read King himself has OK'd the changes but that just shows how little he understand the film/TV medium, as if the whole The Shining-debacle didn't prove that beyond any doubt. I made it through two episodes but I'd rather remember the book fondly than continue to waste my time with this poor adaptation.

The series started off very promising with having the war for independence as a interesting backdrop to the main focus on John Adams himself. Having him defend the British soldiers really showed what an idealistic man he was, one with the integrity to one day lead the nation. My main criticism of the series is that it grinds to a halt about halfway through. The war for independence ends and we are left with episodes that are about pretty much nothing.

John Adams himself is portrayed as an unlikeable person, I very much doubt the accuracy of this portrayal. He is pompous, idealistic, ambitious, whiny and has a very short fuse. He seems to lack common sense and humility. It pains me but I think Paul Giamatti is not actor enough to hold up the entire TV series, when the episodes have a sense of direction and urgency as the episodes in the first half do, it's OK. But in the later episodes watching him as a grumpy old man sitting around preaching his idealistic messages, you would have needed someone like Marlon Brando to pull it off.

Sarah Polley was a welcome addition late in the series but she seems too old for the character she plays. John Adams's daughter is supposed to be in her 20's at that point but Sarah Polley looks and acts more like she is in her 30's (she is 30 years old). An interesting side note is that the quality of the episodes was reflected when Swedish Television scheduled the airing of the series. The first episodes were aired more or less at prime time with lots of plugs, when suddenly after an unexplained two week hiatus the series continued at a disclosed, considerably later air time. I certainly do not blame them.

***Spoilers ahead***

I was having a pretty lousy day when I entered the cinema yesterday. And despite James Cameron being one of my favorite directors and Aliens being one of my absolute favorite movies of all time, I was not sure about Avatar. The criticism has been about the story so naturally I was worried that this one would be all fluff but no substance. After having seen the film I can gladly report that is not the case, rather I would say the story and its themes is one of the stronger points about the movie, not considering the fantastic special effects.

It seems unnecessary to recap the story since I'm sure you've all heard it a thousand times by now. To point out a few things about it that no one seems to have talked about I would think is a better thing. All of James Cameron's movies are in some way about dreams. He frequently uses his personal dreams as inspiration for his films, perhaps most famously the idea for the Terminator which he got from a fever dream. This motif is used to its fullest extent in Avatar, where Jake Sully's journeys with his avatar body are like dreams from which he has to wake up. It all takes a fascinating meta-level when you think about our mediated world today and how many things we do just to get away from our real lives: Playing video games, drinking alcohol and of course - going to the movies. The very final scene of the movie is a clear nod to this notion. One could view Jake Sully's very physical disability as an analogy to any sort of disability or disadvantage that would keep a person from doing what they want. In the dream world that Jake flees to he has everything he ever wanted; Adventure, a beautiful potential love interest, "people" or rather Na'vi who care about him and so on. In the grey, cold and lifeless world he comes from, he is just "meat on wheels"; A nobody.

The movie actually leaves you with a bitter sweet feeling. Nobody's existence on this planet can be as wonderful as living on Pandora, much like Jake Sully you don't want to "wake up", but after 166 minutes you have no choice. Thank God you have the option of seeing the film again which I will do for sure, wallet-raping ticket prices for the 3D version or not. It certainly is worth it.

People think the characters are thin and the story is clichéd and predictable, but I could not agree less on all points. To me it seems like a conspiracy, an attempt to bring the film down. I've seen a lot of movies in my days but most of the time I could not predict what was going to happen. The critics seem to be mistaking narrative means of telling a story with clichés. More than anything, the use of familiar themes and shapes for the animals and so on, is a sign of good storytelling by letting the audience recognize the familiar and thereby relate to the film on another level.

In the above tirade about Avatar's story I have not said much about the special effects in the film which of course are outstanding, but they are very seldom there as anything more than a means to an end, just like in any good science fiction film. The same goes for the 3D, they are never just a gimmick where they point something straight into your face, it's just there to add to the whole experience. Avatar is far from a perfect movie, you could easily cut about 30 minutes out of the film and still tell the same story, and some moments are cringe-worthy. But as an experience, which to me is what movies ultimately are about, there is simply nothing that compares to Avatar.

It's truly sad to see the people here that don't understand this movie and take it way too seriously. Mars Attacks is a parody of jingoistic movies like Independence Day and the likes of that film, and a brilliant such. I just love how in complete opposite to films like Armageddon and the mentioned Science Fiction blockbuster, it is the weak normal people with no real power (read: with no money) that come out the winners and get the awards in the end when the materialistic values around them lies in ruins - not the strong male macho heroes we're used to. The Martians themselves are so beautifully politically incorrect it almost hurts, yet in a good way. They have a passionate hatred for the most innocent beings they can find - such as animals and old people - and kill them every opportunity they get. And not once throughout the whole movie do we get an explanation to the Martians evil behavior, that's simply the way they are. Film-making-wise this is pure genius. Danny Elfman's music is awesome, and the special effects are really effective as well - just as fake-looking and cheesy as they should be. People complain about the story but there's really nothing to complain about, like mentioned it's a good story of underdogs and outcasts defeating evil through common sense, while the greedy, power-hungry and egoistic get what's coming to them.

If you like Sci-Fi and have a sense of humor - preferably non-PC satirical and black humor like Monty Python, The Simpsons, American Beauty etc - then this is a film for you. Otherwise you should stay away from this one and go back to brain-dead films like Air Force One or Team America: World Police which don't need the viewer to think, where the current system is applauded and the reason that the day is saved in the end.

** SPOILERS **

Before I start with the review I'd like to make clear that I am a huge fan of anything that has anything to do with zombie films. I see all I can get my hands on, whether they get good or bad reviews and whether I've heard anything about them or not. Shan of the Dead seemed like a cool idea for a movie, at least prior to when I saw the trailer. After seeing the trailer I thought I'd give it a chance anyway. Something not recommended to others, since that's those 99 minutes of your life that you're never going to get back.

One of the main problems with this movie is the characters. For good drama you need suitable characters to move the story forward. Shaun of the Dead lacks this vital component. In many instances it's hard to tell what the screenwriter was thinking. The following characters inherit this film: The main character Shaun. He is an ugly loser with nothing going for him. He feels sorry for himself the whole film through all the way to the ending, but it's really his own fault that he is a big loser. Shaun has a friend who lives off him and Shaun's other roommate. This guy is a lazy, fat and disgusting slob with no sense of responsibility whatsoever. I forgot to mention that he deals marijuana as his only way of income. Adorable, isn't it? Shaun's second roommate has a job (!!), a sense of responsibility and seems to know what's right or wrong. Constantly throughout the short period of time that this character still survives, he is being called names behind his back by his "friends", and he is the one who dies first.

Hold up a second here. Something's wrong. The unsympathetic main characters are morons who nobody can identify with, and the only sensible person in the trio gets killed off quickly. You can't build a movie like this. If you can't identify yourself with the protagonists, you won't care what happens to this and then the movie will not draw you in. I won't bore you with descriptions the rest of the characters, but it's basically the same drill as with the ones I've already mentioned.

Another problem with the film is that it's a bit schizophrenic in the sense that it doesn't know what kind of movie it wants to be. It certainly is no romantic comedy, because 1. Let's face it: How romantic are zombies, really? and 2. It's a failed attempt at comedy since very few jokes actually are funny. Maybe the last one is because it's a British sort of humor that I don't 'get'. Anyway, the up until the last 20 minutes, the movie tries to be a comedy, then however it gets 100 percent serious and turns into some sort of splatter-horror-drama. This film is not a good film, and it's one of the worst zombie films I've seen and I've seen some pretty bad ones.