Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 (2010) Review

director: David Yates

writer: Steve Kloves

starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint

genre: Adventure, Fantasy

Let's just get this out of the way there will never be a great film based on a Harry Potter book. Many people who are not fans and of course have not read the book might have a different opinions based on the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I. Some say they wanted to see the whole movie together instead of watching part I and part II. Personally I agree with that, but there is a reason why they made the movies in parts. Besides getting more profit but also to keep all of us in the loop of what is going to happen next (trust me it’s worth waiting for)! Suspicion will drive you crazy for those who have not read the books. My advice is wait to see Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2.

Clash of the Titans (2010)

director: Louis Leterrier

writers: Lawrence Kasdan, Travis Beacham, Phil Hay, Matt Manfredi

starring: Sam Worthington, Gemma Arterton, Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes

genre: Action, Fantasy, Remake

Why is it that I cant understand people reaction and feelings to a movie sometimes? Is my view to skewed or they not seeing it correctly? Probably both. People's reaction to "Clash of the Titans" was of disappointment and contempt. When I hear that I ask myself why? What were people expecting from a Hollywood remake, which the trailer just showed off silly action with bad music?. I wasn't expecting anything in particular. What did they expect this to be the movie event of the year? Of course it would have never been. But people were expecting something and got nothing. I was expecting nothing and I got something. Clash of the Titans is a very well made action film and nothing more.

Im unable to compare this remake with its original of the 1981 as I haven't seen it. The story though I think it follows closely to the original. Perseus (Sam Worthington) is born a demigod and son of Zeus (Liam Neeson). Found by a fisherman he lives the life of a everyman. During this time the relationship between Gods and Man is at arms length. Provaction from both sides show a possible war or conflict near. Perseus human family becomes collateral damage in the war and his fate resides in the hands of the humans of the city of Argos. There he will realize his true nature as a demigod and decide where his allegiance lies with Gods or men. With help from a mysterious woman Io (Gemma Arterton) and the warriors of Argos, Perseus is on a mission to save Argos and to stop the underworld God Hades (Ralph Fiennes) sick plot.

First let me get the films negatives out of the way. First off about the 3D. Many people went to see the film with the expecation that it was a full 3D movie and instead were cheated. Titans as with many other films have been marketed as 3D when theyve been only converted to 3D and not filmed in 3D. Meaning its not 3D as you would expect it in Avatar. Another negative is plot progression. It falls to the cliche of our hero being the everyman who by chance is put in the right place in the right time to become the hero and save the day. But you cant be mad with that because its mythological tale and they are all tailored tales of glory, success and tragedy.

The biggest negative i saw with the film is that all these Hollywood films are made with the hope of being a franchise. To be the next Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. Instead of making a story where you get know the characters, they rush to the action of an epic story that the title character is a super hero and that he is worth seeing again and again. This formula is not the right one if to pursue a franchise. Imagine if in Lord of the Rings we didnt spend 40 minutes in the Shire with the Hobbits. That was there so we could understand what there fighting about. Also imagine if Frodo had no characterization? Why he was in love with the shire, and his uncle. That's Titans biggest problem. They rely on a few lines of dialogue to be enough to progress a story. Also theres the fact that the film is all about Gods vs Men but we never get a reason why there is this. What did the Gods do? Why are the humans so furious with the gods? Things like this affect a story, a film and the future of a franchise.

Now these are the problems I have with the film. Lets take about the problem others may have and do have. For example that Titans is too silly of a film with things like people riding on giant Scorpions. Personally I don't find that as a reason for a film to be bad. Lord of Rings had Legolas kill a giant Elephant with 12 guys on it. But people liked that film and excuse it. It's fantasy people, flying horses, a woman with hair with snakes. Why be picky? Other negatives is the way they treat mythology and the performances. Well I personally didn't see the degradation of Greek mythology or any Razzie Award style performances. I might be defending this film but it's because of the unrelenting thrashing it has gotten that I personally believe it didnt deserve. The effects were spectacular, the action was pretty good, performances and actors were adequate, the direction was just about right, music was better than excepted for a action film and the story was good but lacking in pacing, characterization and empathy for characters and story. Besides that the film was fine. Didnt see glaring plot holes, mispoken lines, or shaddy production elements which is all I'm saying.

Clash of the Titans may be the most punished film of the year yet and wrongly so in my opinion. I enjoyed the film very much and woulndt mind at all to see this franchise continue. There is great potential of course with better writers hired for future films. To all the naysayers who thrash on these kind of film is just stop being so harsh. Especially to films that never said they were going to be the best or when the films weren't hyped too big to you could be disappointed. You went in a film with grand hopes and with no effort of knowing what you got into you came out disappointed. Next time don't hype the film without reason and especially from a Hollywood film that is not made by a grande director and never contested to changing cinema as did Avatar did. Avatar had been super hyped and many of the mass didn't expect anything and got something. See the difference?

Personal Rating:

Review by Paul

the Twilight Saga: Eclipse (2010)

director: David Slade

writer: Melissa Rosenberg

starring: Robert Pattison, Kirsten Stewart, Taylor Lautner

genre: Fantasy, Romance

Twilight is known as the never-ending love triangle between Bella (Kristen Stewart), Jacob (Taylor Lautner), and Edward (Robert Pattinson) and continues in the latest addition to the Twilight saga in the third film Eclipse. Although I must say I am not a fan of Twilight , this by far has been the best movie of the series in my opinion.

In Eclipse, Bella once again finds herself surrounded by danger as Seattle is ravaged by a string of mysterious killings and the malicious vampire known as Victoria continues her quest for revenge against Bella. In the midst of it all, Bella is forced to choose between her love for Edward and her friendship with Jacob , knowing that her decision has the potential to ignite the struggle between vampires and werewolfs. With her graduation quickly approaching, Bella is confronted with the most important decision of her life.

It's by far the best movie of the series so far. It has managed to blend the melodrama and action to create a superb movie that makes the most of all resources put into it. The actors are finally given the chance to shine and to deliver, while the secondare characters are brought into focus without having the story lose that sense of emergency.

In the Twilight Saga: Eclipse, you cant have anything exciting like blood and gory death scenes as we are all acustomed to in other vampire movies (ex. Blade). Instead in this movie the vampires get their heads ripped off and instantly turn into mannequins injuries (personally they could have done better ). Unfortunately Melissa Rosenbergs script isnt helping with the whole idea of vampirers and wolves because simply the whole material of the movie is based on romance for preteen girls and brainwashed housewives mesmerized by Jacobs abs (who could not say no to Jacobs abs?) and glitter paint (sorry not a fan of glitter boys). In terms of special effects it's a definite imrovement and can be noticed with the fights between wolves and vampires.

Although Rosenberg's writing has never been the problem in the series generally, the credit for the success of the “Eclipse” should probably go to the third director of the series, David Slade. He finally wrapped up the indulgence in this teenage girl fantasy , that two hight school hunks are in love with her and willing to die for her, exept,of course that one is already undead. Enjoy the film!

Personal Rating:

Review by Danai725

Alice In Wonderland (2010)

director: Tim Burton

writer: Linda Woolverton

starring: Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Ann Hathaway, Crispin Glover

genre: Fantasy

From the announcement of this film and of Burton/Depp's involvement I was completely disinterested in the project. Why would I want to see Burton's take a on a children's book? As if he was the right choice to handle the film, as if hes the right guy to get the adaption right?Anyway, besides the usual mis-comings of a Tim Burton film it still manages to be funny and incredible visual experience.

Alice in Wonderland continues from the first book's story of the same name and completely derails from the second book' story "Through the Looking Glass" and continues on a new path. Here Alice (Mia Wasikowska) is grown up and a young woman. She is faced with responsibilities and decisions. Once again the rabbit manages to make her fall again through the rabbit hole. There she will return to find Wonderland much different then her last visit. She will find devastation under the Red Queen's rule and a prophecy of her freeing the land from the Red Queen and slaying the Jabberwocky. Its up to Alice to believe that it is not a dream and to help the Mad Hatter and the White Queen's side.

Im not familiar to 100% with the books but do know that Burton didnt give a rats ass about them and only about his vision. Like every film of Burton's i get so tired of his insistence to turn them into a gothic, visual, bleak, looney wonderland. This crazy desire of his to take existing material and just Tim Burtonsize it. He did it with Batman, Planet of the Apes and now with Alice.Also lets not forget the fact that he always casts Johnny Depp. Im not saying he's a bad actor. But they go overboard with collaborations and all the looney characters Depp has to play.

The film will sell itself with its marketing campaign with Burton and Depp's name spread all over. People will act like the visuals have never been seen before yet and that Depp will strike it out of the park once again with his sensational performances. Which im going to have to spoil you fans that Depp's performance here is mediocre. His acting is mysterious, awkward and feels out of place. This is not the kind of Mad Hatter i wanted to see. And for some reason he changes his voice and accent for no apparent reason in the film. Also there is a horrendous dance sequence at the end of the film by Depp which seeing it again will make me want to vomit.

Last i would like to beg and hope for Tim Burton to stop making these kinds of films. The man is talented but too full of himself and his artistic expressionism. Why cant he make more films in line of Ed Wood and Big Fish his best films. Why do people have fanatize with his mediocre films like Corpse Bride, Nightmare on Elm Street or Charlie in the Chocolate Factory. When Burton doesn't let himself go overboard and pays more attention to script and story he makes good films. Either he cant help himself or its just too much to ask of him to do better.

To conclude it really depends on your taste of Tim Burton's art and vision. People that are fans of the book should look elsewhere as Burton didn't try to make faithful adaption. And Burton lovers will eat this up and praise Burton as a God or better yet a visionary. For me it was once again another waist of time in Burton making the same kind of films and constantly repeating himself.

Personal Rating:

Review by Paul

Where the Wild Things Are (2009)

director: Spike Jonze

writers: Spike Jonze, Dave Egger's, based on Maurice Sendak’s book

starring: Max Records, Catherine Keener, James Gandolfini, Paul Dano, Catherine O‘Hara, Forest Whitaker, Chris Cooper, Lauren Ambrose

genre: Adventure/Drama/Family/Fantasy

Πού είναι όλα τα άγρια πράγματα; Ίσως στο μυαλό του κάθε ανθρώπου και παιδιού ειδικότερα. Τουλάχιστον αυτό είναι το νόημα που προσπαθεί να μας περάσει το Where the wild things are. Αλλά στα της ταινίας:

Ο Max μετά από ένα καβγά με τη μητέρα του αποχωρεί με μια βάρκα σε ένα απομονωμένο μέρος της φαντασίας του. Εκεί συναντάει μια παρέα άγριων πραγμάτων, τα οποία όμως υποφέρουν από πολλά κοινωνικά και ψυχολογικά προβλήματα. Μετά από έντονες στιγμές ο Max γίνεται αρχηγός τους με την ελπίδα να διώξει όλα τα σύννεφα μακριά.

Μπορεί το στόρι να σας ακούγεται ολίγον τρελό και θηριώδες αλλά το Where the wild things are αποτελεί μια πολύ καλή συγκινητική και ιδιαίτερα ανθρώπινη ταινία, η οποία παλεύει με ιδέες όπως η μοναξιά, η φιλία, ο έρωτας, η απογοήτευση, ο θυμός και πώς όλα αυτά παίρνουν σάρκα και οστά δημιουργώντας κάποια τέρατα στη φαντασία ενός μικρού παιδιού. Παρόλο βέβαια που όλη η ιδέα προέρχεται από ένα παιδικό βιβλίο, το αποτέλεσμα μόνο για παιδιά δεν ενδείκνυται αφού οι εφιάλτες είναι σίγουροι.

Αφού ξεκαθάρισα σε ποιο κοινό απευθύνεται η ταινία μπορώ να πω ότι με γοήτευσε ιδιαίτερα. Σε όλες τις σκηνές νοιώθεις τη συναισθηματική ένταση που υπάρχει και σε πολλά σημεία συμπάσχεις με τους ήρωες. Μεγάλο προσόν σε μια ταινία ,η οποία με το έξοχα στημένο σκηνικό της και την απίστευτη μουσική της, με τα παιδικά φωνητικά να κυριαρχούν, θα μπορούσε να γίνει ένα αριστούργημα. Σε αυτό το σημείο πρέπει να τονίσω την μεγάλη ερμηνεία του Max Records στον του ρόλο του μικρού Max, που ανεβάζει αυτή τη ταινία πολλά σκαλιά.

Είναι λοιπόν αυτή η ταινία ένα αριστούργημα;

Θα μπορούσε αλλά πάντα υπάρχει ένα αλλά. Το τέλος της ταινίας με άφησε με μεγάλα ερωτήματα για το προς τα πού ήθελε να πάει και τι μηνύματα θέλουν να περάσουν οι δημιουργοί, καθώς όπως διάβασα το τέλος είναι αλλαγμένο σε σχέση με το παιδικό βιβλίο άρα και η λύση του δράματος όπως διαπίστωσα.

Εν κατακλείδι το Where the wild things are αποτελεί μια ταινία που αξίζει την προσοχή σας και μάλιστα αρκετή από αυτήν γιατί είναι ένα είδος ταινίας που σπάνια βλέπουμε στις αίθουσες. Επιλέξτε να τη δείτε μόνο όταν έχετε όρεξη για μια αργή και έντονη ταινία και προφανώς να μην την υποτιμήσετε θεωρώντας την μια παιδική ανεμελιά!

Καλή Προβολή!!!!

Personal Rating:

Review by Gamapi

Avatar (2009)

director: James Cameron

writer: James Cameron

starring: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang

genre: Action, Adventure, Fantasy

After all the hype and 12 years since Titanic, James Cameron's Avatar is finally in cinemas. Was it worth all the wait and hype to see his new film? In many ways it was. Few directors can take the most common story threads and still bring something new to the table. The story isnt new, there are no big twists in the film, but the environment, the atmosphere, the idea and world that Cameron wanted to bring us is what makes Avatar joy to see.

As youve seen from the posters and trailers Avatar deals and is about some blue people. But in more detail, its the story of soldier Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) and his adventure on the planet Pandora. Pandora is used for mining by big companies with contracts with the military. The problem on Pandora is the natives and their peculiar relationship to the planet. Jake is their due to his twin brothers death. The scientists were bringing to the table a diplomatic solution threw the creation of Avatar-bodies that would be controlled by humans but look and feel like the native Na'vi. The problem with the Avatars was the DNA restriction to one person entering the avatar. Here's were Jake comes into play. At the start its almost like being back home for Jake. Once a a grunt and proud soldier boy, now back in duty after the loss of his legs. With hopes getting his legs back and being a soldier again he sees that Pandora is a special place and not only for the Navi but also for him. He will have to choose what road to take and what he truly wants from his life and for the land of Pandora.

12 years was too long for James Cameron to make another film. He took his sweet time. He did this so he could make Avatar at the best specific time for the effects. My complaint is that he still could have done another film in the meantime. But now that he managed to make it. He made another epic and glorious film. Avatar is the definition of a good Hollywood blockbuster film. Only in the hands of the greats do these films ever matter. Action is great. All the actors make us believe in the world and fast pace of adventure doesn't ever really get you bored by the 3 hour mark.

Most obvious aspect of the film is the effects job. First, their the best of the year and it shows you where special effects are today and how they can be used in the right hands. Because we all know how effects can be put to bad used. Like Transformers. But Avatar couldn't be a great film just with its phenomenal effects. The story is solid, due to the well written script by Cameron that utilizes and structures the film in a very well manner. From the start of the film you understand the key elements of the story and get to know the characters, so by the end of the film you feel for them and their adventure.

Now about the 3D. I didn't see the film in 3D. A negative do to the full experience that 3D offers. Ive never been a fan of 3D and consider it a cheap trick to make you like the film more, because with out the 3D its crap. Case in point My Bloody Valentine. See that without 3D and its just a crappy film. For me a film is a good as it is in the normal format. Maybe if i had seen it in 3D i would have glorified the film for what it does with the tech it has. Due to the fact its not normal 3D. Its James Cameron's own tech 3D. But the negatives with 3D are you pay more and maybe get dizzy from the glasses. So its up to you. Without 3D the film is a-ok to see.

Avatar in the end is a beautiful film to see. Most people will be blown away by the world and creatures. I just loved the ride. I'm just hoping that Cameron dosent take another 12 years to make his next film. Because 12 years of waiting for a film that was not a masterpiece isn't worth the wait. He still could have done something in the meantime instead of his silly water documentaries. But that's beside the point. Avatar is worth spending your money to go see it the theaters. So go and see Avatar and experience the beauty of what is Pandora!

Personal Rating:

Review by Paul

The Twilight Saga: New Moon (2009)

director: Chris Weitz

writers: Melissa Rosenberg

starring: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner

genre: Drama, Fantasy, Romance

Twilight fever has been high. Audiences (little girls) all over the world going bananas for this film. Now compared to the first film why did New Moon get these huge numbers? Did it actually manage to be a better film than the first, did it make the franchise be respected amongst serious movie goers? No and no and of course hell no. New Moon is actually a worse film than its predecessor with silly drama, mixed romances and odd plot direction.

The story continues from were the first film left off. Bella (Kristen Stewart) is still infatuated with Edward (Robert Pattinson) and enjoying life with their soap operish dialogue. After she gets a paper-cut on her birthday at the Vampire Cullen house, she gets attacked by one of the vampires. This event becomes a revelation to Edward who now sees that he and his family are danger to her. Bella now lost goes super dramatic but finds her old friend Jacob (Taylor Lautner) with muscles. Now she feels much better with Jacob but jinxed as she finds out that he is a werewolf. And from there the story goes for Bella to decide what she really wants, the werewolf or Edward the vampire.

I was actually one of the few people that didn't have that much of a problem with the first film. It wasn't as terrible as some people made it out to be. So I actually was going in with good expectations for New Moon. But after the weird things I heard about the film and the bad trailer, my expectations went the way of the dodo. The film manages to be at the same entertainment level of the first film but much more annoying with idiotic and awkward moments. Most of which were purposefully put for little girls to go ape shit.

With the second film a new director came to the project and brought practically nothing new to it. The only part where i can see any significant change from the first film was with the small action scenes that were of better quality and not as amateur. But that is of no excuse for him for putting shots of Edward with his shirt blowing in the wind or Jacob taking his shirt off on purpose to show off his six pack.

But that's not even the cherry on the cake. The major problem of this film is the treatment of Bella's character into psycho. Due to Edward leaving her, she goes crazy. She starts seeing him everywhere. Now she wants to do idiotic things so she can see him again. Forgetting about her friends and screaming in her sleep. Really? If the filmmakers thought that all of this would be a good message for the a young teenage audience of how a woman should act to rejection than bravo. Because its disgraceful. There's is no admirable characteristic to Bella with her crazy behavior. And im not even going into detail about the whole Vampire and Werewolf mythos that is dealed within the film. Because its here there and everywhere.

To conclude the film manages to be worse than the first. There is no reason to see this film. Save your money and rent this instead of seeing it at the cinema. This film was made for girls who still haven't grown up or realized what love, commitment, passion or sex is. And lets not forget the older women who are suckers for romantic novels and for romantic films without caring about the quality of the material.

Personal Rating:

Review by Paul

Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus(2009)

director: Terry Gilliam

writers: Terry Gilliam, Charles McKeown

starring: Heath Ledger, Christopher Plummer, Lily Cole, Tom Waits, Verne Troyer, Andrew Garfield, Johny Depp, Collin Farrell, Jude Law

genre: Adventure, Fantasy

Μια αυλαία ανεβαίνει έξω από ένα παρηκμασμένο κλαμπ του Λονδίνου και έτσι ξεκινάει η εξιστόρηση της ιστορίας του Doctor Parnassus (Christopher Plummer), ενός ανθρώπου που έκανε μια συμφωνία με τον διάολο ώστε να ζήσει αιώνια και να αποκτήσει μια μοναδική δύναμη. Την δύναμη να ελέγχει την φαντασία των ανθρώπων. Όμως η αθανασία και η δύναμη ήρθαν με ένα τεράστιο κόστος. Τη ψυχή της κόρης του, η οποία θα ανήκει στο διάολο στα 16 της χρόνια. Καθώς λοιπόν λίγες μέρες απομένουν για τα 16α γενέθλια της Valentina (Lily Cole) ο Parnassus προσπαθεί με τη βοήθεια ενός αγνώστου ονόματι Tony (Heath Ledger) , ο οποίος έχει ένα αμφίβολο παρελθόν, να τη σώσει.

Μπορώ να πω ότι αυτή τη ταινία την περίμενα πολύ καιρό να τη δω, και η ψυχολογία μου όταν μπήκα στην αίθουσα ήταν παραπάνω από τέλεια. Η αρχή της ταινίας με ικανοποίησε πλήρως. Πανέμορφοι τίτλοι και υποβλητική αρχή με διαβεβαίωσαν ότι θα απολαύσω ένα απίστευτο δίωρο. Αλλά δυστυχώς αυτή η αίσθηση δε κράτησε για πολύ…

Το μόνο πρόβλημα της ταινίας είναι το σενάριο. Ένα σενάριο που σε κουράζει και επαναλαμβάνεται αδιάκοπα καθώς εξαπλώνεται και πέραν της βασικής ιστορίας που όντας κλασσική ιδέα μπορούσε και μπορεί να προσφέρει ακόμα πολύ καλές ταινίες. Αποτέλεσμα λοιπόν αυτού του υπέραναπτυγμένου και βαριού σεναρίου είναι να παλεύει ο θεατής για να καταλάβει τι γίνεται ενώ χάνει πανέμορφες εικόνες της ταινίας.

Για τα υπόλοιπα κομμάτια της ταινίας δε μπορώ να πω τίποτε άλλο από Αριστούργημα. Σκηνοθεσία και κάμερα τόσο όμορφη και φαντασμαγορική όπως μόνο ο Terry Gilliam θα μπορούσε να επιδείξει, όπως έχει κάνει και στις άλλες ταινίες του. Εικόνες και Animation που θα σας γοητεύσουν και πραγματικά παρακαλούσα να κολλήσει ο προτζέκτορας ώστε να μπορέσω να δω όλες τις λεπτομέρειες της πανδαισίας χρωμάτων και εικόνων.

Η ηθοποιία ήταν εξίσου καλή με όλους του βασικούς πρωταγωνιστές να δίνουν από τις καλύτερες ερμηνείες της ζωής τους. Ιδιαίτερα εντυπωσιασμένος έμεινα από τους Heath Ledger και Lily Cole. Ο πρώτος έδωσε μια ερμηνεία υπόδειγμα εξίσου καλή με αυτή του σκοτεινού ιππότη. Πραγματικά κρίμα για τον κινηματογράφο που έχασε αυτόν τον ηθοποιό. Η Lily Cole με την απίστευτη κουκλίστικη ομορφιά της αλλά και με μια ερμηνεία που με εξέπληξε πραγματικά έδωσε στη ταινία άλλη υπόσταση. Ο Christopher Plummer απλά έδωσε αυτό που περίμενα, μια άψογη ερμηνεία που τιμάει την καριέρα του.

Τέλος οι αντικαταστάτες του Heath Ledger έδωσαν ότι περίμενα από τον καθένα, παίζοντας τα διάφορα πρόσωπα του Ledger στις διάφορες φαντασίες . Ο Johny Depp στα λίγα δευτερόλεπτα, άντε λεπτά, που παίζει πραγματικά δεν δίνει τίποτα εκτός από έναν διάλογο. Ο Jude Law ,αν και ηθοποιός που δεν συμπαθώ ιδιαίτερα, έχει καταφέρει να με βάλει σε σκέψη για την κρίση μου με τις τελευταίες εμφανίσεις του, που όπως και σε αυτή ταινία ξετυλίγουν πτυχές ενός πολύ καλού ταλέντου. Ο Collin Farrell που είναι και ο αντικαταστάτης με τα περισσότερα λεπτά του συμμετοχής δίνει άλλη μια πολύ καλή ερμηνεία.

Εν κατακλείδι λοιπόν η ταινία καταφέρνει με κόπο να μη γίνει αριστούργημα ενώ με ένα ελάχιστα αλλαγμένο σενάριο θα μπορούσε να κλέψει τις εντυπώσεις τις φετινής χρονιάς. Αυτό που ίσως κατάστρεψε την ταινία είναι ίσως ο θάνατος του Ledger . Από μια ταινία ανεξάρτητης παραγωγής μετατράπηκε εν μία νυκτί σε κύκνειο άσμα του αδικοχαμένου ηθοποιού. Αν θέλετε να δείτε κάτι σοβαρό και καλό τότε σας προτείνω ανεπιφύλακτα την ταινία. Αν όμως θέλετε να περάσετε ένα ξένοιαστο βράδυ τότε πραγματικά αποφύγετε να δείτε αυτό το έργο.

Καλή Προβολή!!!!





Review by Gamapi

Twilight (2008)

director: Cathrine Hardwicke

writer: Melissa Rosenberg

starring: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson

genre: Fantasy, Thriller

I never stop myself from seeing a movie necessarily because its bad or even popular. Twilight was one of the films that avoided at start but my curiosity slowly started arising. The frenzy that went on for this film by little girls and older women was huge. Now that the second film is coming out I thought I should indulge myself to my curiosity and see what this is all about. And the truth is it wasn’t that bad.

The story is about Bella (Kristen Stewart) who moves to the town of Forks with her father. There she has to reestablish her self with a new life away from her mom and with new friends, challenges to look up to. As she starts to get used to the environment she gets a weird vibe from this kid Edward (Robert Pattinson). After many weird encounters the two of them, they both see that something drives them together. As their connection grows Edward makes the revelation that he is a vampire. But all is not that bad, as Bella will find out that there are a lot of secrets in the small new town of hers. And her love for Edward will grow but at a cost.

You will be wondering how could I like this film, how could I like a tween drama with vampires? Will because it wasn’t bad. The drama is done properly, the acting is satisfactory, the romance and the school scenes are all realistic, funny, cute and never too cheesy. I mean yes there were a couple of clichés and some stupid moments I can mention but let us remember who this film was made for. And for who it was made for its really good. For others it could be considered low quality but that’s a stretch.

After saying some of the good stuff let me talk about the bad stuff. The film as well as it is its still kind of amateur. When Edward finally reveals he is Vampire is has some of worst exposition ever. He acts like a complete moron and jumps from tree to tree like Tarzan. The effects are pretty cheap. Vampires run as if they were the Flash and not high powered Vampires. Also I have a couple complaints about the authors idea on Vampires. Vampires don’t have fangs which is kind of stupid and the reason they don’t go into the sun is because there shiny and there skin turns to diamonds. How silly and crazy addition is that to the Vampire mythos. That they look like diamonds, is that the best she could do.

Now let me talk about the haters of this film and the people that love this film so dearly. Hating this film without seeing it is wrong. Its easy to bash something when its popular and not of your age group. But dont talk bad about the film, talk bad about the kids that are seeing this film. That’s the problem, that kids think this film to be good and cool. And really Id like to know what they really think is cool. Oh yeah I know the vampire dude. Why because he's hot and he's a vampire. Haven't mothers realized that there tween kids liking a film because subconsciously they want to have sex with him. Are people this unconscious to realize these simple facts. I mean they don’t like the film for its realistic portrayal of school and friends or family. Just because of a silly romance that could never happen. Its like the Jonas Brothers, why are girls into them, for the same reason.

To conclude the film is ok. Its kind of fun and never gets too boring. This film could never have been great because of the books low standard as literature. But things could have been avoided to make things better like the effects that were mediocre, the small and little action scenes or some bad dialogue from the Vampires. Even the silly Edward scenes were hes acting like crazy dude. If all of that were missing this would have a cool and memorable film.

Personal Rating:

Review by Paul

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince (2009)

director: David Yates

writer: Steven Kloves

starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Michael Gambon, Rupert Grint

genre: Adventure. Fantasy

Since i didnt like the last Harry Potter film I was going into this one with low expectations. Which was a good thing because i did enjoy this film. I admire it for its many great attributes but can not forget about its many flaws and issues that still that persist since the last film. Many I believe will enjoy this film but others will be scratching their heads for the weird manner some of the scenes in film are filmed and the odd mix of main story and subplots.

The film continues from the events of the last film with Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) now having to deal with his godfathers death and the death eaters rise in strength. Now more grown up he develops a even more bonded relationship with Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) and both have the common goal to to put Voldermort's evil to rest. But school never stops at Hogwarts and he and his friends Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) have to deal with school and new found feelings for their close ones. Throughout the film we deal with the mystery of Hogwarts new teacher Slughorn (Jim Broadbent), the conflicted past of Voldermort and true nature of many characters like Snape and Malfoy . But once secrets are unraveled and evil is close, Harry and his friends will have to find hope and continue to believe that fight is not over.

My problems with last film was the annoying plot of the new teacher even though well played was silly and childish for me. Also the sudden leap in the end to the dark. Here David Yates corrects his mistakes and fits both the happy Hogwarts with the core dark story. But where he fails is in the simple transitions from scene to scene. There are scenes like for example Harry and Malfoy little fight were right after the fight there is no explanation to what is going to happen and is treated as if it can resolve in the background and is if the scene never happened. Or sudden cuts were you don’t realize how one scene jumped to the other. All of this could have been on purpose or it feels like this because it seems like something is missing. Is it deleted scenes or is it needed scenes that were not filmed. It’s probably a little of both and it make a severe dent at the films plot development.

There were Yates made some lousy choices he did make some inspired ones with the choosing of cinematographer Bruce Delbonnel who could be up for award for his great job of making the whole film have a dark atmosphere that totally suits the film and makes us feel that death is around the corner. Also Yates handling of the most dramatic scenes of the film and of action are done extraordinary well and praise is deserved. Even though the Hogwarts romantic subplots were a bit murky, they were not bad in quality and had a lot of funny jokes. The problem was that it took more time from interesting dark story that most of us are interested with.

Also I have to praise some of the good aspects of the script. The relationship of Harry- Dumbledore which was taking to new heights was great. Snapes development though a little sudden was incredibly well played and later in the film very well placed. The new teacher Slughorn played by Broadbent also is a welcome addition to the already great English cast. Because of the quality of these actors they make this story, environment and all around magic come to life. Generally a great production job on the film fully.

The Half Blood Prince was a mixed bag but a good film. Messy subplots, some unnecessary scenes, weird cuts from scene to scene and a lack of more interesting situations for the core characters is what lead me down with the film. I do believe Yates can do a better job with the next films but I would be more hopeful with another director at the helm instead of the same guy for the last 4 Harry Potter films.

Personal Rating:

Review by Paul

Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (2009)

Director : Mark Waters

Writer : Jon Lucas | Scott Moore

Starring : Matthew McConaughey | Jennifer Garner | Michael Douglas | Emma Stone

Genre : Comedy | Romance | Fantasy

Η Ιστορία :

Διάσημος και συνάμα γοητευτικός φωτογράφος, με ιδιαίτερη αδυναμία στις γυναίκες, παίρνει το μάθημα που του αρμόζει λόγω του άσχημου τρόπου του απέναντι στις όποιες σχέσεις είχε κατά καιρούς στην ζωή του. Σε αυτό βοηθάει το φάνασμα του θείου/μέντορά του, σε συνεργασία με τα φαντάσματα τριών γυναικών, που αντιπροσωπεύουν τα τρία κυρίαρχα σημεία της ζωής του. Έτσι, όταν αυτός καλείται στον γάμο του αδερφού του, βρίσκεται αντιμέτωπος με την θεία δίκη και καλείται να αλλάξει τον τρόπο ζωής του, όπως επίσης και την αντιμετώπιση του προς τις γυναίκες.

Η Κριτική :

Όταν διάβασα την υπόθεση η αλήθεια είναι ότι παραξενεύτηκα, μιας και το όλο αυτό ερωτικό παραμυθάκι δεν μου φάνηκε και τόσο κοινότυπο και τολμώ να πώ ότι περίμενα να δω κάτι το αξιόλογο από τον McConaughey για πρώτη φορά στην κινηματογραφική του καριέρα.

Μάταια όμως..Το Ghosts of Girlfriends Past δεν είναι τίποτε άλλο από ένα μετριότατο πάντρεμα των κλασσικών αμερικάνικων ρομαντικών κομεντί, μαζί με την γνωστή σε όλους μας ιστορία του Κάρολου Ντίκενς, που σε συνεργασία με το πρότυπο που πέρασε το Sex And The City (εδώ παρουσιάζεται μέσω του αντρικού πρίσματος), καταντά άλλη μια συνηθισμένη απόπειρα χωρίς τίποτα το ιδιαίτερο να σου προσφέρει.

Ήρωας μας είναι το και καλά πετυχημένο ρεμάλι/γυναικάς, που παίρνει μαθήματα ζωής και στο τέλος καταλήγει ένας εντελώς αλλαγμένος άνθρωπος. Άν έχετε παρακολουθήσει την φιλμογραφία του McConaughey δεν θα παραξενευτείτε καθόλου, μιας και στην ουσία δεν έχει κάνει και τίποτε το διαφορετικό.

Το Ghosts of Girlfriends Past προσωπικά με έκανε να αναρωτηθώ τον λόγο που το είδα και η αλήθεια είναι ότι (χωρίς να φανώ καθόλου υπερβολικός) το άξιζε σε κάθε του λεπτό. Η ταινία δεν έιναι καθόλου μα καθόλου ρομαντική και όσο και αν προσπαθεί να φανεί αστεία δεν το καταφέρνει , μιας και επιστρατεύεται μια αλληλουχιά απανωτών αμερικάνικων κλισέ, που το μόνο που καταφέρνουν είναι να σε κάνουν να αναρωτηθείς αν είναι όντως αστεία, ή εσύ δεν καταφέρνεις να τα καταλάβεις!

Εντύπωση μου έκανε το πως ο Michael Douglas δέχτηκε να παίξει σε αυτό το εγχείρημα και πόσο μάλλον σε αυτόν τον τυπικότατο ρόλο. Εδώ υποδύεται τον υπέρτατο για την εποχή του γυναικά θείο του McConaughey, που όταν οι γονείς του πέθαναν σε αυτοκινητιστικό ανέλαβε την κηδεμονία των δύο αδερφών και κατάφερε να γαλουχήσει στον δικό του τρόπο ζωής τον μεγαλύτερο αδερφό. Στην συνέχεια όμως και ενώ έχει πεθάνει μόνος και έρημος καταλαβαίνει ότι όλο αυτό ήταν ένα λάθος ζωής και στοιχειώνει τον ανηψιό του, βλέποντας ότι και αυτός έτσι θα καταλήξει.

Όπως σε κάθε ταινία τέτοιου είδους υπάρχει και η γυναίκα που ο πρωταγωνιστής δεν μπορεί να αντισταθεί και όλα όσα προσπαθεί να πετύχει γυρίζουν γύρω από αυτήν. Τον “κλασσικό” αυτό ρόλο τον παίζει η γνωστή σε τέτοιες απόπειρες Jennifer Garner, που όσο και αν με την προφανή γλυκύτητα που εκπέμπει επιχειρεί να σώσει την όλη προσπάθεια, δεν καταφέρνει τίποτε άλλο, παρά από το να γίνει άλλος ένας τυπικός χαρακτήρας αμερικάνικης pop corn movie.

Βέβαια σε αυτό δεν ευθύνεται αποκλειστικά αυτή, μιας και ο ρόλος της προϋποθέτει ένα σενάριο που να σέβεται τις ανθρώπινες σχέσεις και να προσπαθεί να τις αποδώσει στο πανί όσο πιο ρεαλιστικά γίνεται. Αυτό όμως λείπει εντελώς από το σενάριο και ειλικρινά φαίνεται η ασχετοσύνη ως προς τις ανθρώπινες σχέσεις αυτών που το έγραψαν.

Όλα αυτά τα χαρακτηριστικά συνθέτουν μια ταινία που απορώ πως κατάφερε να βρεί τον δρόμο προς την μεγάλη οθόνη, μια ταινία αμέτρητων κλισέ, μια μετριότατη απόπειρα. Το Ghosts of Girlfriends Past δεν με έπεισε και πιστεύω ούτε και εσάς. Αφήστε στην ησυχία τους τους νεκρούς και όλες τις πρώην και μην πάτε να το δείτε! Είναι τσάμπα χρόνος και αυτήν την περίοδο ιδιαίτερα, πού υπάρχουν πολλές καλύτερες επιλογές να δείτε. Ελπίζω το Hangover που γράψαν οι Lucas και Moore να αποδειχτεί καλύτερο.

Καλή σας προβολή (παρ' όλα αυτά) !!

Προσωπική βαθμολογία:

Review by Kapapi

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian (2009)

director: Shawn Levy

writers:  Robert Ben Garant, Thomas Lennon

starring: Ben Stiller, Amy Adams, Owen Wilson, Hank Azaria, Robin Williams, Bill Hader

genre: Adventure, Comedy, Family, Fantasy







Ο Larry Daley (Ben Stiller) όντας πλέον επιτυχημένος επιχειρηματίας στη βιομηχανία φακών σπεύδει να βοηθήσει τους παλιούς του φίλους οι οποίοι μεταφέρονται στο μεγαλύτερο μουσείο του κόσμου και μπλέκονται σε μια μάχη για τη κυριαρχία του κόσμου. Έτσι αρχίζει μια τρελή περιπέτεια για να σώσουν την υφήλιο από τις ορδές του φαραώ Kahmunrah (Hank Azaria).



Ένα είναι σίγουρο. Ο Ben Stiller έχει αλλάξει ριζικά το στυλ του. Αν αυτό είναι για καλό και για κακό ο χρόνος θα το δείξει γιατί μέχρι στιγμής τα δείγματα είναι αμφιλεγόμενα. Το Tropic Thunder για παράδειγμα είναι μια ταινία που απόλαυσα. Αντίθετα η δεύτερη νύχτα του μουσείου είναι μια ταινία που πραγματικά με απογοήτευσε.



Το πιο δύσκολο βέβαια απ’ όλα ήταν να την κατατάξω σε κάποια κατηγορία. Κωμωδία ήταν ελάχιστα, εκτός και αν θεωρείτε τα χαστούκια με μαϊμούδες ακόμα αστεία. Ρομάντζο σίγουρα δεν ήταν καθώς το ειδύλλιο μεταξύ του Ben Stiller και της Amy Adams αναπτύσσεται μάλλον βιαστικά. Δράσης τότε; Μάλλον παιδικό δράσης θα ήταν η σωστότερη ταμπέλα.



Η σκηνοθεσία και η κάμερα ακολουθούν τη γραμμή που επιτάσσουν οι νέες αμερικάνικες κωμωδίες σε συνδυασμό με το κλασσικό στυλ του Stiller. Πολλές σκηνές που κουράζονται και μια προσπάθεια για τη στήριξη ενός σεναρίου που είναι επιεικώς αδύναμο.



Στο τομέα της ηθοποιίας βέβαια μπορώ να πω ότι έγινε φιλότιμη προσπάθεια, κάτι βέβαια που το μεγάλο καστ απαιτούσε. Μεγάλος πρωταγωνιστής της ταινίας είναι ο Hank Azaria. Μέσα από τους 3 ρόλους που ερμηνεύει καταφέρνει να κλέψει την παράσταση με τις ατάκες του. Κορυφαία στιγμή κατά τη γνώμη μου η σκηνή με τον Darth Vader(!!). Ωραία ερμηνεία δίνει και η ταχέως ανερχόμενη Amy Adams στο ρόλο της Amelia Earhart που εντυπωσιάζει με τη γλυκύτητά της και την προφορά της. Τέλος στα γνωστά του επίπεδα κυμαίνεται και ο Owen Wilson στο ρόλο της μινιατούρας cowboy.



Εν κατακλείδι λοιπόν, η ταινία δεν αξίζει ούτε σε DVD. Εγώ προσωπικά έκλαιγα τα λεφτά μου, αλλά γούστα είναι αυτά, έτσι αν έχετε δει την πρώτη και σας άρεσε τότε δείτε και αυτή γιατί είναι σίγουρα καλύτερη. Αν βέβαια θέλετε να πάτε τα παιδιά σας σε μια ταινία τότε η Νύχτα στο μουσείο είναι η καλύτερη επιλογή αυτή την περίοδο. Αλλά αν είστε ενήλικος τότε μην διανοηθείτε να δώσετε 8 ευρώ για αυτή τη ταινία.

Personal Rating:

Review by Gamapi