Posted on 5/08/11 05:10 AM
Way better than I expected! The trailer didn't look too good, to be honest, but it's actually a good movie.
I haven't read the comics so I don't know if it was faithful or not, but...
The plot is well constructed, with a little bit of action, a little bit of intrigue and a little bit of humor. The scenarios look fantastic and the actors did a great job. Maybe the part with SHIELD is a little... unnecessary? But the rest of it is great, flawless.
When it ended I could only think "More! MORE!". And I went bananas when I saw Hawkeye's cameo.
The end suggests that there will be a part 2. I hope they do film a sequel, because if it's half as good as this one, it will be worthy.
P.D.: It was funny seeing who stayed in the room when the movie had ended to see how many nerds were that knew there would be something else after it.
Posted on 5/08/11 05:00 AM
It's not bad. Not awesome, but it is not bad at all.
This is my last year in High School and we have just finished studying the Spanish Civil War (I'm from Spain), so I had no problem understanding the background, and I think that allowed me to enjoy the film more than if I hadn't studied it.
The first minutes are kind of boring because they spend too much time telling the story set in 1982. But once Escrivá becomes priest and the Civil War starts, it becomes better, way better.
I like how they showed that both sides did awful things and that both sides had really good people among them. There are no good or bad people, just people trying to survive during very hard times. It made me remember the stories my grandparents told me about those years.
The only thing I didn't quite like was the part that happens during 1982. I don't really care about it, to be honest. It is not completely bad, but I think they should have focused a little bit more on the war. But it's good overall.
And I have to admit that watching Rodrigo Santoro (and well, Wes Bentley and my fellow countryman Unax Ugalde) and his sexy face made it more interesting xP And Olga Kurylenko is always great.
Posted on 4/27/11 02:17 PM
WAY better than I had expected. After watching Twilight (the film was pure rubbish), I thought that this was going to be just as bad (I hate Catherine Hardwicke). But it was a pleasant surprise.
It's a teenage fantasy romance, so you know it's probably not going to be Oscar worthy, but it's much better than the average movie of that type.
The actors & actresses are good, at least they know how to act (coff coff Twilight). The story is interesting, the rythm is always the same throughout the film. I wouldn't have guessed who the wolf was in a million years, so extra point for that. The guys are hot and, let's face it, that's pretty important in a film like this.
If you're looking for a deep, horror or mistery film this is not the best choice, because it's superficial and the wolf is just an excuse to tell a love story.
If you're looking for a faithful adaptation of the story, this is not your film either, although it does follow the original story to some point.
But if you're looking for a teen fantasy story, then this is the best option.
Posted on 3/11/11 03:00 PM
It is a very fun movie. It's not full of jokes, but in general it doesn't feel sad and melancholic.
I don't know how accurate it was, but in general it seems like they knew what they were talking about. The setting doesn't seem sureal, and I love how the king says "I was chosen by God", because it is exactly the argument that was used to defend absolutist monarchy.
Lady Marion is not some posh girl who can't do anything by herself. She had to take care of the farm almost entirely by herself, so she (ussually) needs no help.
Also, the fact that the main characters (Robin and Marion) are very adult, and not a 20 something couple, makes it look more serious. And the romantic side of the movie is not too long, neither are the big battles, so it's not a Transformers-like film in that sense.
And I love how it ends, and the fact that they told Robin Hood's life BEFORE he became a thief, and not the classical story.
I think the only thing I could say I didn't like so much was that the first part was a little slow and not much happened, but I didn't really have a problem with that.
So in general, a good movie, very balanced and I'm looking forward to seeing the sequel!
Posted on 3/09/11 12:38 PM
It is... well, it is... I don't know how to describe the movie. It's weird, a mindfuck, scary, disturbing and interesting.
Although I hate Natalie Portman (I used to love her, but she seems so cheesy and press-loving now [and she used to hate them] that I can't stand her), but she is really committed to the role. She is SO skinny it's scary! Just by looking at her body you can feel the transformation Nina is suffering. And yes, her acting is great, although I don't know if it is Oscar-worthy... (I think Barbara Hershey was as good as her, and Winona Ryder is great even though her role is small).
I have to say I expected a little bit more. The beginning and the end are absolutely magnificent, specially the end. I wasn't sure of how it was going to end and I thought it would end in a way I didn't like, but it was good, actually.
But towards the middle of the film the action becomes a little... repetitive. And the rythm gets a little slow. Sometimes it's like "Yeah, we get it, you're crazy and the director is a son of a b**ch! Can we move on now, please?".
Also, I predicted how it would end in the first minutes (not exactly, but yes more or less), but so many things happen that it didn't really matter.
In short, I think it is a very interesting movie, very well made and with very good acting/directing, but not as "f**king brilliant" and a "masterpiece" or anything similar. And I wouldn't watch it twice, firstly because if you know what's going to happen next there's not much thrill, as the most interesting thing is that we are never sure if some things are real or not; and second because it's f**king disturbing!
Posted on 7/25/10 05:19 PM
Amazing in every sense.
Most people only remark the great performance by Ledger. Yeah, he did an absolutely and unquestionable great, great job as the Joker. But it's not just that. It's not just him. The movie wouldn't be so great just vecause Heath was great. Bale, Oldman, everybody is great. Probably it would have been better with Katie Homes instead of Maggie Gyllenhaal, but it's still good. Nolan is great. The music is perfect, so are the scenarios, the action scenes, the script, the lightning.
I've read some of the Batman comics but I don't like them too much. But, in the Nolan movies, it becomes in the perfect superhero for me. The same happens with the Joker. Because, underneath the action, the races and the fights, the movie talks about the fragmented personality of Bruce, who is the womanizer millionaire who doesn't even care about his job and still hasn't overcomed his parents' dead (and in the 1st film seeked revenge above everything), and later is Batman, who doesn't believe in revenge and lives just to fight the crime, to teach everybody that there's always hope, and that even if the road is too long, dark and tough we can always do good. That everybody gets seduced by revenge and the evil, but that if you really want it, you can stay firm and do good. We can see Gordon, the pure goodness. We have the Joker, the pure evilness, who doesn't do evil to get something (money, power, women), like the mafia, but just because of its evil nature. We have Batman, who in the first movie fighted between good (being a role model for everyone in the city and fight the mafia as Batman) and evil (seeking revenge by killing his parents' killer, the mafia, etc.), and now discovers that fight wasn't so easy.
In short, it is an excellent movie, almost perfect, with a complex plot that gets to the audience and some good explosions, in case you prefer not to think.
Posted on 7/25/10 04:36 PM
It was okay. Yeah, just okay.
The first minutes are good, with a funny lead character (Columbus) who has some good rules to survive to the zombie attacks. Then we meet Tallahassee, the tough guy (and a little stupid). All this mixed with funny situations in wich we see how fucked up the world is because of the zombies and that they're probably the only survivors.
Then, we meet Wichita and Little Rock. The first minute seems like it's going to be a cool road movie, with unforgettable characters. Then we discover that it's going to be a forgettable road movie with the typical characters. Wichita is the "I'm a girl but look how tough and bad I am because of the sad life I had and doesn't matter if I'm sexy because I can kick your ass... well, actually I can't and I need your help" chick that is so popular lately. Okay, so I don't like the "lady who needs help" that was so popular decades ago, when movies were sexist, but neither do I the "I'm as tough as a man" girls, who, in the end (except in some cases), end up needing help too. And this even more sexist than the old women in film, because the old women were ussually in danger because somebody wanted to hurt their boyfriend by hurting them, but those new women get in trouble themselves (because they're so tough, you know?) and then need help and end being rescued by their "macho".
And then we have Little Rock, the useless character. She has nothing interesting to do or say in the movie, she's there just to annoy. The movie would have been the same or better without her.
Also, the attitude they have in that apocalistic world is plain stupid. They have a couple of guns and there are zombies everywhere but they waste their bullets by shotting to the air and stuff like that. Why? Do they expect to find Hummers full of weapons in every town or what? I mean, I know it's a comedy and all, but you would expect a little more seriousness, especially since they are always repeating the importance of "The Rules". Tallahassee is a little stupid sometimes and you would expect from him, but Columbus is always talking about seat belts but doesn't mind that they're probably not going to have enough bullets. "Oh, seat belts are so important! And now we are totally wasting bullets, even if almost everybody's a zombie, nobody is making bullets so we won't be able to use guns forever but there are millions of zombies. Cool!".
I know the movie is about the characters, that the zombies are just an excuse to tell an story of friends, of relationships, trust, etc. But sometimes they're like "Zombies, zombies! The Rules! It's sooo important! Zombieeeees!" and some other times are like "Oh, fuck the zombies, now we're going to focus on the characters. Zombies? Who cares.". It's biggest fail is that it tries to be a zombie movie and a movie about trust and friendship at the same time, but it's just half a zombie movie (the first part of the movie) and half a movie about friendship (the second part), but that second part is so typical and half the characters are so annoying/boring/stupid that is a regular zombie movie that could have been a great zombie movie and just another silly "my life was so bad and unfair that I couldn't trust anyone but you're so special and even if I've been mean to you you still love me and that has melt my heart and now I can love and trust again".
But the acting, soundtrack and make up is great.
And second parts are ussually worst than the first one (except some rare movies like X-Men 2 and TDK), so I don't think I'm gonna see the sequel.
Posted on 7/13/10 05:31 AM
After watching the rating it has, I supposed it would be pretty shitty, but it's actually quite funny. Not as good as the first or second ones (I haven't seen the third), but not so bad.
The worst: the 3D is nonexistent. I'm sorry, but I just didn't realize it was in 3D. I had my glasses on and everything, but I didn't feel the 3D. At all.
And I'm sick of this. It's expensive enough to go to cinema, but they tell you 3D is a whole new experience, it's an incredible way of watching movies, etc. I'm sorry, but it's not. Of all the movies I've seen, the one with the best 3D was Alice in Wonderland or Street Dance 3D (I haven't seen How to Train you Dragon). And that's lame for the rest of the movies. If Street Dance has a better 3D than your movie, then your sh-t. Your studios are sh-t.
So I would recomend to download this movie and watch it in 2D, cause it's not worth the ticket.
Posted on 6/16/10 01:32 PM
It can be a little better than what most of us would think.
Yes, it's a little stupid, sometimes you know what is going to happen next and half the film they're dancing. But, f-ck it, it's fun, the have good dancers, the actors CAN act (something really difficult in this kind of movies) and the coreography is always good. You can't expect it to be like Psycho (wich turns 50 today xD), but it is supossed to be seen as a popcorn movie, with friends and it is made for teens. And it works. It's not amazing, but it's not bad.
The bad thing is that it's only in 3D and, honestly, if you don't usually REALLY enjoy this kind of films, don't even try. It's very expensive and not worth it.
P.D: I don't usually freak out when I see hot boys on the theater, but the lead guy is HOT !!
In short: a teen movie with good music, very good dancers, real actors and perfect for a rainny, boring weekend (like mine was that day).
Posted on 6/06/10 09:47 AM
Having said for a long time that Spanish cinema was awful, REC was one of the first movies that proved me wrong.
A real suspense film, it's great since the very beginning. The way it's filmed makes it even better, with the camera moving a lot, falling to the floor, etc., making it look realistic. The rythm is always great and it's never boring. Great end too.
I haven't seen REC 2, but I definitely will. And I haven't seen Quarantine either (the American remake), but I surely won't. Honestly, I don't understand why we need a remake of such a great film. Can't they just dubb it ? Do they really need to make a bad remake? Is it necesary for a movie to be filmed in the USA to have an American audience?