Erik_Imsen

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

This movie finally provides the world with an exclusive insight inside Michael Bay's pants. During the most excruciating 150 minutes one could experience by watching a film, nothing will stop Bay from pulling his boxers all the way down just to show the world how big he is by randomly throwing everything, and I mean EVERYTHING he has right as it comes, whatever pops out first; yet managing to under-develop characters even less than he did on Pearl Harbor. And Bay's pants on his ankles also explain why the fun and humor from the 1st movie had become so gross and vulgar.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

It truly hurts me saying it, but the movie ****. What looked like an homage to the 1980s-1990s action flicks with a dream cast turns out to be a mountain of disappointment in this plot-less, characterless, humorless pseudo homage. Hell!! Even the action scenes are horrible!! A film shouldn't be a prisoner of it's own genre. An action film genre does not excuse a poor script, just as an horror film genre does not excuse flat and uninteresting characters. Defending an action film that has no story by saying "all that matters are the action scenes" in one of the most widespread fallacies. Take a Die Hard, or a Bourne film. The movies are great because the action scenes are great but TIED TOGETHER by a good when not great story. Which is why The Expendables cannot get any grade higher than 1 by my standards. The only semi-developed character is Statham's (and I didn't care, it was just so flat and boring), and the rest is pretty much useless. Which is a shame when you see that a movie such as Sin City manages to introduce you to up to 12 memorable characters in 2 hours, and The Expendables fails to even make you like one in 1 and 1/2 hour. In total, both villains must have a consolidated screen time of 6 minutes, which isn't much, especially when you add how flat and boring they are. You do not understand them, you don't like them, you don't fear them, you don't even dislike them. You simply couldn't care less about them. Rourke's emotional moment that is supposed to be the pivot of the film comes out of nowhere and falls flat. As for Stallone motivations... And to make even things worse, you don't even believe that they are a bunch of friends used to fighting together. Couture's pseudo-funny moment about his ears falls flat too, and so does the buddy effect.// The script is so dull it looks like it didn't even care about it's own credibility. I didn't buy for a second the whole dictatorial mini-state that pops out of nowhere. And last but not least: the action scenes: THEY AREN'T EVEN GOOD!!!! The editing is so erratic you can't even enjoy the fights! All you see are 10 frame long close-ups of body parts moving and probably hitting other body parts, cut every once in a while by a wide angle 15 frame sequence shot. Couture's fight against the villain's lieutenant is not interesting, the main villain's death is bad borderline ridiculous. And they blow up. In conclusion, I'd say that the premise of the film is what killed it: by wanting to put too much, you end up with nothing.

What lies beneath? Definitely the most impressive and comprehensive collection of cliches, nonsense absurdities and boring moments ever assembled in this pretentious couldn't-possibly-be-slower film. Nothing happens for the first 90 minutes. Pfeiffer wanders in her home trying to look troubled, has pointless encounters with neighbors, plays some ouija with a friend and from time to time exchanges with Ford some dull dialogue that sounds anything but realistic. And when filming nothing seems to have reached it's limits, well, you just get some more. The final twist doesn't come as a surprise -remember, you had 90' to try and guess it out, nothing was happening on the screen- and the final confrontation is sooooo ludicrous that it keeps me wondering if it has been stolen from the Scary Movie franchise. But surprisingly, I actually rather enjoyed the ending. It gets hysterical as every step seems to have been written under the strict rule of "of all options my characters have, what would be the least logical or probable?" This pure overdose of nonsense situations gets really funny, and comes as a nice and more than welcomed frustration relief after sitting through nearly two hours of pretentious pseudo hitchcokian homage. (I know I got Sir Alfred's last name spelled wrong, but it keeps being deleted by some poorly encoded "Politically Correct" protection stuff that doesn't seem to stand the second syllable of Hitchco**)

While Amelie appeared as a true UFO in the filmmaking landscape to anyone who wasn't acquainted to Jeunet's universe, it happened to be, back in 2001, a logic evolution in the director's work after Delicatessen and The City of Lost Children. Amelie is a masterpiece of "Jeunetian" optimistic poetry, that interestingly clashes with the dark poetry of his previous films yet seems to simply be the flip side of the same modern-poetic coin.

Margin Call is a Masterpiece. Firstly because it is by far the most realistic film ever made about business in general and finance especially, even topping now number two Oliver Stone's Wall Street. Secondly, the cast is impeccable. Irons, Baker, Moore, Spacey, Bettany, Tucci and Quinto are at their finest hour. And thirdly, from the very first minute until the end, Chandor creates this heavy, dark and oppressing atmosphere that puts you emotionally and nervously on the trading seat.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

A must-see documentary, mind-blowing by it's content, which is sadly hurt by a messy construction and an over-the-top melodramatic tone. The story being told was already powerful enough to spare some intense close-ups or reenactments. The Filmmaker's choice to solely focus on the "hunters team" and thus telling so little about Madoff himself was a brave one that turns out to pay off, as it helps create this mystical and unreal status Madoff did enjoy during the decade preceding his fall.

I tend never to use a rating of 0, as it would state that the film is a 100% failure, not only artistically, but also technically. Hence my usual lowest rating being 1 out of 10. When the filmmakers remember to remove the lens cap prior to shooting, or when they don't film themselves while shooting against a reflecting surface, or when the boom mic doesn't swing at the top of the screen, that deserves to be taken into consideration. And that just what the rating of 1 does: acknowledge the minimum amount of professionalism put into a film. And that's just what can be said about Total Recall (2012). The universe the story unfolds into is sure good looking, but at the same time unimaginative and made of bits and pieces from other films. The acting is horrible -when will someone finally tell Kate Beckinsale to please just model?- The stunts are over the top, the characters bi-dimensional, and the movie fails to follow it's own logic.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]