ACCION: Reviews (71)
Halloween 2018 Review Movie
Finally, the tribute that the original film needed and deserved. The father of all the slasher films as we know them, Michael Myers who appeared in the seminal film Halloween by John Carpenter, is finally recognized as such in a film that makes him, for the new audience, the mythical figure that he has always been, or at least that he should be. Maybe some forgot about it, giving more importance to Jason Voorhees or Freddy Krueger, but Myers is the father of them all, in the same way that Norman Bates was the grandfather. No, I did not forget about Leatherface in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, it’s just that, that movie was not a slasher, it was another type of horror cinema, essential in the same way, but it is not the same type of cinema. Although it presented a similar type of masked villain.
First Man Review Movie
One of the best movies of the year, without a doubt.
Damian Chazelle returns after La La Land, to surprise us, completely changing tone and style, to offer us a film with personality, with a sensational force and with Ryan Gosling who is a candidate for all the awards from this moment on. The film will be nominated in many categories, without a doubt, but that should not make us forget what is really important. That First Man is a fantastic movie, a story disguised as a biopic that turns into an epic adventure and that leaves us the taste of the great cinema. Script, acting, direction ... the film has all the necessary elements to stand out. And if Gosling stands out, do not miss what Claire Foy does with her character...
Film review Venom
It is not what we expected, for better and worse. For days we have been receiving different information about what we were going to find in Venom, the film starring Tom Hardy and directed by Ruben Fleischer. Some said it would be the worst movie of the year. It is not the worst movie of the year, nor the best one. It is a mixture of brilliant and mediocre ideas, of genius themes and love for the comic books, with blockbuster needs for all audiences. Because the movie does not have R category, so the audience will be higher in numbers (or so they think), but we will also see less blood on screen. And Venom's character needed that blood to make the movie that fans have been demanding for years.
I do not know to what extent they have allowed Bayona to get into the script of Colin Trevorrow and Derek Connelly, the creators responsible for this return to Jurassic world, especially Trevorrow who also directed Jurassic World ... I repeat, I do not know to what extent they allowed Bayona retouch some things on the script, although surely it has not been easy if he has achieved it, but the script is better, without being amazing, and the failures, weaknesses and faults of the film, are almost all due to that very same script that sometimes tends to think that, by the fact of having dinosaurs, the public will accept absolutely everything that appears on the screen without protest. And it is not like that. The resolution of some plot points are not very credible at best, some characters are still unbearable, and logic is not always present in the story... But it improves a lot compared to the previous movie. The plot is more elaborate, the protagonists are more defined and have evolved, the character of the girl is better developed than the children in Jurassic World... And incorporates elements of, for example, horror movies, which in the hands of the director, become key elements to the film.
Elements that appeared for example in the first movie, but that were lost piece by piece in time and with the sequels. But it seems that Bayona is willing to recover them, with a first part of the film with a more adventurous tone and close to The Lost World, which also pays tribute, and a second part of The Lost World, but also, and about everything, from the moments of Jurassic Park terror, the use of shadows, darkness, scares and even a pinch of violence that here appears in a very direct way , and that leads me to wonder how they will have avoided the R rate and achieved the PG13, in addition to avoiding explicit bleeding (because we have some amputation and quite graphic deaths, with a tribute to Jurassic Park included). And in those elements of terror, Bayona moves like a fish in the water, with signs of author but also elements that remind of Frankenstein (even with Doctor Frankenstein included), Little Red Riding Hood (including the encounter with the Big Bad Wolf) or Nosferatu, which gives a cinephile flavor of first category, of real talent.
The film, in addition to having these references to horror films, does not shirk the visual spectacle, especially in its walk around the island, with scenes that are memorable (the aquatic scene, the lava moments, the "farewell on the dock" ... ) and that then lead us to a far more intimate world, if that can happen in the universe of Jurassic Park, with a couple of more than interesting twists. That space where darkness is greater and where those moments arrive that are going to be the most remembered ones of the movie, even though they do not have so many visual effects. They have them, of course, but not so many or so big as in the island. And also throughout the film the director puts a lot of tributes to the Jurassic saga but much less evident than in the previous installment, whether in a shot, in a death, in a scene ... he does not point continuously on the homage, he places it subtly and let the viewer discover if is known or not. It is more effective in that way, because it requires, first of all, the attention of the spectator, it allows it to be like a game in search of Easter eggs that the director has hidden, which are not few.
The film runs for over two hours and entertains a lot. It makes us forget those little script failures, which are less than in the previous movie, and we also have the two leads from Jurassic World, Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard, displaying charisma and improving their characters, which evolve and grow, without as much nonsense as they had before (notice how they laugh subtly at the topic of the high heels of the first film, and notice how they resolve romantic relationships ...) accompanied by names like James Cromwell, Toby Jones (a villain as topical as adorable ... because the real villains are the dinosaurs), Ted Levine (another tribute to previous films ...) or Rafe Spall. Not forgetting the return of Jeff Goldblum, the always interesting presence of BD Wong as usual, and Isabella Sermon, the great debutante that makes us forget the mediocre children of Jurassic World. The presence of Daniella Pineda and, above all, Justice Smith, does not contribute much ... not because of the actors, but because of how the script deals with the characters ... Minor problems. It is a fun, entertaining film and, finally, a worthy heir to the original, with its mixture of horror and adventure genres for the whole family, with its great narrative pulse and with those details that give it the personality that the others did not have ...
COMENTA CON TU CUENTA DE FACEBOOK
VENGADORES: LA GUERRA DEL INFINITO XXXXX
VENGADORES: LA GUERRA DEL INFINITO XXXXX
No, I'm not comparing Kong with Coppola's masterpiece, much less. Neither in subjects, nor in depth ... Nothing has to do with it. But this film does offer various visual tributes to that and the Vietnam War in movies in general. To the cinema of the 70 in particular visually, to offer a visual spectacle of first order, pure entertainment that also keeps a couple of pleasant surprises. From the design of the island, Kong itself, the locations or the creatures that inhabit it (moving away from the typical dinosaurs to give us a new series of monsters ... like that terrifying giant spider), passing through the action of the movie, the tone of the film itself, more focused on Kong than in humans.
Two young Portuguese priests travel to Japan in the 17th century to investigate the disappearance of a priest who evangelized the area, at a time when Christianity was completely forbidden, forcing practitioners to abandon their new faith or be severely punished, even with death. In that amazing journey narrated as always with a brilliant pulse by Scorsese, we meet two young men whose mission ends up being a personal journey to analyze their own motives, their moments of weakness and strength. And not only theirs, but those of those humble people, who secretly seek the light of religion in which they believe, and who find no greater purpose than sacrifice for it. Become silent martyrs.
Justin Kurzel is a strange director, capable of directing a film as different as his Macbeth, where he also had Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard as protagonists, and where he did not have the budget he handles in this film, but he provided us with a film very different from what everyone expected. Here he does something similar. Assassin's Creed is cryptic, is different, complex in many ways, although its plot is simple, and it is in part because it assumes that the viewer is a regular player of the saga and they will understand all the references and hidden messages that he has prepared for us during the movie. And as a fan, that is very enjoyable, although the character of Callum Lynch and Aguilar de Nerja, his ancestor, both played by Michael Fassbender, are new in this franchise. It does not matter. Either Kurzel is a player or he has been very well informed about the game (yes, it has changed the Animus, but that's the least important thing), and to understand it, you just have to see the macguffin in the movie, The Apple of Eden, something that will surely mislead many casual viewers, but the fans are going to thank him a lot. Or they should.
It is curious how a few days before seeing Passengers, science fiction cinema, with a spaceship, with those elements mentioned above, I saw La Land, a musical film, genre that I do not passionate in the least, and I loved the second one and left untempered from the first. The reason is simple, La Land rises with history and characters, gets deep into their personal history and avoids clichés or dodge them in the best possible way. It’s brave. It takes a risk. Passengers does not, because it seems that the director and the screenwriter are more interested in the romantic story than in the science fiction part, and that is something that ends up being paid. Moments of adventure, terror or action lack the strength to truly thrill the audience.
I put four stars are deserving playing in their league and fun escapist cinema (I also read Sartre, but I do not happen while I'm watching a superhero movie) because I think one of the products more competent in their formula. 1. Great advantage to Michael Douglas. I feared another application of the formula Obi Wan Kenobi, with Douglas as a secondary star, guest star, stellar cameo or similar. Such as the contribution of Anthony Hopkins in The Mask of Zorro. Quite the contrary. Moreover style protagonist contribution of Sean Connery in The Rock. Here is Michael Douglas as protagonist and Paul Rudd himself. And it is very well used from the first moment on the screen until the last. The character grows with the story, showing that it has much more travel beyond the end of the film, which has much more to tell. Good sign. Douglas has a solid Hank Pym and also, this is another great success, very well recreated the mythology of the original character of comics, the idea of scientific tortured. A contribution of Robert Redford level in Captain America winter soldier, with more prominence. 2. Evangeline Lilly is no mere ornament, not a simple addition of the male characters. Instead responds to the type of heroine of the Marvel movies, independent, competent and decisive. An equivalent of the Black Widow Scarlett Johansson for the future. Hope Van Dyne also works very well in that conflict with Hank Pym, making the most juice to good chemistry with Evangeline Lylly and Michael Douglas on the screen (in a similar situation the relationship Anthony Hopkins and Catherine Zeta-Jones in The Mask of Zorro was more topical and offered less developed). 3. Paul Rudd is revealed as the perfect actor to move deftly between comedy and superhero genre giving credibility to a character in the process of redemption which always moves along the razor's edge of the topic but never comes to fall, but it remains in perfect exercise maximum efficiency even in the toughest sequences in this type of formula which include the children. Rudd manages to give a touch of his character doing similar work to that last year did Chris Pratt in Guardians of the Galaxy, but less cartoonish style, even less cartoonish than the character itself Scott Lang in comics. In fact, I think the Scott Lang proposes Rudd is in some ways better than the comics, which has always seemed to me that trying to make him go through a simple variant of Deadpool, especially in his early adventures. Rudd and the film itself remain the essential keys that define the character in comics, but better and giving a stronger personality than looks in comics. 4. That trinity of characters Douglas, Lilly and Rudd, seem more interesting in terms of good dramatic and narrative game provided that Vision, Scarlet Witch, War Machine or Falcon in Avengers: the Age of Ultron. By this I mean, in my opinion, with Ant-Man Marvel franchise incorporates new weight to his range of characters. 5. The contribution of the secondary characters have successfully avoiding the risks of the topic at the same time cultivating the formula, which is not easy. In the case of the three humorous side buddies Scott Lang gets what based on good administration of humor, getting people that are familiar to the audience in record time, as if they were citizens of a television series. They are the comic relief of the humorous which is very well managed in the case of the main characters. For the villain, which is certainly closer to the topic of the whole film, he is saved because he has a good actor at the controls of the character, Corey Stoll, which certainly fans remember his great work on the first season of House of Cards series. The job playing the antagonist in this film is similar to that of The Strain, without fanfare, without much to hold on from the script, but nonetheless paying great strength and conviction to the character. As for the weaker characters, the ex spouse and new partner of the ex, plus the kid, could have been a hole in the water line of giant size, but no. Bobby Cannavale and Judy Greer, and even the girl, Abby Ryder Fortson, concerned with keeping those characters in one piece firm as rocks. 6. The last strong point: the ants, essentials for the character Ant-Man, are a perfect homage to the original comic, but also pay tribute to a classic, The Incredible Shrinking Man.
All these elements, plus a series of winks, cameos and surprises which of course will not reveal here, convincing me that in the future this Ant-Man can give much game in Marvel movie universe.
Miguel Juan Payán
COMENTA CON TU CUENTA DE FACEBOOK
I'm not a "jameswanaholic ", but I recognize that his contribution to horror film have personality and efficacy against many of his colleagues who try succeed in the territory of cinematic thrill. A priori distrusted this directorial debut Leigh Whannell, this third Insidious, further coated with the mantle of the prequel. A priori the matter had all the earmarks of being just an attempt to further exploit the two films directed by Wan and that he had told his colleague: "Come on, man, do it you I'm tired of the matter”.
But I have to admit that all these suspicions have been discarded, and although there is obviously a clear rationale for exploiting the saga this prequel, Whannell has been stepping to respect the essential keys that define movies directed by Wan not limited to copying Wan. Whannell has sought, and in my view has achieved, giving a personality to this third visit to the franchise. Its main success is not to get sucked into the illusion of overcoming the foregoing and modestly exercising their role as narrator in a territory that is not new at all, but know take advantage of a change of scenery and characters from previous films. For it is based primarily on an approach to the character of Elise (Lyn Shaye) either built from the script of the film itself and the work of the actress is even stronger than in his role as secondary in the first two installments. Whannell has not made the mistake of trying to change skin radically and hits the target building his film with good pace and thanks narrative solvency work begins on the script and is a smooth, consistent extension and balanced the direction. I think that's the secret to this film has not become something like the attempt to continue operating the franchise The Conjuring, another Wan film, with Annabelle. Quite the contrary: Insidous, Chapter 3, is a perfectly threaded piece with the two previous films that also serves as a prologue to the same consistent and knows how to take advantage of Elise's character, since the first installment was clearly the most interesting of the whole thing. And it does not melodramatic exaggeration: with elegant restraint, without making Elise in a kind of totemic figure for the showcasing of the actress, with moderation and a maturity that lend strength to the rest of the story, even this abound in the ceremonial known scares and thumping sound as an element that is also capable of manufacturing various shocks very accomplished. Whannell has also managed to move the occasional contact with the spectral life of Elise with a few strokes and maintaining an enviable balance between proven as director and newly opened effectiveness as director.
Miguel Juan Payán
COMENTA CON TU CUENTA DE FACEBOOK