Octopussy (1983)

Genre

Action | Thriller

Director

John Glen

Country

UK | USA

Cast

Roger Moore, Maud Adams, Louis Jourdan, Kristina Wayborn, Kabir Bedi, Steven Berkoff, David Meyer, Desmond Llewelyn, Robert Brown, Lois Maxwell, Michaela Clavell, Walter Gotell, Vijay Amritraj

Storyline

A fake Fabergé egg and a fellow agent's death lead James Bond (Roger Moore) to uncover an international jewel-smuggling operation, headed by the mysterious Octopussy (Maud Adams), being used to disguise a nuclear attack on N.A.T.O. forces.

Opinion

In his 13th time around, James Bond finds himself in an Indiana Jones-type of adventure and makes me wonder what's up with him and Harrison Ford, and makes me think 13 is not his lucky number since "Octopussy" is easily one of the weaker entries in the franchise.

The story is slower than others, it is not the easiest to follow, you also might get lost a lot of times in the boring process to get to the end, but... wait, there is no but. The Russian/nuclear storyline is overdone - and overused -, the main Bond girl - the one of the title - does not appear until an hour into the film, and serves little purpose in the story.

I was disappointed about Maud Adams's early death in "The Man with the Golden Gun", and I was excited to have her back in here, but it just proves the filmmakers' inability to come up with new twists, including casting different people.

I know what you're thinking, nobody watches a Bond film for a solid story, all they want is action, action and, guess what? Action! Well, the jet escape at the beginning is amazing, but it's so unrealistic - like all the other action sequences - that seems coming straight out of a comic book.

Sure the photography on location in India and Eastern Europe is wonderful, the women are beautiful, and Kamaal Khan is some villain, but I'm not sure this is enough to make a good film.

Roger Moore is starting to show his age, but he does a quite good job as James Bond, still charming and capable to seduce women. Maud Adams once again is pretty much wasted, which is a real shame since she is the title character. Louis Jourdan is great as Kamaal Khan and brings class and charm to the role, but he is not very convincing as an Afghan prince, maybe because he is French and nothing like Afghan. I love Kabir Bedi and I'm glad to say his Gobinda, the henchman, is quite memorable.

Thursday Movie Picks: Heist Movies

Hello there, and welcome to Thursday Movie Picks, a weekly series hosted by Wandering Through the Shelves where you share three movies to fit the theme of the week each Thursday.

This week’s topic is heist, and I’m happy because I love, absolutely love heist films, especially when the sting is pulled off beautifully, and the story is full of twists, which is exactly what happens in my three picks for this week. 

The Sting (1972)

Seeking revenge for his murdered partner, a young con man teams up with a master of the big con to win a fortune from a mob boss. The story unfolds with several twists and ends wonderfully; the film is funny, engaging, features some great acting from Paul Newman and Robert Redford, and is one of the greatest heist films of all the times. 

Jackie Brown (1997)

44 year old stewardess Jackie Brown gets caught with a gun dealer’s money, she is proposed a deal by the ATF to help them arrest the dealer in exchange of her freedom. She fears for her life, and teams up with bond businessperson Max Cherry to steal half a million dollar from said gun dealer. I am quite ashamed of myself because I’ve seen this film only last Saturday, but it’s a hell of a movie from Tarantino. Interesting dialogue and characters, brilliant storytelling, and weirdly it's not a graphic crime story. And there are Pam Grier and Samuel L. Jackson.

Ocean’s Eleven (2001)

Daniel Ocean combines an eleven-member team to rob three Las Vegas casinos, all owned by arrogant and ruthless Terry Benedict, Ocean’s arch nemesis. First of an average trilogy, this film is exciting, fast-paced and highly entertaining comedy heist. We got ironic dialogue, some great characters and all-star cast that does not disappoint.

The Gambler (1974)

Genre

Drama

Director

Karel Reisz

Country

USA

Cast

James Caan, Paul Sorvino Lauren Hutton, Morris Carnovsky, Jacqueline Brookes, Burt Young, Carmine Caridi, Vic Tayback, Steven Keats, London Lee, M. Emmet Walsh, James Woods, Beatrice Winde, Antonio Fargas

Storyline

Axel Freed (James Caan) is a literature professor. He has the gambling vice. When he has lost all his money, he borrows from his girlfriend (Lauren Hutton), then his mother (Jacqueline Brookes) and finally some bad guys that chase him. Despite all of this he cannot stop gambling.

Opinion

The criticism that has been expressed over the new remake starring Mark Wahlberg, which I haven't seen, gave me the motivation I needed to watch the original, and I fail to see why on Earth this film needed a remake in the first place.

"The Gambler" is an engrossing, intense thriller masquerading as a drama about gambling addiction as well as a great character study.

The title pretty much sums up the story, with the main character, Axel Freed, being a compulsive gambler. From the very beginning the film starts building the suspense very gradually until the edge of climax, and it keeps you wondering what Axel will do next as the film goes along.

More than anything else the film is a character study. A brilliant, even though quite depressing character study of a personality type than unfortunately is too prevalent in our society. Axel Freed is by no means a likable character; like most addicts all he cares about is his next hit. Though the most surprisingly aspect about this man is that despite his intelligence - he is a college professor -, and despite the pleading of the (rich) loved ones, he keeps on gambling because he is so addicted to risk he couldn't do otherwise.

Like Dostoyevsky's "Underground Man", to whom the film pays homage, "The Gambler" embraces the irrational will where two plus two equal five, where poets, athletes, and addicts know, feel that something against the odds is going to happen. It's very unlikely to happen, yet they bet against the odds because they feel it.

I read that James Caan was a cocaine addict at the time the film was made, and it does explain his intense acting. But his performance as Axel Freed is brilliant. The supporting cast also does a good job, and Victor J. Kemper's cinematography is excellent. 

Mention-Worthy Quotes

Axel Freed: I'm not going to lose it. I'm going to gamble it.

Revenge of the Nerds (1984)

Genre

Comedy

Director

Jeff Kanew

Country

USA

Cast

Robert Carradine, Anthony Edwards, Timothy Busfield, Andrew Cassese, Curtis Armstrong, Brian Tochi, Larry B. Scott, Michelle Meyrink, Ted McGinley, Donald Gibb, Matt Salinger, Julia Montgomery, Lisa Welch, John Goodman, David Wohl, Bernie Casey, James Cromwell, Alice Hirson

Storyline

When lovable nerds Gilbert (Anthony Edwards) and Lewis (Robert Carradine) embark on their freshman year at Adams College, little do they realize the perils that await them. They're beset by taunting from the jocks of Alpha Beta fraternity, which only worsens when the jocks accidentally burn down their house and toss the freshmen out of the freshmen dorm. To make matters more problematic Lewis develops a crush on pretty Betty Childs (Julia Montgomery), popular sorority sister and quarterback's girlfriend.

Opinion

Here I am again, watching and reviewing big hits of the '80s and failing to see why they were huge hits back then.

One of the many American college/sex comedies, "Revenge of the Nerds" is a lighthearted film that manages to be funny occasionally.

As you can guess from the title, the film is about nerds, who are either ignored or discriminated against by the popular 'kids'. Now, being a nerd myself, even though I'm a woman, I know the feeling of being not respected by others, and finally seeing them get even was amazing.

Despite being completely predictable, the story shows everybody that nerds are people too, and, most important, it teaches us an important lesson: be proud of who you are.

Another good thing about the film is that the nerds are a diverse group of people. While some are still stereotyped, as a whole they are very well portrayed.

All of this being said, I was still let down by the film because of the comedy. The juvenile humor did not bother me because it was exactly what I was expecting to find here, but somehow the films fails to be hilarious. There are a few good laughs, but nothing more.

However, the all-star cast is very likable, they all play their parts with a lot of enthusiasm and energy, and they make the film quite enjoyable.

Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)

Genre

Action | Sci-Fi

Director

Jonathan Frakes

Country

USA

Cast

Patrick Stewart, Jonathan Frakes, Brent Spiner, LeVar Burton, Michael Dorn, Gates McFadden, Marina Sirtis, F. Murray Abraham, Donna Murphy, Anthony Zerbe, Gregg Henry, Stephanie Niznik, Peggy Miley, John Hostetter, Daniel Hugh Kelly, Michael Welch, Mark Deakins, Majel Barrett

Storyline

When the crew of the Enterprise learn of a Federation conspiracy against the inhabitants of a unique planet, Captain Picard (Patrick Stewart) begins an open rebellion.

Opinion

Captain Log's 9. I'm starting to think they used the odd number thing as an excuse to make shitty films. That's right, "Star Trek: Insurrection" is a pretty bad, and boring episode stretched to cover a feature length.

If you have read the plot, it's like you have seen the movie already. It describes exactly what happens in the whole film. Just add Mr. Worf going through puberty again, LaForge with the ability to see, and a psychological insight on Data and you're done. Oops, I almost forgot Beverly and her storyline involving her boobs firming up, and Data's saying dumb things because he's a robot. Also the amount of screen time Data has and his constant obsession with becoming more human is getting very annoying. 

Furthermore, the story is all over the place and it feels like it's being made up as it goes along. From the opening scene things are quite confused, and I really didn't understand why I should have cared at all about what was going on, or the characters.

Despite its boringness and therefore the difficulty to follow the story, I manages to notice plot holes. There are so many plot hole in this film, the Enterprise could fly through.

However, there is some good. Captain Picard falls in love with Anij, a Ba'ku woman. While it's becoming a little clichéd to have the captain having a romance with the first good-looking supporting character that comes along *coughs* Kirk in San Francisco *coughs*, and even though it could have been better explored and developed, the relationship seems quite genuine - George Lucas should have taken notes. 

The special effects are good, but nothing special, the makeup is splendid, especially F. Murray Abraham's alien face, and the soundtrack is okay, but all that karaoke is a big no. The acting is nothing special as always: F. Murray does the best he could do with such a script, and Patrick Stewart finally puts some depth in his portrayal of Captain Picard.

Jackie Brown (1997)

Genre

Crime | Drama | Thriller

Director

Quentin Tarantino

Country

USA

Cast

Pam Grier, Samuel L. Jackson, Robert Forster, Bridget Fonda, Michael Keaton, Robert De Niro, Chris Tucker, Michael Bowen, Lisa Gay Hamilton, Tommy "Tiny" Lister Jr., Hattie Winston, Sid Haig, Aimee Graham, Diana Uribe, T'Keyah Crystal Keymah, Denise Crosby, Quentin Tarantino

Storyline

When 44 year old stewardess Jackie Brown (Pam Grier) gets caught with gun dealer Ordell Robbie's (Samuel L. Jackson) money by agents Ray Nicolette (Michael Keaton) and Mark Dargus (Michael Bowen), she is proposed a deal to help them arrest Ordell in exchange of her freedom. Meanwhile Ordell asks the fifty-six year-old Max Cherry (Robert Forster), who runs a bail bond business, to release Jackie Brown with the intention of eliminating her. Jackie suspects of Ordell's intention and plots to steal half a million dollar from Ordell.

Opinion

I'm a huge fan of Tarantino and I should probably be ashamed of myself because I have seen "Jackie Brown" yesterday for the first time. Since many were disappointed with it, I wasn't sure what to expect. Though a guy I know told me, since I loved "The Hateful Eight" I would have loved it because of all the talking. He couldn't be more right.

Definitely more "normal", unlike other Tarantino films, and unfairly underrated, "Jackie Brown" is a solid, mature, less showy and never boring heist film.

Tarantino has already proven multiple times what an excellent storyteller he is, and he does it again here. Based on Elmore Leonard's novel "Rum Punch", the plot is a solid crime thriller, well-structured, made even more enjoyable by an unusual linearity from Tarantino. The film still features several plot twists, intersecting story lines very reminiscent of "Pulp Fiction", and has room for a little love story. And the generous running time is filled pretty well, and time flies by.

A little flaw? The title suggests that Jackie will come out on top from the story, and from a genius like Tarantino I would have never expected such an obvious ending.

However, Tarantino makes amend for that with interesting, clever, witty dialogue and great character development of the main characters, yet there is not a dragged scene in the whole film.

One of the reasons I love Tarantino is the always spot-on and superb soundtrack that features each of his film, and he couldn't do otherwise in this film, could he? Indeed it is excellent, and introduces us to may Afroamerican musicians.

Last but not least, the performances. Pam Grier is phenomenal as Jackie Brown, combining human warmth and coolness, and lot of charm, and you just can't help but have sympathy for her, even though you're doubting her honesty. Samuel L. Jackson kills it as superficial but not dumb gangster Ordell Robbie, but it is Robert Forster who gives the standout performance here, and he got an Oscar nomination for it, a well-deserved nomination. Robert De Niro and Michael Keaton both have some moments but are wasted as Jackson's partner the first, and ATF agent Ray Nicolette the latter.

In conclusion, unlike other Tarantino films, "Jackie Brown" is not a graphic crime story, nor a revenge story, but it's definitely worth the time.

New York Stories (1989)

Genre

Comedy | Drama | Romance

Directors

Woody Allen | Francis Ford Coppola | Martin Scorsese

Country

USA

Cast

Woody Allen, Mae Questel, Mia Farrow, George Schindler, Larry David, Heather McComb, Talia Shire, Giancarlo Giannini, Don Novello, Julie Kavner, Nick Nolte, Rosanna Arquette, Steve Buscemi, Jesse Borrego, Mike Starr, James Keane, Adrien Brody, Chris Elliott, Peter Gabriel, Illeana Douglas, Deborah Harry, Carmine Coppola, Holly Marie Combs, Kirsten Dunst

Storyline

A middle-aged artist (Nick Nolte) obsessed with his pretty young assistant (Rosanna Arquette), a precocious 12 year old (Heather McComb) living in a hotel, and a neurotic lawyer (Woody Allen) with a possessive mother (Mae Questel) make up three Gotham tales.

Opinion

In this week's Allen flick, Woody teamed up with two other great American directors, Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola, in "New York Stories", an uneven anthology that still worths a watch.

The best way to review this film is by analysing each fragment individually, so let me start from the beginning.

Martin Scorsese's "Life Lesson" is an interesting little drama, beautifully written and wonderfully directed that tells the obsession of painter for his young assistant and shows the crisis he goes through due to the abandonment of the girl he loves. The photography is beautiful as well as the music, and some scenes are simply mesmerizing: the brush moves before the camera, and thanks to the very loud music playing in the background, feels like it is saying more than the story itself. This fragment also features Nick Nolte's wonderful and intense performance as the painter, and Rosanna Arquette's effective and very realistic performance as his lover.

Then comes Francis Ford Coppola's "Life Without Zoe", and the film starts to sink. The problem with this short film is that Sofia Coppola co-written it with her father, and it looks more like a fairy tale than a segment coming from a director of Coppola's caliber. And it's actually unbelievable that the same Sofia, years later, made films such as "The Virgin Suicides" and "Lost in Translation". There is really nothing good about this part. This is bad on every level, from the writing and acting to the absurd theme song. But I don't think it's fair to blame only Sofia, because Francis still co-written it. 

And at last Woody's "Oedipus Wrecks" is quite amusing. The story is funny and follows Woody Allen surprisingly playing a neurotic New Yorker, this time embarrased because his mother is always bothering him. I won't spoil anything, but the development of this story is so weird and funny, and Allen also proves he still owns comedy.

Bottom line, Scorsese's is superb and a little masterpiece, Coppola's is absolutely pointless and Allen's is a wonderful piece of entertainment. Thank you Coppola(s) for running a great project.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

Genre

Action | Sci-Fi

Director

Zack Snyder

Country

USA

Cast

Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Jesse Eisenberg, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburne, Jeremy Irons, Holly Hunter, Gal Gadot, Robin Atkin Downes, Tao Okamoto, Ray Fisher, Jason Momoa, Ezra Miller, Michael Shannon, Harry Lennix, Christina Wren, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Lauren Cohan

Storyline

Fearing the actions of Superman (Henry Cavill) are left unchecked, Batman (Ben Affleck) takes on the man of steel, while the world wrestles with what kind of a hero it really needs. With Batman and Superman fighting each other, a new threat, Doomsday (Robin Atkin Downes), is created by Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg). It's up to Superman and Batman to set aside their differences along with Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) to stop Lex Luthor and Doomsday from destroying Metropolis.

Opinion

My excitement was so high I went to the cinema on Wednesday night, even though that meant staying awake until almost one in the morning to see the whole thing. Big challenge for me considering the poor outcome of "Man of Steel", but, and I can't believe I'm actually saying it, Zack Snyder did a good job for once, and I haven't miss a single frame despite being tired as hell. Without further ado, here's my thoughts on one of the most anticipated films of 2016.

A great piece of entertainment, "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" is a solid foundation for the DC Cinematic Universe.

The opening sequence was not what I expected but it shows Snyder's visual creativity and wowed me for the first time that night: while the opening credits rolls in, in a dream-like sequence, is told the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents, without mince words since we all know the story, later to move the action in Metropolis, while it is being destroyed by Zod, this time shown from Batman's point of view.

I won't spoil anything, but the film goes on showing a series of actions that will bring the two superheroes, Batman and Superman, to the fateful clash, that eventually turns out to be nothing more than the outcome of a series of misunderstandings.

This first part is beautifully done, it is so well made that the idea of Zack Snyder making it won't even cross your mind for a second. Simply spectacular.

In the second part, the good old Zack just couldn't resist to the temptation, and indeed loaded it with a lot of action. While this was a major issue with "Man of Steel", in "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" the action is appropriately dosed and has really improved since 2013. The fight between Batman and Superman is quite amazing.


Despite one terrible scene - you'll know what I'm talking about when you'll see the film -, the CGI is actually good. Doomsday was frightening, threatening, all I wanted to see in such a character.

Unlike in the previous film, Snyder did not use action and special effects to compensate the lack of a good story. Actually, overall, the story is well written, it has the right amount of twists and a good amount of humour enough to be compelling and very entertaining. To be honest, though, there are some plot holes, and the story could have been developed a little better in the second part of the film.

The film also features quite beautiful cinematography, colours and atmosphere as well as a thrilling score from Hans Zimmer and  Junkie XL.

Something I was worried about was Ben Affleck playing Batman and Jesse Eisenberg playing Lex Luthor. While Christian Bale will always be my favourite Batman, Affleck did a wonderful job, he was intense, and played beautifully both the aged Bruce Wayne and Batman, and he can finally shake off "Daredevil". Jesse Eisenberg's casting was questionable, and I was worried he was going to kill Lex Luthor. Well, I've never been so happy to be wrong. He is quite a villain, deceiving, and convincing, a true devil. He still played Jesse Eisenberg, but really had something new this time. Gal Gadot is the other member of the cast standing out. Eff the haters, because she owned the role of Wonder Woman in every possible way, and she also nailed it as Diana. And now the other side of the coin: Henry Cavill. If he didn't convince you in "Man of Steel", he won't convince you neither here. As if looking like a piece of wood was not enough, he has also lost charm.

Overall, "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" is a great improvement on "Man of Steel", but it is not as good as Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight". Not even remotely.

For Your Eyes Only (1981)

Genre

Action | Thriller

Director

John Glen

Country

UK

Cast

Roger Moore, Carole Bouquet, Julian Glover, Chaim Topol, Lynn-Holly Johnson, Michael Gothard, Cassandra Harris, John Wyman, Desmond Llewelyn, Jill Bennett, Jack Hedley, Lois Maxwell, Geoffrey Keen, James Villiers, John Moreno, Walter Gotell, Toby Robins, Jack Klaff, Stefan Kalipha, Charles Dance, Janet Brown, John Hollis, Bob Simmons

Storyline

This time James Bond (Roger Moore) is sent to recover a communication device, known as an ATAC, which went down with a British Spy ship as it sunk. He must hurry though, as the Russians are also out for this device.

Opinion

After the 1979 Star Wars wanna-be "Moonraker", Albert Broccoli and the other producers went back to Ian Fleming's James Bond with "For Your Eyes Only", a quite enjoyable and down to Earth entry in the franchise.

By far the best in Roger Moore's era, the story is grounded, very interesting, more believable and goes back to basics, actually involving some spying, and leaves gadgets behind. It isn't much complex and this allows the film to focus on some realistic and human characters, among which the beautiful Melina Havelock stands out as one of the few Bond girls with some real personality. 

The main topic of the film is revenge: while James Bond finally get the chance to revenge on Blofeld for the assassination of his first and only wife Tracy, Melina wants to avenge the murderer of her parents. 

The villains, Aristotle Kristatos and Emile Locque, are way more realistic than previous James Bond villains, but unfortunately they are not very threatening, but quite forgettable. Also Bibi Dahl is quite annoying and rather pointless as she has no place in the film.

The action is also more down to Earth, and the locations in Greece and Italy are absolutely gorgeous. The theme song by Sheena Easton is also quite enjoyable.

Roger Moore really nails the character after one awful performance, Carole Bouquet is fine as the main female lead - and it's a real shame that she had to be dubbed -, and Julian Glover excellently plays Kristatos, despite the character's flaws.

Thursday Movie Picks: Music Biopics

Hello there, and welcome to Thursday Movie Picks, a weekly series hosted by Wandering Through the Shelves where you share three movies to fit the theme of the week each Thursday.

It's music biopics time. This should be easy for me, I love music, and there's not a single day that goes by without I me not listening to some music. Biographies, on the other hand, are not my cup of tea, so the two things are not much of a great combo to me. However, I still managed to pick three films, two of which aren't exactly biopics. Anyway, here's my picks:

Almost Famous (2000)

This wonderful coming-of-age tale sees young William Miller writing about Stillwater, an up and coming rock band, as he accompanies them on their concert tour. Mostly like a writer biography, this is one of the finest films about music ever made, and reports director Cameron Crowe's experience as a Rolling Stone reporter when he first toured with The Allman Brothers Band. This is also the only Cameron Crowe's film I loved. 

Frank (2014)

Young wanna-be musician Jon joins an eccentric pop band led by a mysterious and enigmatic man, Frank. Okay, this one's fictional too and not really a music biopic, but the story is inspired by Frank Sidebottom, an English musician from the late 1970's and early 1980's, the film is weirdly beautiful and it features a spectacular performance from Michael Fassbender.

Ray (2004)

The story of legendary rhythm and blues singer Ray Charles, from his humble beginnings in the South, where he went blind at age seven, to his rise to stardom during the 1950s and 1960s, is a moving and beautifully told biography, intensely portrayed by a brilliant Jamie Foxx. Well, at least this one stays true to the topic ;)

Goosebumps (2015)

Genre

Comedy | Fantasy | Horror

Director

Rob Letterman

Country

USA

Cast

Jack Black, Dylan Minnette, Odeya Rush, Amy Ryan, Ryan Lee, Jillian Bell, Halston Sage, Ken Marino, Timothy Simons, Amanda Lund, Steven Krueger, E. Roger Mitchell, Keith Arthur Bolden, R.L. Stine

Storyline

After moving to a new town, Zach (Dylan Minnette) meets a girl named Hannah (Odeya Rush), but her father, Mr. Shivers (Jack Black), doesn't want him to get close to his daughter. Like all teens, Zach doesn't do what he is told to, and will find out the deadly secret lying in that house.

Opinion

I grew up reading the Goosebumps book series, so you can imagine my excitement for this film. Though I did not have any expectations, knowing it was not an adaptation of a single novel but all the monsters together, and due the fact that I'm not a kid anymore. Happy to say I was pleasingly surprised.

While its scares basically target kids making of it a family-friendly horror, "Goosebumps" has enough humour and fun to entertain everyone, and to bring our your inner child, especially if you were a fan of the books.

According to author R.L. Stine, every Goosebumps story can be broken down into three parts: the beginning, the middle, and the twist. This rule applies to the film as well, and the twist element is really executed well, with some clever twists that give the film an emotional kick.

The story isn't completely original, but it feels fresh and it is beautifully executed, and seeing all those monsters released from R.L. Stine's manuscripts and making an appearance on the big screen was amazing.

The humour works well on both adult and kid levels, but there is some forced humour involving two police officers that just didn't work, and the dialogue is a little bit corny in the romantic scenes.

One of the smartest decisions the filmmakers made in making this film was casting Jack Black. He easily steals every scene he is in. His comedic timing is excellent, and he is able to be hilarious in everything he does as the fictional version of R.L. Stine. He also does a great job as Slappy the Dummy, the character that basically steals the show. The three teens (Dylan Minnette, Odeya Rush and Ryan Lee) are equally effective in their roles, and the chemistry between Minnette and Rush is just sweet.

Rob Letterman certainly knows how to do nostalgia the correct way.

The Net (1995)

Genre

Action | Thriller

Director

Irwin Winkler

Country

USA

Cast

Sandra Bullock, Jeremy Northam, Dennis Miller, Diane Baker, Wendy Gazelle, Ken Howard, Ray McKinnon, Robert Gossett, Wren T. Brown

Storyline

Computer programmer Angela Bennett (Sandra Bullock) stumbles upon a conspiracy, putting her life and the lives of those around her in great danger.

Opinion

I certainly wasn't expecting a classic when I put this film on last night. Well, at least I was not disappointed, because "The Net" is a mediocre Internet crime thriller.

The film is paced rather well, and the storyline - Hitchcock would have loved it - is quite promising, but then lack of development happens, and the film turns pretty much into Sandra Bullock being chased around by some nasty but clever people who have erased her identity. The climax comes way too late, and when it comes the musical choice isn't helping much the suspense, that somehow manages to be quite good considering the predictability of the story.

Computer technology has evolved tremendously since 1995, so obviously the film seems dated after all these years - I doubt nowadays kids even know what a floppy disk is -, but it certainly is not behind when talking about the film's topic. Needless to say identity theft is a real threat to everyone today as well. Actually, it is more of a threat today than it was in 1995, and it would be even easier to steal someone's identity considering all the information about ourselves we share everyday online.

The all conspiracy thing behind it is kind of science fiction, even though it's plenty of people believing in conspiracies. So who am I to judge?

Technically speaking, the film is a disaster. Director Irwin Winkler delights us with techniques we might see on MTV, and the scenes with potentially gripping moments are too slow. The editing is bad and, like I've mentioned before, the music is badly picked.

But Sandra Bullock is starring. This is a good thing for me because I'm a huge fan of her, and she is the reason why I watched the film in the first place. But she actually gives a pretty good performance as Angela Bennett, and she manages to bring some realness to the character. Also I read that she isn't as annoying as usual to people who don't like her.

Still, go for it if you love Sandy. Otherwise just don't. The game wouldn't worth the candle.

Star Trek: First Contact (1996)

Genre

Action | Adventure | Sci-Fi

Director

Jonathan Frakes

Country

USA

Cast

Patrick Stewart, Jonathan Frakes, Brent Spiner, LeVar Burton, Michael Dorn, Gates McFadden, Marina Sirtis, Alfre Woodard, James Cromwell, Alice Krige, Patti Yasutake, Neal McDonough, Majel Barrett, Robert Picardo

Storyline

It is the 24th century, and a collective of part-humanoid, part-machine beings face the Federation in what would be the biggest battle of all time. This collective, called the Borg, lose and desperately attempt to go back in time to April 4, 2063, to stop Earth's first contact with an alien species. Captain Picard (Patrick Stewart) and the crew of the Enterprise go back in time to make sure that Zefram Cochrane (James Cromwell) makes his famous warp flight. However, the Enterprise-E runs into unexpected trouble when the Borg start to assimilate the starship.

Opinion

After the disastrous "Star Trek: Generations", Jonathan Frakes also known as William T. Riker directs "Star Trek: First Contact", a solid, successful sci-fi film as well as one of the best entries in the series so far.

Beautifully written by Jonathan Frakes, the film has multiple storylines - Riker and part of the crew have to convince Dr. Zefram Cochrane to conduct the first human warp mission, Picard has to deal with his Moby Dick, the attack of the Borg -, all progressing at a beautiful pace, and even though the story seems a bit stretched in some parts, overall the story keeps you interested both with what the crew is going through on Earth, and what is happening on the ship. I read that the story was carried on from the TV series, and I congratulate with Frakes for providing all the background necessary to watch and enjoy the film, especially for those, like myself, who hasn't seen the TV series. 

The compelling story wonderfully balances drama and humour, and features funny and sharp dialogue.

The villains, the dreaded Borg, are very interesting, and the Borg Queen is one of the greatest Star Trek villains so far, and the best villain since Khan in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan".

I am not saying the film is flawless though. The scene in which the Borg Queen seduces Data is memorable, but the dialogue, actually what Data says, is a bit cheap. Also, I don't understand why Picard considers destroying the Enterprise such a big deal: that has been done so many times already, some of which without any reason at all, and now that there is a good reason, he just says no.

As for the acting, overall is great. Most of the actors give genuine performances, so genuine they conveys and invite the audience to feel the characters' feelings. 

Kung Fu Panda 3 (2016)

Genre

Action | Adventure | Animation | Comedy

Directors

Jennifer Yuh Nelson | Alessandro Carloni

Country

USA

Voice Cast

Jack Black, Angelina Jolie, Dustin Hoffman, J.K. Simmons, Lucy Liu, Jackie Chan, Seth Rogen, David Cross, Bryan Cranston, Kate Hudson, James Hong, Randall Duk Kim, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Fred Tatasciore, Stephen Kearin, Steele Gagnon, Barbara Dirickson, Al Roker, Willie Geist, Radzi Chinyanganya, Pax Jolie-Pitt, Knox Jolie-Pitt, Zahara Jolie-Pitt, Shiloh Jolie-Pitt, Liam Knight, Lindsey Russell

Storyline

When Po's long-lost panda father (Bryan Cranston) suddenly reappears, the reunited duo travels to a secret panda paradise to meet scores of hilarious new panda characters. But when the supernatural villain Kai (J.K. Simmons) begins to sweep across China defeating all the kung fu masters, Po (Jack Black) must do the impossible-learn to train a village full of his fun-loving, clumsy brethren to become the ultimate band of Kung Fu Pandas.

Opinion

Skadoosh! After five long years of waiting, the Dragon Warrior is back for the third installment of the franchise, "Kung Fu Panda 3", a humorous, entertaining and visually beautiful animated flick.

The storyline is again on the same lines of good vs evil, and at first sight it may seem complicated, but the well-constructed narrative allows the youngest to understand and follow the story quite easily. 

Another important factor that helps kids is the lightness with which the film addresses some pretty heavy philosophical issues. Unfortunately, while it is inspirational, the eastern philosophy gets repetitive and very similar to previous ones, still dealing with obstacles and dilemmas of finding yourself and going beyond your limits. I really appreciate DreamWorks Animation for taking Chinese philosophy seriously, but maybe they should try find some other issue to address.

The jokes are mostly good, and made me - and the rest of the audience - laugh out loud multiple times, but some lines are really not suitable for a youngish audience.

Working with the same characters for the third time isn't certainly easy, but the team actually did a great job with all those characters we already know. A lot more could have been done with the new ones. Po's father is probably the most sympathetic character in the whole film, and Bryan Cranston does a good voice work. Unfortunately the same cannot be said about the villain Kai, which, despite J.K. Simmon's voice, isn't much memorable with his weak personality and motivation. The same goes with the majority of the pandas, as they are completely forgettable.

Like in the previous films, the animation is stunning. Once again the beautiful CGI/3D animation is cleverly paired with gorgeous 2D animation sequences.

Overall, "Kung Fu Panda 3" is worth watching, especially for the fans of Po. 

Another Woman (1988)

Genre

Drama

Director

Woody Allen

Country

USA

Cast

Gena Rowlands, Ian Holm, Mia Farrow, Blythe Danner, Betty Buckley, John Houseman, Sandy Dennis, Frances Conroy, Philip Bosco, Martha Plimpton, Harris Yulin, Gene Hackman, David Ogden Stiers

Storyline

Facing a midlife crisis, a woman (Gena Rowlands) rents an apartment next to a psychiatrist's office to write a new book, only to become drawn to the plight of a pregnant woman (Mia Farrow) seeking that doctor's help.

Opinion

With prominent Bergmanesque influences, "Another Woman" is a delicate, intimate and profound drama.

Woody Allen's third serious serious film after "Interiors" and "September", the film deals with the theme of existentialism, posing us many questions about existence itself, and making us reflect on the difficulties of dialogue with our own consciousness and the damage this lack of dialogue will probably, certainly lead to.

Woody Allen takes us on a journey that goes from childhood to present moment, the dreaded midlife crisis, and he does it with unusual stringent tones, and with the help of the narrative voice of the protagonist. It will be a sorrowful journey that brings out all the lies Marion tells herself before anyone else, lies that forced her to an unhappy life. Only by accepting to reveal herself to herself and looking inside of her will give her another opportunity. 

In this film can be found most of the elements presents in other Allen's films - the upper Manhattan intellectuals and dysfunctional relationships -, but there's something missing, the laughs. Like I said before, this is a very serious matter, and therefore there is no place for Allen's usually nervous, neurotic characters. 

One good reason to watch "Another Woman" is Gena Rowlands. First, her narration is very easy and pleasing to listen to. Second, she gives an excellent performance as Marion. She manages to capture every nuance of the character, and her performance doesn't feel forced at all: she is so natural it almost looks like she's playing herself. Significantly overshadowed by Rowland's performance, the rest of the cast also does a good job.

Mention-Worthy Quotes

Marion: I closed the book, and felt this strange mixture of wistfulness and hope, and I wondered if a memory is something you have or something you've lost. For the first time in a long time, I felt at peace.

Man of Steel (2013)

Genre

Action | Sci-Fi

Director

Zack Snyder

Country

USA

Cast

Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburne, Antje Traue, Christopher Meloni, Ayelet Zurer, Russell Crowe, Harry Lennix, Christina Wren, Richard Schiff, Michael Kelly

Storyline

A young boy learns that he has extraordinary powers and is not of this Earth. As a young man (Henry Cavill), he journeys to discover where he came from and what he was sent here to do. But the hero in him must emerge if he is to save the world from annihilation and become the symbol of hope for all mankind.

Opinion

Because of all the excitement for "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice", I thought "Man of Steel" was supposed to be a big deal. So I watched it with high expectations, and I was rewarded with a big let down.

"Man of Steel" is loaded with action and special effects, but never quite takes off mainly because of the writing.

While I would have expected something like this from Zack Snyder, David Goyer ("Batman Begins", "The Dark Knight") and Christopher Nolan really disappointed me, and they made a film that portrays the famous Kryptonian with very little befitting the character - Superman never kills, no matter what.

The film can be easily divided into two parts. The first one introduces Clark Kent, with many significant flashbacks about his childhood, and his two fatherly figures, Jonathan Kent and Jor-El. It also shows what happened on Krypton, and why Kal-El's father had to do what he did. This is what made me think it was all going to work out. This part was awesome, but then shit happened. I mean, part two happened, the whole fighting thing with Zod. What could possibly go wrong with that? Everything. This part is loaded with special effects - 80-90% of the time - and extremely long action sequences that made me yawn God only knows how many times, and made me spend more time checking Twitter than actually focusing on the boring action.

The modern context of the film is to be appreciated though, and Clark's multiple father-and-son tales are beautifully done, but the Lois Lane/Superman romance is shallow.

I've already mentioned special effects and action a few times, and I think they deserve their own paragraph. They tried to compensate the lack of a solid story with unnecessary special effects that will be soon outdated, and action scenes there are just smashing scenes for the most. There is so much smashing going on, the Hulk would have gotten sick of it.

But let's move to the acting. After watching "Smallville" for 10 years, it's quite hard for me to get used to someone playing Clark Kent/Superman other than Tom Welling. But I wish that was the only problem. Since we are talking movies, the comparison between Brandon Routh and Henry Cavill is quite obvious - I'm leaving Christopher Reeve out of this because I'm yet to see his Superman. Anyway, I was saying, while Routh had grace and some acting skills, Henry Cavill has a great screen presence but he's just like a piece of wood. The rest of the cast, oh man. Michael Shannon was great as General Zod, and Kevin Costner did good in the little screen time he had, but Russell Crowe and Amy Adams are completely wasted here.

All of this being said, am I going to see "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" next week? Of course I will, I love superheroes flicks, and I won't miss the chance to complain about it.

Moonraker (1979)

Genre

Action | Sci-Fi | Thriller

Director

Lewis Gilbert

Country

UK | France | USA

Cast

Roger Moore, Lois Chiles, Michael Lonsdale, Toshiro Suga, Richard Kiel, Corinne Cléry, Bernard Lee, Geoffrey Keen, Desmond Llewelyn, Lois Maxwell, Emily Bolton, Michael Marshall, Walter Gotell, Blanche Ravalec

Storyline

A spaceship is mysteriously hijacked and James Bond (Roger Moore) must work quickly to find out who is behind it all.

Opinion

"Wonderful girl. Either I'm going to kill her or I'm beginning to like her." I know, James Bond didn't say it, it was Han Solo. But I don't see the point of not quoting Han Solo since this 007 flick tries so hard to be Star Wars. And that's a huge problem. 

Given the outcome of "The Spy Who Loved Me", I was expecting a lot more from this because of the same director, and the same (in part) cast. Unfortunately, "Moonraker" is a huge misfire, and while James Bond reaches space following the Star Wars trend, the series crashes into an asteroid.

The plot is so dumb and nonsense the only thought of it makes my head hurt. Once again James Bond must save the world, but this time, like I've already said a million of times, it happens in space. And it is as bad as it sounds. This Drax wants to destroy life on Earth and breed a generation of perfect people in a space station under his rule, and in order to do that, he builds his own spaceship to go into outer space to hijack a spaceship. Does it make any sense to you?

If there's something this film is good at is killing suspense. I mean, what a better way to do it than showing from the start who the mastermind behind this evil plan is? Luckily the intimidating henchman Jaws returns, but the plot developments pretty much destroy the character.

The action sequences are laughable re-workings of previous films and they often portray more violence than necessary. Also the humour isn't neither pulled off, the characters are as thin as paper, and the sets are taken straight out of Star Trek. 

Roger Moore seems lost, probably because the plot has confused him too, and he is just not there. Michael Lonsdale is bland and a completely menace-free villain, but at least Richard Kiel does a quite good job as Jaws. Bernard Lee is given a bit more for his last time around, but he deserved a better film.

I guess the main drive behind the film was to earn money and popularity in the same way "Star War: A New Hope" did two years earlier. It just didn't pay off.

Thursday Movie Picks: Intersecting Stories

Hello there, it's time for another episode of Thursday Movie Picks, a weekly series hosted by Wandering Through the Shelves where you share three movies to fit the theme of the week each Thursday.

This week's topic is one of my favourites, intersecting stories. I loved puzzles growing up, and this kind of films are not so different from puzzles. They fascinate me for the unexpected turns they may take, I don't know, they are just beautiful to me. Let's get started, shall well?

Babel (2006)

In Morocco, a kid tests a rifle and shoots an American woman on a vacation with her husband. This incident will have consequences in other country, and other people's lives. Iñárritu's final piece of the Death Trilogy, Babel is a beautiful drama about loneliness generated by cultural, geographical and psychological boundaries.

Pulp Fiction (1994)

Don't you really know what this film is about? Okay, this is what happens: a couple decides to rob a coffee shop; two hitmen must recover a briefcase from their employer, a mob boss; one of the hitmen has to take out the boss's wife; a boxer is paid by said boss to lose. (Un)Luckily the lives of these criminals meet and here you go, one of the best movies ever! Seriously, Pulp Fiction is just perfect. The soundtrack, the humour, the violence, and all those connections with Reservoir Dogs. And Samuel L. Jackson of course.

Little Pieces (2014)

First film from Adam Nelson, Little Pieces is a brilliant and emotional drama that revolves around Michael and Eric, two young men on a collision course with the world around them. The film challenges your intellect and keeps you wondering for the whole time, and brings independent cinema to a whole new level.

Walk the Line (2005)

Genre

Biography | Drama | Music | Romance

Director

James Mangold

Country

USA

Cast

Joaquin Phoenix, Reese Witherspoon, Ginnifer Goodwin, Robert Patrick, Hailey Anne Nelson, Dallas Roberts, Dan John Miller, Johnny Holliday, Larry Bagby, Shelby Lynne, Sandra Ellis, Tyler Hilton, Waylon Payne, Shooter Jenning, Clay Steakley, Jonathan Rice, Lucas Till, Ridge Canipe

Storyline

A chronicle of country music legend Johnny Cash's (Joaquin Phoenix) life, from his early days on an Arkansas cotton farm to his rise to fame with Sun Records in Memphis.

Opinion

Based on Johnny Cash's autobiography, "Walk the Line" is a quite engaging biopic enhanced by two great performances that make this film worth checking out.

Unfortunately, once the movie is over, you realize that is practically identical, both in direction and storytelling, to "Ray". Basically the only difference is the colour of the skin. The two films are so similar it's embarrassing.

This biopic uses the same map of storyline: both coming from a very poor background, both witness traumatic events involving their brothers, both in love with women more straight-laced then they are, both are drug addicts, both bottom out, both have an epiphany, and both rise with the help of family and friends.

I do realize that there are music biopics everywhere, and bringing something new was not easy, but director James Mangold could have done more. He did manage to capture the essence of the relationship between Johnny Cash and June Carter, but some sense of humour could have done here.

To balance the negative aspects there are equally positive aspects. Phedon Papamichael's cinematography, for example, is quite inspired - even though he has done better than this - and there's a lot of good music.

At last the performances. Joaquin Phoenix wears Johnny Cash like a suit and gives a mesmerizing performance able to communicate love for a woman as profoundly as I've never seen before. He also does his own singing. Reese Witherspoon is absolutely magnificent as June Carter - Academy Award fully deserved - and her chemistry with Phoenix pretty much carries the film.