Change Your Image
easternmoviecritic
Reviews
Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (2006)
Borat - a bad example or comedy gold?
Ahh, yes. What can be better than a mockumentary? A mockumentary with Sacha Baron Choen. This is the hit movie Borat.
Borat is a fictional character who lives in Kazakhstan, along with his wife, sister and mother (and the village people) and works for a TV station. After a brief introduction to his village and its "charming" inhabitants, the primitive fellow explains his task: he is being dispatched to the US to report on the country. That, he hopes, will help Kazakhstan become a better country, by having an example. But Borat doesn't fit well among the Americans, always causing trouble or behaving improperly. The report turns into a journey across the US when Borat falls in love with Pamela Anderson after watching Baywatch.
Borat is a hilarious character, the image of a village man, who doesn't know much about manners, high society and life in general. With his accent, conversation skills and goofy moustache, Borat became a symbol of comedy.
The movie is anything but flawless. First of all, the village doesn't resemble a Kazakh village at all, none of the villagers look Kazakh, not even Borat. Well, believe it or not, the village is Romanian. It's funny (if you understand the language) to listen to what the people are actually saying, since the translation is different. The movie is controversial, Kazakhstan is not populated by Borats, but the movie wants us to believe so. It creates the image of a country populated by anti-semites and unintelligent brutes.
Most explanations are in Russian – most of the word are spelt wrong. Apparently nobody proofread the script
It's a daring movie, it's hilarious, it's clever, it's controversial, it's not a perfect cinema piece, but it still is great. Does the movie show the real America? That's for you to decide.
Final Score: 3.5/5 or 7/10
The Exorcist (1973)
The movie lost its horror factor, but it's still a work of art.
The Exorcist was one of those movie which revolutionised the genre. It was perhaps the first horror movie to bring such new elements as demons, possession, religion in it. Granted, it's not very scary now, but try and think as someone from the 70s, who had no idea what to expect and were treated with a shocking movie.
The story is set in Georgetown. The protagonists are, first of all, Ellen Burstyn (Chris MacNeil), an actress and a proud mother of a girl, Regan (Linda Blair). One day strange things start to happen at the local church. At the same time, Regan's behavior makes a sharp turn towards the "dark side" as she starts talking rude and hitting people. As she gains new powers and as her face deteriorates, psychiatrists can no longer be of help and Ellen considers an exorcism.
The second protagonist is Father Karras (Jason Miller), a priest and former psychiatrist, who is part of a sub-plot, which eventually leads him to the main plot. The final mini-protagonist is Father Merrin (Max von Sydow), someone we will see more towards the end.
Commenting about acting in this movie is useless, mainly because it cannot be complained about. But I do have to mention Jason Miller, since he really managed to give life to the depressed, but perseverant Father Karras.
The plot evolves slowly, but seeing the possessed girl is somehow rewarding. I know that back then it was very scary, but I think the possessor is hilarious, all his dirty talking made me laugh. But the exorcism scene is a unique one in cinema history and it has its place among the most memorable ones.
With all honesty, it is a masterpiece, The Exorcist is an essential part of the horror genre and it will still remain an example in the years to come.
Final Score: 5/5 or 10/10
Beowulf (2007)
A remarkable gore fest.
All over the world, fans of the God of War games want a movie based on the adventures of Kratos, with all the specific elements: gore, vulgarity, nudity and battles. Bloody, bloody battles. Unfortunately there is no God of War movie. But Beowulf is closest thing we have.
Beowulf is an old medieval poem about a Northern hero, Beowulf, who came to help the people get rid of menacing monsters. And that is pretty much the story here. Grendel (Crispin Glover), a demon with sensible ears, turns a grand feast into a blood bath. King Hrothgar (Anthony Hopkins) is in luck: a man who calls himself Beowulf (Ray Winstone) and his men arrive, claiming that they can defeat the demon. After a hard-earned success, Beowulf has to face an even greater challenge: Grendel's mother (Angelina Jolie), while his influence and power grows.
The plot has little to no subplots, is linear and very solid. That's not the problem of the movie. The problem is that it doesn't manage to impress. Yes, it's based on a legend, but that doesn't mean it could rival the Lord of the Rings. Certain elements are keeping Beowulf away from the 5 star milestone.
First of all, the voice acting and acting are great, the actors are well-known, no complaints. BUT there still are two actors who stick out like a sore thumb - Malkovich and Jolie. John Malkovich plays Unferth, a Rasputin-like counselor of the king, who is at first sceptic about Beowulf. He's so stiff, I don't know where to begin... Then there's Jolie, but here it's not about acting, but about choice. She just isn't right as Grendel's mother, I couldn't buy it. I was like " Lara Croft is confronting Beowulf?". There are tons of actresses who could have had the role. By the way, since when do medieval demons wear modern-day shoes?
But the most obvious oddity is the full CG. Everything is CG, from actors to landscapes, and honestly, it looks incredibly well - photo-realistic, superb effects, fabulous animation. But you still know that it's artificial. They went to such lengths to animate and create everything, when they could have just used the REAL actors and just made it live-action. Okay, this isn't a flaw, it's the director's style and whether you like it or not - it depends on taste.
The movie is full of gore, nudity, epic music, great acting and marvellous effects. Unfortunately, the plot development, several flaws and two actors are pulling it down.
Final Verdict: Awesome. The should make a game based on this...wait...
Final Score: 3.5/5 or 7/10
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
The second part of the prequels. What's the verdict?
Attack of the Clones, the second episode of the prequel trilogy, is the one where the new Star Wars episodes actually started, because the movie still is a Star Wars episode, but it doesn't have that SW feel to it that the original episodes and Phantom Menace had.
The story takes place 10 years after the events from Phantom Menace. Anakin (Hayden Christensen)is now a grown up Padawan. He's assigned to protect Padme, after several assassination attempts have been foiled. Meanwhile, Obi-Wan' investigation takes him to Kamino, where a army for the Republic, made entirely out of clones, has been prepared. It also seems that the Trade Federation has a darker power and a wider influence that the Republic could have imagined.
The plot evolves pretty slowly from "intersting, but boring" in the beginning to " amazing!" in the end. The first part is mainly about Obi-Wan's investigation and Ani's ongoing romance with Padme. And I swear, the romance scenes are so cheesy and frequent, they simply get on the viewer's nerves.
Hayden Christensen is another hated actor of the series. Yes, he's not convincing or strong, but he does have some moments. I could list other actors that didn't do their best, but I'll just shut up.
Attack of the Clones also introduces us to little Boba Fett and his father, Jango Fett, Owen and Beru and a new Sith - Count Dooku (Christopher Lee). He's intimidating, but that's just because of his voice. The battle scenes, which are mainly towards the end are spectacular, we can clearly notice that both the Republic and the Trade Federation got more powerful.
Here's another fact: this is the first Star Wars movie in which Yoda is fully CGI. Is that good? He is now more expressive, and he participates in a battle scene, so it is. Imagine a battle scene with puppet Yoda...
One more complaint: the droids are in the movie, but R2 is the only useful one. 3PO has absolutely no use! He just argues with R2 and gets himself into trouble, while contributing nothing to the plot. He's the Jar-Jar of the movie (except Jar-Jar did help our heroes). Speaking of him, he's present too, but this time he's barely on the screen, so he's no longer part of the problem.
Overall, Attack of the Clones is a step forward, combining a slow, but detailed and well-done plot with excellent effects and average acting, horrible romance scenes and great battle scenes.
Final Score: 3.5/5 or 7/10
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
The first of the worst or the last of the best?
The Phantom Menace is considered to be the worst Star Wars movie. Unfortunately, it is, but that doesn't make it a bad movie.
The story begins with the two Jedi ambassadors, Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson) and Obi-Wan Kenobie (Ewan McGregor), who have come to negotiate with the Trade Federation, rising power which now controls a number trade routes. The negotiations fail and the two Jedi are forced to flee to the planet below - Naboo. There they save the queen, Amidala (Natalie Portman), and her loyal helpers, while the Trade federation takes control of the planet. On their way to Coruscant, the only place where Amidala can get help, the group encounters a boy, Anakin Skywalker (Jake Lloyd), who seems to have Jedi powers. Meanwhile, a Sith, Darth Maul , has been sent to hunt them down.
To be honest, the plot is good - the battle with corruption, a little boy with "great expectations", the battle for freedom - it's a standard, solid story. But there are flaws.
Let me list you the only good characters/w actors in the movie - Darth Maul, Qui Gon, Shmi Skywalker, The Emperor.
Four good characters in the whole movie! Darth Maul is one of the most intimidating, strong and devoted Sith you will ever see in Star Wars. Qui Gon is, believe it or not, the best Jedi in the saga. Now, before you start arguing, remember what leads to the dark side and what qualities a Jedi must have. A Jedi must never use his anger and never fear anything. This is the only Jedi in the whole saga (along with Ben Kenobi) who managed to be a perfect Jedi - always calm, never fearful, never panicking, wise. But he is a bit weak... You'll see the other two for yourself.
Now, for some flaws. Many alien characters have accents that are basically inspired or resemble actual people, like Jar-Jar, the clumsy and brainless Gungan, who resembles, it seems, someone from the Caribbean. The same could be said for Watto and Nute Gunray.
Jake Lloyd is the most hated actor in the movie. I agree that his acting is terrible, but I don't blame the boy, no. I blame someone else *cough* Lucas *cough*, who had to choose between 3000 kids, among which were even well-known ones, but chose Jake.
Queen Amidala is such a wooden character, she barely moves, her face barely moves and she has such a ridiculous wardrobe. Who should be blamed? Portman plays Padme as well, and this character is a bit better, not by much. Obi Wan is a notable character...in the next movies, but not here. He is in the back plan, but some moments.
There is no character development, some moments are pointless and there is way, way too much CGI. Okay, the visuals are stunning, but it feels artificial.
Many complain about Jar-Jar, but they are forgetting that he had two crucial uses in the movie, which I will not spoil. If he had no more dialogue than what I mentioned, he would not be annoying.
Despite the flaws, Episode I feels like Star Wars, with the trademark music and visual effects. It has some incredible scenes, like the Pod Race, the saber battles (with splendid choreography, some Qui-Gonn-Anakin/Obi-Wan dialogues and the final battles. It was a disappointment for the people who were used to the original movies, but now we're used to it.
Overall, the movie is good. It's like a new car: looks nice, but it's full of bird droppings.
Final Score: 3/5 or 6/10.
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Legend
Before 1991 horror movies were less about psychology and more about the actual killing and monsters. The Silence of the Lambs changed the genre.
The story starts with our main hero, Clarice Staling (Jodie Foster), a novice FBI enforcer, being sent by her boss to an asylum, where she must talk to one of the most ruthless serial killers – Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins). His alternate name, "Hannibal the Cannibal", sums up why he is so notorious. Dr. Lecter apparently has some information regarding Buffalo Bill, another serial killer, who gained his name because of his sick "tradition" of skinning his victims, all women, and who, unlike Hannibal, is on the loose. Clarice must find out where Bill is and stop him.
Jodie Foster is great as Clarice, playing the role of an average woman, who has wanted justice since she was little, when her father was killed by two thugs.
But the forte point of the movie is Anthony Hopkins, who won an Oscar for the role, the shortest Oscar-winning performance in cinema history. He's screen time is about 20 minutes, but the impression is beyond powerful. He managed to show both sides of Hanibal Lecter – the gentle, calm and yet diabolical Hannibal and the monster.
Ted Levine, who played Buffalo Bill, never got the same reputation that Foster and Hopkins got, despite giving life to a twisted freak.
The movie is part horror, part psychological thriller. Clarice is trying to do the impossible, while the clock is ticking
The Silence of the Lambs is an absolute masterpiece, recommended to all cinema fans.
Final Score: 5/5 or 10/10
The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974)
A hostage situation on a subway?
Maybe not as well known and remembered, recently reborn through the remake, the 1974 Taking of the Pelham One Two Three is a top notch heist flick.
Transit policeman at the NY subway command centre becomes a hostage negotiator, when four armed men take over the Pelham One Two Three and threaten to kill the hostages is the sum of 1 million dollars isn't delivered to them within 60 minutes.
Garber, played by Walter Matthaw, is an ordinary man who is doing his job without expecting anything unusual, but still manages to stay calm during tense situations, Matthaw clearly plays his role well. The antagonist, Blue, is a surprisingly interesting one, since he's so mysterious, precise and motive-less. Robert Shaw is brilliant as Blue. The only character on the blacklist is the mayor, played by Lee Wallace. Not that he was bad, but I seriously didn't buy it.
The movie's forte point was the suspense it created, the unpredictable turns, which may not seem so special today, but had a powerful effect back then.
The plot only lacks some backstory - Garber's, but it's arguably a good point, since everything is centred more around the antagonists.
The movie is an excellent pick for fans of robbery/heist movies, the actors mentioned above or just those who want to watch underrated classics.
Final Score: 4/5 or 8/10
The Road to El Dorado (2000)
The Forgotten Movie
The Road to El Dorado is an underrated Dreamworks creation which came out and left in haste.
The plot centres around two tricky Spanish swindlers, Tulio and Miguel, who manage to get their hands on a map of the City of Gold, ElDorado. After a long voyage, the stowaways find El Dorado, where they are treated as Gods. But their scam is endangered by the suspecting vile priest Tzekel-Khan.
Voice acting is very good, especially Armand Assasnte's, who voiced Tzekel Khan. The priest gives me shivers every time I watch the movie. And speaking of him, there are some interesting characters, like the good Chief, who cares about the people, Cortes, the terrifying conquistador, the two main heroes themselves, who have different views, but one goal and Tzekel-Khan, the religious fanatic who strongly believes in sacrifices.
The animation is superb, El Dorado is extremely well done, a colorful Utopia with unique wildlife, along with the surrounding jungles. Almost all the songs (several in total) are Elton John songs. They're catchy.
Of course, the movie isn't perfect. The main flaw is that the entire plot is based on ridiculous coincidences. Tulio and Miguel HAPPEN to get a map and then HAPPEN to get on the boat that HAPPENS to take them to a place which HAPPENS to be the place indicated on the map.
Also, some moments are extremely odd and, once again, are based on coincidences. But, overall, the movie is very good, a forgotten treasure with excellent animation, hilarious moments and a cool villain.
Final Score: 3.5/5 or 7/10
Batman Begins (2005)
An introduction to Batman
Batman fans were shocked to see that a new Batman movie could be so good. In fact, I was shocked myself. Batman Begins may be inferior to its successor, The Dark Knight, but it's still a marvellous movie.
BB is, to be brief, an introduction to Batman: Bruce Wayne's childhood and the event that changed his life, his criminal past, his training and his thirst for vengeance. Unlike its successor, Batman Begins puts emphasis on Batman, the protagonist, rather than the antagonist. In fact, we barely notice the antagonist, Scarecrow, which has very little screen time.
Christian Bale does a fabulous job, he manages to give life to Bruce Wayne and Batman, he does that better in this movie than in The Dark Knight. Applause to Liam Neeson, Katie Holmes and Michael Cane, who also show their acting skills at their best.
While the movie is entertaining and has action scenes that are meant to keep you in your seat, the plot development is very slow, especially in the beginning.
Batman Begins is the perfect introduction to Batman, a movie that brings back the darkness from the 1989 one, but combines it with the technology of the 21st century.
Final Score: 4/5 or 8/10
Cars (2006)
Despite the generic story, it's a good Pixar movie.
Cars isn't one of Pixar's movies which became instant classics. It has its ups and downs, I'll start with the good. The plot is simple, but it has a morale. Our main hero is Lightning McQueen, a selfish egotistic rookie car which made it to the final of the Piston Cup, a Nascar tournament. He soon finds himself in a difficult situation, getting out of it proves to be challenging because of his hot-shot character.
The voice acting is very good, we have famous actors voicing the cars, like Owen Wilson, Michael Keaton, Paul Newman and so on. They all do a terrific job, so no complaints here.
Now, the bad. First of all, we have no back story for McQueen, how he got to be so good, why, when and so on. At least 3 minutes of back story would have been nice. On the bright side, we see some character development. The plot, while creative in ways, is actually a very common story, with a different approach. Another bad thing, all cars are stereotypes: there's a hippy car which always says something about "organic fuel" and hippy stuff, there's an army jeep which always uses army terms. That's not a major flaw, more like a minor one.
Overall, the story isn't very original. Cars has great production values, great voice acting, doesn't have an original plot, but still has a morale and a good script.
Final Score: 3.5/5 or 7./10
A Good Man in Africa (1994)
Decent, but it had greater potential.
A Good Man in Africa is a parody of Africa. The action takes place in an imaginary African country, Kinjaja. The movie centres around Morgan Leafy, a British diplomat and a gigolo who wants countless damsels. Morgan isn't a memorable character, he can't be a role model, but the character does develop throughout the movie.
One flaw of the movie is false advertisement. On the DVD cover we see Sean Connery in the front plan, on another DVD cover we don't even see Morgan. Even the description doesn't mention Morgan; this is made to make us believe that Sean Connery plays a major role, but he doesn't. He plays a white doctor, Alex Murray, a doctor at the local hospital. Needless to say, Connery is the best actor in the movie. He's there only for about 10 minutes in total. And yet he has a major role? Very cheap strategy.
A Good Man in Africa has light, subtle humour, it may not be funny, but it's original. As I've said before, it's a parody of Africa, politics in Africa, the African man himself and the white man trying to fit in. Mildly racist, mildly funny, overall - decent.
Final Score: 2.5/5 or 5/10
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
The spectacular ending of the original trilogy.
Star Wars: Return of the Jedi is, I'm sorry to say this, the worst movie of the original trilogy. But considering that the first 2 received a 10 from me, that's not saying much, it's still a fantastic movie.
In A New Hope, there was one plot line, in Empire Strikes Back there were 2, while here there are three. The battle between the Rebellion and the Empire reaches its final stage. Han Solo and the group fly to Endor to deactivate a shield which defends the reconstructed Death Star, while Lando and the Rebel fleet is preparing to destroy it once again. During all this, Luke sets off to confront his father.
There are no major flaws, I don't consider the Ewoks flaws, I think the cute Endor bears are one of the charms of ROTJ. What I do consider a flaw is the beginning. I'm not going to spoil anything, I'll just say that the first 40 minutes could have been easily turned into 25. On the bright side, the movie finally shows us the Emperor in flesh and bones.
I won't comment on the acting, special effects or music, we all know that they haven't changed, except for the special effects, which at the time were at their best. Overall, Return of The Jedi is the movie that isn't a masterpiece, but it's very close. the ending of the trilogy was and is a success.
Final Score: 4.5/5 or 9/10
Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
The Most Powerful Star Wars Movie
The Empire Strikes Back is an example of how well done a sequel can be, it takes the series to a whole new level and is an improvement over A New Hope. The amazing thing is that this time Lucas wasn't the director. That doesn't change anything, he guided Irvin and ESB is still his creation.
This time everything is on a larger scale. The battles aren't puny and meaningless, they are actual battles. The movie starts with the battle for the icy world Hoth. From there the plot splits in 2, one being with Luke and one with the rest: Leia, Han, Chewie, 3PO and R2.
We are explained in more detail how the Force works and we see how truly powerful the Empire is. Thanks to the money Lucas earned from A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back has better special effects and some splendid locations, including Hoth and Bespin.
But it's not all about battles, the love story part of the series is also developed, Luke's struggle to understand the Force and use it continues, while Vader is more determined than ever.
Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back is a remarkable chapter of the Star Wars saga.
Final Score: 5/5 or 10/10
The Dark Knight (2008)
Why so serious? Because it's The Dark Knight!
Batman is back and fresh! This time he's facing the Joker.
Heath Ledger's Joker is considered to be the best Joker so far, and for good reason. In the movie he's a sick, demented psychopath with a cunning mind who is always one step ahead of Batman. Heath's performance is just brilliant.
But so is Aaron Eckhart's, who plays the mayor of Gotham city. Christian Bale and Maggie Gyllenhaal aren't very bright actors in this one, but that doesn't affect the overall impression.
TDK has many mind-blowing action scenes and monologues which don't bore you. It's dark, but at the same time doesn't exaggerate with its darkness. It's meant to cut your breath every minute and make sure that you won't forget this experience.
Final Score: 4.5/5 or 9/10
Star Wars (1977)
This is where it all began...the saga
The first Star Wars movie is simply a revolutionary Sci-Fi flick. It created the Star Wars universe and expanded our imagination. The battle between the evil Empire and the Rebel Alliance is an iconic example of Good. vs. Evil.
It introduced new actors, Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher and even Harrison Ford, and propelled them into their movie careers. George Lucas, the creator of the saga, spent several years on writing and then making the movie. His efforts were not in vain.
A very important part of the movie is the energy that exists throughout the universe - the Force, and the ones who know how to use it - the Jedi.
The antagonist, Darth Vader, became one of the most well known villains in cinema history. And how could he not have become,with such a voice, such attitude and frightening appearance.
A New Hope has special effects that were amazing at that time, great action scenes, a good plot and terrific actors.
Even though this is episode 4 (despite it actually being the first movie), any newcomer to the series should start with this one. It is a spectacular experience.
Final Score: 5/5 or 10/10
Super Mario Bros. (1993)
Baaad...but mildly enjoyable
The movie has almost nothing to do with the Super Mario franchise. It's basically the same concept, same characters, but in a modern city ( a parallel dimension) instead of the Mushroom Kingdom, real humans and half humans half dinosaur humans instead of random creatures. Instead of princess Peach, we have Daisy, who has been kidnapped by two goons from the dimension i mentioned above. Luigi is in love with her, so normally, he goes after her with his brother...or father...or friend...Mario.
Dennis Hopper plays Bowser (king Koopa in the movie), and he's not good at it. I can't think of a worse villain. The only good actor is Bob Hoskins, who is one of the few actors who look like Mario.
The acting is mediocre, the script is bad, but the movie does have its moments and at times is quite enjoyable. Trust me, it could have been worse.
Final Score: 1.5/5 or 3/10
Angels & Demons (2009)
When the Vatican is fun.
Langdon is back and this time he's in Vatican, where a secret society, the Illuminatti, are threatening the cardinals and the city. To be brief, Angels and Deamons is better than The DaVinci Code mainly because it's more fast-paced, it's full of disturbing facts and there's more action.
The cast isn't anything special, the only two actors who stand out are Ewan McGregor and Tom Hanks, who improved his acting a tad since DaVinci. Ayelet Zurer, who plays Vittoria Vetra, is on the blacklist: her acting is nothing spectacular and her character is useless, mainly because she contributes little to the actual plot.
The movie does have its share of weird moments, corny lines and so on, but it's entertaining, a must see for fans of The DaVinci Code.
Final Score: 3.5/5 or 7/10