Confessions of a filmoholic

Right, first things first. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is awesome. I saw it at the pictures 2 days ago and I can't stop thinking about it. This movie is something I have never seen before - so fresh, original, funny and unexpected. At times during the viewing, Kick-Ass was popping into my mind, as the films bear some resemblance (both feel joyfully anarchistic), but it didn't stay there long. Scott Pilgrim... is breaking plenty of the cinematic rules, or rather I should say, mixing them in a very imaginative way. but you know, what's the best part? It makes sense. And a lot of it - the whole thing can be read as a deep metaphor of what it means to be responsible. Or how to deal with the demons of your past. But don't worry, it doesn't stop being hilarious for a single moment. All the actors are brilliant, with Michael Cera in his best role so far, the music is great and there's plenty of it too. The only drawback, but a minor one, is that some of the action sequences are a bit too fast. If you want to see something totally original, unlike anything you have seen before, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is still out there.
9/10

The book vs. the movie part 3. I have got another thing to add to the never-to-be-solved issue if reading the book before seeing the film that was based on it enhances or spoils the experience. You may already know my point of view as for two titles: Watchmen and 2001: A Space Odyssey, now let me tell you about The Road. The movie is based on a brilliant novel of the same title, written by Cormac McCarthy, which won numerous award, including the Pulitzer Prize. So, according to the theory, that you can't make a good
movie out of a great literary source, John Hillcoat's piece should be watchable at best, especially if you had read the book before. Well, this is not the case, simply because the film is as good. Somehow the director managed to make a very faithful adaptation, which not only doesn't feel overshadowed by McCarthy's masterpiece, but also, thanks to the amazing performances from the cast, makes it more heartfelt. To summarize, it doesn't matter if you read the book or not - the film is brilliant enough to entertain you anyway.
8/10

Masterpiece time! Or is it? Recently I have seen 2001: A Space Odyssey, God knows which time. I have always adored it, but since I started writing this blog I guess I became a bit more critical regarding films, then I used to be. I realise this movie is considered as one of the best ever, but there are some bits that don't quite appeal to me. But first things first: the positives. 2001... aged extremely well. Most of the time you watch it in an awe, since the special effects are really impressive and the whole thing still looks futuristic. The story is engaging as well, the middle part of the film is science-fiction thriller at it's very best. But there are two issues. First is the longevity of some shots. Sometimes the viewer feels like shouting to Mr. Kubrick: get on with it! The other thing is the highly confusing ending. Unlike in case of Watchmen, I'm really happy I had read the book, the film is based on - otherwise I wouldn't have had a slightest idea of what is going on during the last chapter of the movie. Of course, after all that, is still is a bloody good  film, and if you haven't seen it yet, don't waste any more time. It is not flawless but it is a must-see.
8/10

I am really running out of ideas what to write about. Not a very good sign after two months of active blogging. The thing is, why should I write about films everybody likes? If they have read 673 positive reviews of, let's say Lord Of The Rings, why would they enjoy reading 674th? And opposite - does anyone need convincing, that Alien Vs Predator is crap? I don't think so. So how about a few words about a not-too-bad, (but at the same time not-too-special) little film, hardly anybody had a chance to watch? Like Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel - a quirky science-fiction comedy about a bunch of guys who find a time-hole in the gents' at a pub. It is quite smartly written, the plot is pretty engaging, the jokes are hit and miss and there are 7 actors in it. Really. Plus extras. Not a waste of time then, but if I didn't see it for free, I'd say it's a waste of money. To end this kind of pointless review: bare in mind, that if you are a SF fan, you can add an extra point to the score below.
5/10  

Right, who watched Watchmen? It is a peculiar beast. Last night I saw it for the second time and I still can't make up my mind what to think about it. The problem is, that just before the film came out, I read the comic book it is based on, and believe me, it is brilliant. If Zack '300' Snyder's movie was disappointing, writing about it would be an easy task. Luckily it is not. What I like about it is how dark it is - bloody and brutal - a thing you rarely see in a summer blockbuster. It is also serious, taking on poignant moral issues, with an ambivalent ending. You can't do anything but admire the filmmakers' courage - they actually spent $130m to show us this disturbing psychological drama. Also, kudos to the writing team, who managed to transform the complicated graphic novel into a more-or-less coherent movie. So, what is my problem? Well, the film is TOO faithful to its literary source, both on the visual level and plot-wise. It is so stylised you can't really engage with the characters and if you had read the book, there isn't anything that you wouldn't expect. Also, you miss 'I wonder how they showed...' feeling, typical for other adaptations, just because everything looks identically as in the graphic novel. I hope you understand why I wish I hadn't read the book before I watched the film - I guess I would have liked it more then.
7/10  

Yesterday I saw Inception. Even though it was pretty good, I don't feel I'm ready to review it yet. I simply didn't understand it in full, so I'll write about it when I see it again. Until then, let me tell you about the film, it is very similar to. Some say it would be Matrix, some mention Memento, but the movie that resembles Inception most, so much that even feels sometimes like its derivative, is David Cronenberg's EXistenZ. Surely, this director made better movies before (The Fly) and after (History of Violence), but this one is also worth looking at. If you are keen on stories in which reality merges with fantasy to the point you can't tell one from the other and enjoy the lurk into somewhat sick mind of one of the most original filmmakers of our time, which is populated by his favourite 'organic machines' (like a gun made of bones, shooting tooth-bullets), this one is just for you. And if you've seen Inception too, you will see that I'm right.
7/10  

Now I need to tell you about a film that was undeservedly bashed by the critics. And why did that happen? Apparently everyone was expecting from the director Richard Kelly another Donnie Darko, a dark, teenage drama with a hint of 1980s nostalgia and science-fiction motifs. And Southland Tales is anything but (well, maybe apart from SF, which is still present). What I think people didn't get is the film's tongue-in-cheek quality - when not taken serious it is actually very funny. And also very clever - there is literally a dozen of characters and Kelly's imagination does not know any boundaries. There are so many mad ideas, you could share them between at least five other inventive movies. Funnily enough the film's strength is also it's biggest weakness. As you can imagine the number of characters as well as of the subjects the director brings up make the whole enterprise a bit confusing. It is not really hard to follow, but at times requires a lot of attention. Also, I didn't 'get' the ending. Concluding - a pleasure to watch, a nightmare to understand. Not as bad as they say.
6/10