tbeekers
Joined Feb 2003
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews13
tbeekers's rating
A riveting adventure filled with joy, Lost Continent is probably best remembered for one thing: rock climbing.
In one of the most amazing shows of padding out a film, this 83 minute feature contains about 20 minutes of pure mountaineering. Doesn't sound too bad until you realize that almost nothing happens during those 20 minutes than a bunch of guys walking from rock to rock.
So what is this film? It starts as a political-military flick filled with disjointed semi-back-stories and speeches, runs right into the boring uncut mountaineering and finally ends up as it was advertised, as a fantasy-adventure.
A good fantasy-adventure? Nope, not really, but it's not bad either. It contains all the flat one-dimensional characters and bad effects and filming of the 50's, but it's no worse than any of those. If you're really into these classic adventure flicks, the movie is worth watching once they're done rock climbing.
In one of the most amazing shows of padding out a film, this 83 minute feature contains about 20 minutes of pure mountaineering. Doesn't sound too bad until you realize that almost nothing happens during those 20 minutes than a bunch of guys walking from rock to rock.
So what is this film? It starts as a political-military flick filled with disjointed semi-back-stories and speeches, runs right into the boring uncut mountaineering and finally ends up as it was advertised, as a fantasy-adventure.
A good fantasy-adventure? Nope, not really, but it's not bad either. It contains all the flat one-dimensional characters and bad effects and filming of the 50's, but it's no worse than any of those. If you're really into these classic adventure flicks, the movie is worth watching once they're done rock climbing.
Having seen this film in Russia, it is an honest fear of mine that it'll gain any popularity or even a hype in the West.
The popularity of this film has to be understood and can't really be shared in the West. The Nochnoy dozor books were awfully popular in Russia. I can't really comment on the quality of those books, having only casually read the first few a bit, but I can say that if you look at the popularity of those books you would realise that it didn't really matter to the Russians how good or bad the film would be. They *wanted* a film and any would do. In my opinion, the Harry Potter movies weren't bad, but imagine they were. Would the first Harry Potter film not still have been a huge hit and even hugely hyped by the avid book readers, just because it managed to put the books into film-form? The same holds true here, but it has to be remembered that the West doesn't share the hype that the Night Watch books gained in Russia. I would be highly surprised if this movie popped in on the Oscars, as I've heard many Russians suggest, and would definitely be insulted if next to the many quality films produced by foreign countries including Russia this one would be listed. Many recent Russian films, like Sibirskiy tsiryulnik or Zvezda or Vostok-Zapad or even Voina, deserved the Oscar more than this film.
It is interesting to Sibirskiy tsiryulnik (the Barber of Siberia) in comparison to this. Mikhalkov's ambitious project was seen by many to be little more than an attempt to impress the West. This assertion is not fair, but it does reveal a lot about the flaws of that film, which sometimes hung right in between Western and Russian styles, and other border-crossing attempts, like Viona or this film. Voina fails in giving an otherwise excellent film an American ending. This films fails by giving a somewhat usable premise a heavy Hollywood coating.
The acting is, to be honest, not that good and the storyline is confusing for those that are not avid readers of the Night Watch series, e.g. everyone outside Russia. This does not kill off the film though, it is killed by the script (which I will not go into in detail except to say that it is confusing and implausible up to a point of annoyance) and by the awful camera-works, which feels like mix of Russian styles, Matrixized actions and shocky Blair Witch filming. The net result is one hell of a head-ache and no clue as to what you just looked at.
Maybe, just maybe, this film has a leg to stand on as a simple action-film with a nice fantastic background, weren't it for the confusing plot and the poorly directed action scenes. I would advise everyone except the Night Watch-fans to stay well away from this work.
The popularity of this film has to be understood and can't really be shared in the West. The Nochnoy dozor books were awfully popular in Russia. I can't really comment on the quality of those books, having only casually read the first few a bit, but I can say that if you look at the popularity of those books you would realise that it didn't really matter to the Russians how good or bad the film would be. They *wanted* a film and any would do. In my opinion, the Harry Potter movies weren't bad, but imagine they were. Would the first Harry Potter film not still have been a huge hit and even hugely hyped by the avid book readers, just because it managed to put the books into film-form? The same holds true here, but it has to be remembered that the West doesn't share the hype that the Night Watch books gained in Russia. I would be highly surprised if this movie popped in on the Oscars, as I've heard many Russians suggest, and would definitely be insulted if next to the many quality films produced by foreign countries including Russia this one would be listed. Many recent Russian films, like Sibirskiy tsiryulnik or Zvezda or Vostok-Zapad or even Voina, deserved the Oscar more than this film.
It is interesting to Sibirskiy tsiryulnik (the Barber of Siberia) in comparison to this. Mikhalkov's ambitious project was seen by many to be little more than an attempt to impress the West. This assertion is not fair, but it does reveal a lot about the flaws of that film, which sometimes hung right in between Western and Russian styles, and other border-crossing attempts, like Viona or this film. Voina fails in giving an otherwise excellent film an American ending. This films fails by giving a somewhat usable premise a heavy Hollywood coating.
The acting is, to be honest, not that good and the storyline is confusing for those that are not avid readers of the Night Watch series, e.g. everyone outside Russia. This does not kill off the film though, it is killed by the script (which I will not go into in detail except to say that it is confusing and implausible up to a point of annoyance) and by the awful camera-works, which feels like mix of Russian styles, Matrixized actions and shocky Blair Witch filming. The net result is one hell of a head-ache and no clue as to what you just looked at.
Maybe, just maybe, this film has a leg to stand on as a simple action-film with a nice fantastic background, weren't it for the confusing plot and the poorly directed action scenes. I would advise everyone except the Night Watch-fans to stay well away from this work.
When the Matrix 2 was announced, many years before it was actually finished, everyone seemed really excited. I did not understand why. It seems that every few years everyone together forgets the first rule of film-making: `If the 1st movie was great and a hit, it is followed by a terrible sequel'. Highlander 2 is the prime example of this, as it tastelessly tore apart the first installment of the trilogy (ignoring Endgame here).
Now this film fulfilled my expectancy in being really bad, but it overshot that target. The first film wasn't as brilliant as most people claim it to be, but this one was terrible. Maybe if I was capable of turning off my higher brain functions I would've enjoyed it, but try as I might, I couldn't. The problems of the Matrix are many, and to view them best would be to look at them systematically; I shall discuss several points, from easy to hard; the special effects, the dialogue, the acting, the plot holes in both movies and the originality of this work (and it's philosophies).
The special effects were great, from a very basic point of view. Once you start to look closely, you notice how this movie is more a glorified video game than a piece of cinema. The CGI imaging is thrown smack in your face. None of the subtle camera-tricks of the Matrix 1 could be found anywhere.
I mean, be honest, how much CGI effects were there in the first Matrix? Next-to-none. I'll admit the CGI was necessary in some of the scenes of the Matrix Reloaded, but they were made without any care or love, just slapped on the movie. At times the faces and clothing look so unrealistic that it becomes more of a joke than an effect.
The dialogue all through the movie might've been one of the biggest flaws. The biggest speeches and monologues of the film are tasteless at best, and usually just circle around the point to express it in such a meandering way that half the audience won't get it. There are three key speeches in the film, one of them about freedom and not being afraid, two of them being about fatalism. Those last two fall short of even explaining the concept of fatalism (and the first one is completely pointless), despite a handily taped in Neo going `Whoa, you mean...' every now again, for the real dunces.
The acting...well, actually, I won't discuss this point much. Carrie-Anne Moss is as bad as she is in the first movie, which is too say horrible. Keanu Reeves is his usual self and as such doesn't add or detract much from the movie. Fishburne is alright. Hugo Weaving stands above the rest as a shining beacon of light, and is the only one even worth mentioning. The acting of this movie made me glad the Academy never hands out awards for SF-movies.
The plot holes in both movies, though nobody ever realized this, are gaping huge. It's incredible how anybody with half a brain could watch this movie and not pick up on this. Take the whole concept of the Matrix in the first place; how do you get energy out of humans? There is no possible way to get more energy into humans than they have consumed through food beforehand? And food? How could the robots grow food for the humans without the sun? And haven't the robots ever heard of nuclear energy? Gee, maybe that'd work a bit better than the odd human battery. A computer program also pointed out to me how the whole idea of a programmed Matrix in which people die when being unplugged suddenly was ludicrous, but I'll not get into that.
Next point; anyone that paid attention at the first movie might've noticed how it ended with Neo being (or becoming) the One. You might also remember Morpheus saying that the One had the power to bend the Matrix to his will. If so, Neo has no need to fight with people, he can just kill them instantaneously. It's as simple as that, if he can freeze bullets in the air, then why not freeze Agent Smith? There are many small holes like these, but these two alone invalidate the entire plot, especially that of the second one.
The originality and philosophy of both movies left a lot of people sitting with gaping mouths. For instance, the whole idea that the world might not be real is original...right? Not at all, it goes back to, for example, Lewis Carroll's `Alice's Adventures in Wonderland' and `Through the Looking-Glass'. In the second book, one of the twins Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-Dum, remarks `Do you think those are real tears?' when Alice is crying. While Carroll made his point a lot less subtle, the Matrixes just push it into your face. As for the idea of the world consisting of number, that was thought up some centuries before Christ by the Greek philosopher Pythagoras.
The Matrix 2 inserted another idea; the whole struggle of fatalism (cause-and-attempt theory; because everything is caused by something else, free choice doesn't exist) and the free-choice theory, which basically stems from anthropocentrism (i.e. everything is fixed, except human choice). You must be a social recluse with no schooling whatsoever never to have gotten in touch with either philosophies before, so this is not renewing. And I'm not even going into the way this awful film portrays the free-choice idea as ultimately good and fatalism as ultimately evil (and while fatalism might be, the directly-related determinism certainly isn't).
All-in-all, this is a definitive `stay away no matter what happens' film, and though I was willing to give the Wachowski Brothers a chance in this film, I now know there's no hope whatsoever for the Matrix 3. Hopefully, once the hype is completely over, people will come face-to-face with the fact that this is a terribly-made stupid action flick.
Now this film fulfilled my expectancy in being really bad, but it overshot that target. The first film wasn't as brilliant as most people claim it to be, but this one was terrible. Maybe if I was capable of turning off my higher brain functions I would've enjoyed it, but try as I might, I couldn't. The problems of the Matrix are many, and to view them best would be to look at them systematically; I shall discuss several points, from easy to hard; the special effects, the dialogue, the acting, the plot holes in both movies and the originality of this work (and it's philosophies).
The special effects were great, from a very basic point of view. Once you start to look closely, you notice how this movie is more a glorified video game than a piece of cinema. The CGI imaging is thrown smack in your face. None of the subtle camera-tricks of the Matrix 1 could be found anywhere.
I mean, be honest, how much CGI effects were there in the first Matrix? Next-to-none. I'll admit the CGI was necessary in some of the scenes of the Matrix Reloaded, but they were made without any care or love, just slapped on the movie. At times the faces and clothing look so unrealistic that it becomes more of a joke than an effect.
The dialogue all through the movie might've been one of the biggest flaws. The biggest speeches and monologues of the film are tasteless at best, and usually just circle around the point to express it in such a meandering way that half the audience won't get it. There are three key speeches in the film, one of them about freedom and not being afraid, two of them being about fatalism. Those last two fall short of even explaining the concept of fatalism (and the first one is completely pointless), despite a handily taped in Neo going `Whoa, you mean...' every now again, for the real dunces.
The acting...well, actually, I won't discuss this point much. Carrie-Anne Moss is as bad as she is in the first movie, which is too say horrible. Keanu Reeves is his usual self and as such doesn't add or detract much from the movie. Fishburne is alright. Hugo Weaving stands above the rest as a shining beacon of light, and is the only one even worth mentioning. The acting of this movie made me glad the Academy never hands out awards for SF-movies.
The plot holes in both movies, though nobody ever realized this, are gaping huge. It's incredible how anybody with half a brain could watch this movie and not pick up on this. Take the whole concept of the Matrix in the first place; how do you get energy out of humans? There is no possible way to get more energy into humans than they have consumed through food beforehand? And food? How could the robots grow food for the humans without the sun? And haven't the robots ever heard of nuclear energy? Gee, maybe that'd work a bit better than the odd human battery. A computer program also pointed out to me how the whole idea of a programmed Matrix in which people die when being unplugged suddenly was ludicrous, but I'll not get into that.
Next point; anyone that paid attention at the first movie might've noticed how it ended with Neo being (or becoming) the One. You might also remember Morpheus saying that the One had the power to bend the Matrix to his will. If so, Neo has no need to fight with people, he can just kill them instantaneously. It's as simple as that, if he can freeze bullets in the air, then why not freeze Agent Smith? There are many small holes like these, but these two alone invalidate the entire plot, especially that of the second one.
The originality and philosophy of both movies left a lot of people sitting with gaping mouths. For instance, the whole idea that the world might not be real is original...right? Not at all, it goes back to, for example, Lewis Carroll's `Alice's Adventures in Wonderland' and `Through the Looking-Glass'. In the second book, one of the twins Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-Dum, remarks `Do you think those are real tears?' when Alice is crying. While Carroll made his point a lot less subtle, the Matrixes just push it into your face. As for the idea of the world consisting of number, that was thought up some centuries before Christ by the Greek philosopher Pythagoras.
The Matrix 2 inserted another idea; the whole struggle of fatalism (cause-and-attempt theory; because everything is caused by something else, free choice doesn't exist) and the free-choice theory, which basically stems from anthropocentrism (i.e. everything is fixed, except human choice). You must be a social recluse with no schooling whatsoever never to have gotten in touch with either philosophies before, so this is not renewing. And I'm not even going into the way this awful film portrays the free-choice idea as ultimately good and fatalism as ultimately evil (and while fatalism might be, the directly-related determinism certainly isn't).
All-in-all, this is a definitive `stay away no matter what happens' film, and though I was willing to give the Wachowski Brothers a chance in this film, I now know there's no hope whatsoever for the Matrix 3. Hopefully, once the hype is completely over, people will come face-to-face with the fact that this is a terribly-made stupid action flick.