Nómada

Certamente não é ficção científica. O início ainda é bom, mas a falta de enredo mata o filme após vinte minutos e durante o resto do filme uns poucos personagens falam uns com os outros num esconderijo subterrâneo no deserto. Os diálogos são banais ao ponto de ser ingénuos de maneira cómica, quase não há suspense ou ação (apenas uma cena de ação de 20 segundos). Os aspetos tecnológicos não funcionam porque não são explicados de forma nenhuma durante todo o processo. Além disso, os cineastas não conseguem extrair o suspense, a fatalidade ou as emoções fortes das cenas. Devido a isto, o resultado é uma narrativa disparatada, superficial, vazia de conteúdo e inacreditável que flutua à sua volta sem possibilidade de causar uma impressão positiva. (25/03/2013)

Pensas, portanto sofre! Quero ver a cara de Andrew Niccol quando leu pela primeira vez a obra-prima de Meyer, e que comprimidos tomou ao reescrevê-lo num argumento :-D Nómada é plano em conteúdo, e em termos de produção, parece o episódio piloto de uma série medíocre (interiores de cavernas de cartão, carros «futuristas» de cor prateada). De qualquer ponto de vista lógico e ideológico, um tema de ficção científica de «ladrões de corpos» totalmente destruído e violado, ainda mais desnecessariamente cortado pelo motivo crepuscular de decidir entre dois rapazes... O público foi entretido em lugares que se destinavam a ser sérios, ou até espirituosos (o final). William Hurt regressa ao papel de mentor, pai de A Villa, por um salário obviamente elevado. A Diane Kruger fica bem a roupa branca, e foi o único elemento do filme de que gostei (o olhar). Provavelmente a segunda estrela só para ela. Compreendo o sucesso de Crepúsculo, até gostei do primeiro, mas este é realmente fora de lugar. É melhor ver A Ilha de Bay — tem uma ideia, atores agradáveis e bem representados, é rápido, com design detalhado, e tem uma ação perfeita e over-the-top. Nómada não tem NADA. (26/03/2013)

The idea of two women in one body could surely be used for a heart-rending (without irony) narrative about how difficult it is for a teenage girl to be herself, trust her feelings and not cling to the surface. But that didn’t happened. What did happen is a kitschy, embarrassingly literal knock off of the New Hollywood drama Wanda and, at the same time, an apt product of the society of spectacle in which even one’s soul has to be visualised to please the eye. After most of this remarkably undramatic film, the protagonist of The Host (shouldn’t it rather be The Hostess?) journeys through her own inner world, while the “rational” male characters have to help her find her bearings because of her emotional instability. It wouldn’t matter how little happens over the course of two hours in this film (the “feminine” failure to take action could serve as evidence of ideological subversiveness) if the ideas on which it is based weren’t so extremely stupid. Not only are the anxieties of post-modern society (xenophobia, the need to return to the simplicity of western myths, the emotional aloofness of world inundated with technology, the escape from the global to the local) presented in a midcult wrapper without anything disturbing (when blood appears, it’s a minor holiday), but the filmmakers immediately offer us banal solutions that only support the false illusion that there really is no cause for concern and it suffices if we all love each other and multiply. For each of the few positives (a couple of impressive shots, a hint of a visual concept, the doctor that looks like Obama), there are at least five times as many reasons why it would be better to avoid this offensively flat story about the emotional disjointedness of teenagers (the robotic acting not only by the aliens but also by the Earthlings, no progressive build-up, no suspense, several endings and, mainly, the persistent feeling that someone is trying to make a big damned mountain out of a molehill). Appendix: Fans of Twilight can feel free to ignore my review and rating. 30% (25/03/2013)

I would like to know a lot more about the laws of this world. To look beyond the boundaries of the designated area instead of wasting unnecessary contemplative moments in a cave. But despite the generally cautious pace, Andrew Niccol hit the right note with me. This time he didn't even need his usual visual and narrative tricks, Antonio Pinto's excellent soundtrack was enough for him, along with the fact that he has some pretty original subject matter in front of him, which comes to life in his hands as a carefully hypnotic romance. Stories by Stephenie Meyer always deviate from their genre anchoring, so just from reading the premise, it is clear that it will focus more on interpersonal relationships rather than the sci-fi aspect of the invasion. And there is no need to hide the fact that Melanie and company won me over in that regard. Unusual multidimensional characters, led by surprises and occasional Meyer-style exaggerated confessions, usually suit my taste, and with such a likeable cast (first and foremost among them future star Max Irons), it couldn't have been any different. When I then watched the sarcastic dialogue between Mel and Wanda with increasing pleasure, I realized that The Host had simply won me over. With reservations, some small missteps? Maybe. But thanks to its heartfelt nature, it was also guaranteed to win. (16/04/2013)

A star for “Radioactive” in the end credits. But other than that, I want to ask the cunt that wrote this to next time rape a different genre than one I like. To make sci-fi for people who don’t like sci-fi makes no sense. Let the intellectually tween audience and readers have their tween romances, as long as they remain in the field of tween romance. To see in horror, or science fiction, a story driven mainly by the heroine’s decision between two hunks is very annoying. But the saddest thing is that here and there you can see glimpses of a sci-fi motif that deserves to be properly developed. Alas, the mind of Stephenie Meyer is not enough for it. And Andrew Niccol is longer a filmmaker I want to follow. To lend himself for this crap, ew! (29/04/2013)