Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
American Made (2017)
There are certain things that should stay in the 80's.
And Tom Cruise is one of them.
Let's be honest here. Tom Cruise has never been a good actor, he just got where he is now due to contacts, his agency and especially physical aspect, to attract women and girls. He is a real drip. Whose only good performances is the good-looking hero who said good one-liners (Mission Impossible - a franchise that Hollywood created on purpose only to increase his ego, in which he is the only relevant character there), or the patriarch service, scenes of Tropic Thunder, are the perfect example what he does well, a guy who likes to be the boss and abuse women and employees.
Now with this pathetic movie, someone wants to convince me that Cruise can play Barry Seal, a guy who gets out in front of the government, a Latino drug cartel, drug barons, CIA, FBI or more than a thousand and one things yet to be made or discovered by man. Hell no. If someone at Hollywood want to make a convincing Barry Seal, bring someone with the caliber of Josh Brolin. That would give this project even more credit. And who had the sad idea to make Cruise the narrator of this film. I hate this one-liner, I'm the only guy, who always delivers. I do not even remember half the movie. The way the film is so bad structurally.
But Tom Cruise is not the only flaw in this project (this project was born crooked at birth). The movie itself was never taken seriously. What do you expect from a movie coming out after the summer season? A serious film about a serious subject, with a good script and a good acting? No way.
The movie is full of useless sex jokes typical of larger-budget films from Hollywodd, the Tom Cruise scene having sex with his wife in the cockpit of the plane is ridiculous or Tom Cruise's character constantly showing the "butt"- It's deplorable, I know. Or male jokes like Tom Cruise facing 100 or more Latinos with a baseball bat. Incompetent scene.
The direction of the film is flawed, the pace is horrendous, there are some scenes too long, or some too short. The acting is too fake, especially on the part of Jayma Mays (the most unbelievable justice solicitor, I have ever seen) and Sarah Wright (the windy head, annoying, generic woman of Barry Seal).
Holes in the script (no one has remembered the corpse of the useless brother of the wife of Barry Seal, the police in this film is really useless and unprepared, by the way).
Not to forget how this film treats the people of Latin America, whose only humans that appear in the film, are drug dealers, murderers or pornography lovers. Or the people of Mena, that this film represents as useless morons from the countryside.
What a useless and terrible movie we have here. Someone burns this movie as fast as possible. I would not recommend it to anyone.
Logan Lucky (2017)
A colorful, entertaining, heartfelt and straightforward heist film.
I recently saw Logan Lucky in theaters, and to tell you the truth I was quite pleased to see this movie. It is a very colorful film, with a vibrant color palette and also a very direct film in what it is proposed. It is a heist movie, it does not try to invent the wheel, but it is a very well executed film, proof of the experience of the director, in this genre.
Much better, nowadays, compared to the extravaganza of Hollywood, where often the biggest and most exaggerated, it is never the best.
It's a lot of fun, to see a lot of actors doing a really good job, especially Daniel Craig, Channing Tatum and Adam Driver, they're all great. The actors Hilary Swank, Seth MacFarlane and Sebastian Stan were underutilized. I think it's the director's personal signature, having a great casting of famous actors in his movies. It's just annoying to see pretty good actors like Hilary Swank and Sebastian Stan reduced, little more than a simple cameo. And for what reason the character of Hilary Swank at the end of the film, has to be the romantic couple of Adam Driver's character at his bar when everyone is drinking a drink together.
Her character is doing an investigation into the robbery, and one of the suspects was the character of Adam Driver, and in the end of the movie she's going to have a drink with the suspect, what? Even though the investigation has been closed, Hilary Swank's character has always been the kind of character stubborn in discovering the suspects at any cost - and out of nowhere, she changes personality. Because everyone is drinking a drink in a romantic couple, and the Adam Driver's character also needed a woman to drink. What?
Some scenes are unnecessary written in the film, just to put the movie with 2 hours on the market.
In addition to the unnecessary characters and actors, this film still makes two beautiful sins. First, why the Logan brothers and Daniel Craig's character brothers start a fight when the robbery is ending and the security is investigating the suspected appearance of smoke in the area, are the writers and director only setting a conflict, just to come out into nothing in the next couple of scenes, just to put the movie with (or close to) the unnecessary 2 hours mark, which is the rule of the market, in the duration of films. When you do not have a story to tell, you do not try to create unnecessary scenes, characters or conflicts, just to create them for nothing. Do not waste time on unnecessary things. There are many great movies in the past with less than 2 hours, more time does not always mean more quality.
The second sin of this film is the jokes involving Wikipedia and Game of Thrones, yes, I know, the Game of Thrones show is quite a popular series, but the way these jokes are inserted in the film, I feel that these scenes are even out of context . Just one complaint from me.
Still with these these problems. I really liked this movie. It has interesting characters, they are written in an interesting and funny way, the performances is quite good, the tension and intensity is always there and constant in a movie about heist, what's really needed.
It's a fun movie to see each other over the weekend. This movie does not try to invent the wheel, but the film is almost always perfectly executed in the direction, context and proposal.
Lady Macbeth (2016)
Because the movie has good acting, that is not enough to make a good movie.
Good acting is just one of the things that makes a good movie (especially from the part of the actress Florence Pugh), but not enough to save it if the rest is trash. A good script is the most important, and being consistent with the movie proposal is also important.
When I went to see the film, I already knew that the film would address the theme of feminism. Feminism has many layers and variants, but feminism in the most basic way was to put women on an equal footing with men in rights.
But what kind of feminism does this film address? It's certainly not the right feminism. Let's face it.
Katherine Lester is kept at home, closed and prevented from leaving the house, by orders of her husband and his father. When both are no longer at home, Katherine Lester meets Sebastian (the latter was harassing Katherine Lester's maid along with other men). Therefore a man with tendencies to harass and rape.
Instead of expelling him from home and work, the writers of this film begin to be delirious, and Katherine begins to want to contact this man (very feminist woman here). Including asking the harassed maid, the man's name.
Sebastian (at night) enters Katherine's room and has sex (forced with her). Katherine never rejects Sebastian or anything. And she continues to have sex with him (again, very feminist woman here).
Later the father of the husband of Katherine Lester, discovers of the relation with the servant. Boris decides to arrest Sebastian in the stable after having the man beaten.
Katherine Lester wants to take revenge, decides to kill Boris with mushrooms of the forest. The writers go full retarded mode, and after these events. The film is just scenes of violence and sex, by the way, these scenes are not good either, since they were filmed in dead angles and are quite dark to see the details (when these scenes happened), which the viewers have no total notion of what happens in the scenes. At this point, the writers and director of this movie lack balls to even do what they set out to do. A movie about violence and sex scenes.
And that's only half of the movie in question. The ending is one of the stupid endings I've seen on film, no construction to the end, no paid-off or nothing
But the amount of crap in the story (which has nothing to do with feminism, but feminism in its most basic form) is such that I gave up to think or care about the story of the film or its characters, because this film does not have any story, this film is just another film to be an excuse to put more violence and sex in irrelevant and badly constructed scenes. Stupid movie. Do not waste your time or your money on this movie.
Annabelle: Creation (2017)
Just another generic, poorly executed and passable horror film
Where can I find 100 words to describe this movie? A horror film so generic, after seeing it in the movie theaters, I have already forgotten the most content of this supposed "good horror movie".
So selfish and so poorly executed (for a budget of 15 million, better filming places could be found).
We have a handful of generic characters written in the most generic way possible. The traditional sick character of the horror movies (Janice), the only friend (Linda) that is with her and the traditional characters that are basically irrelevant to history. Why this movie has so many characters, but only 2 characters are relevant to the story (the two girls - Janice and Linda), and for what, does the other four girls exist?
In that, the only thing that make this movie is to have a useless sub-plot and the remaining girls are to be scared by a useless scarecrow ,by the way, this demon has nothing to do with the one that control Janice. Unnecessary, I know.
That leads to the conclusion why this film have so many characters and the only way to insert them in the main plot of the film was to create this irrelevant sub-plot , that only serves to distract the public from the main story, even if from since the beginning there was never interest of the writer to develop and create a relationship with the public and for this to the public, if these characters die or live is so irrelevant as the film itself.
The reason why films like The Exorcist and Ringu proved and were a success, it was because the filmmakers are focused on a single central character and created the story around this same character. A large number of characters never meant quality. Having a lot of useless people to the story adds nothing to the quality of the movie. Not to mention the poor acting of the main casting (especially from Stephanie Sigman). Not to mention again (without success or quality) that the filmmakers tried to copy some shots from films like The Exorcist and Ringu (just look especially when the kids went to pay a visit to the water well). A horror movie that will only satisfy the genre's weekly fans, but for the rest of the public, just another generic, poorly executed and passable horror film, with nothing new to bring. To be avoided, no doubt.
Baby Driver (2017)
A mixture of a film that sometimes works and sometimes don't
I recently watched the new Edgar Wright movie - Baby Driver. And I can say Edgar Wright's great passion for cinema by placing so many references into this movie with "parts" of his favorite films. But when the references become the film itself, the film loses identity and becomes just a collage without personality, being thus a inferior movie to the films that inspired it. There are so many references to other movies that this ends up getting annoying to watch the movie itself. References to Heat, Goodfellas, Bonnie and Clyde, Ronin and many other movies. Stuck in your face almost all the time. A hassle.
Yet, there are good times here, especially stylized action. But the characters were written in a stupid and chiché way, who in the third act, apart from Baby and Debora, the audience loses interest in the characters (it is irrelevant if the characters die or live) .
Especially the character of Eiza González - Darling, who in one scene, throws herself forward into an entire police squadron just to get shot stupidly and just to give the script a reason for her boyfriend, Buddy to go after Baby and Debora and want revenge for the death of his stupid girlfriend. A cheap motive to start the third and final act of the film (which only has violence and zero intelligence in the script of the film). Yes the movie is loaded with stupid moments, like the personality change of Kevin Spacey's character. That character throughout the movie has a cold relationship with Baby and when the script needs him to help Baby escape from Buddy, magically he changes his personality and he decides to help Baby. Just for the plot convenience.
Yet the chemistry between Baby and Debora and the good acting of Jon Hamm, Ansel Elgort and Lily James helps to keep the interest in the film until the ending (and give me a reason not to only give 1 for this movie). Even counting the stupid moments of the characters, the exchanges of personalities of these same characters, the badly applied clichés, unnecessary violence and the excess of references to other films on the part of Edgar Wright. Interesting to see once, but I will hardly ever see this movie again for the film itself and not for the countless and unnecessary references.
Christopher Nolan created an impressive blockbuster on World War 2, with the focus on survival.
The most important lesson in the history of our humanity, surpassed in genre, religion among other moral aspects, is simply the survival of the species or a human being in question. Our most basic instinct is survival and when we unite, forgetting our differences (as a group of Individuals, not nations), for the sake of our survival and our well-being, the human race shines in the most intense sense possible. The cooperation between several elements, to come out alive from a complicated situation.
One scene, caught my attention when a group of Allied soldiers were surrounded in a ship and this same ship was being attacked on all sides by the German troops. One of the characters was being forced out of the ship to see if the tide sea was rising or not. Out of fear, this character did not want to leave the ship, it was when an English soldier replied: for the others to survive, one person has to die.
The theme of this film is survival, especially surviving in a difficult situation, is in itself a great victory
Nothing is better expressed in this film and executed in a way with as much talent as Nolan achieved in making with this film. Not only by itself, the message is passed to the audience in a clear and perfect way as is demonstrated in small scenes that help convey this message and build a fitting end to the film itself.
The film goes straight to the narrative and action of the movie without losing in passing with interesting monologues, unlike Inception, a film in which Nolan himself created a character with the sole purpose of explaining the rules of this universe for the audience, this is the apex of Nolan as a Film director and he performs his work in a simple and exemplary way. So Dunkirk is his smaller commercial movie, but with the bonus without unnecessary scenes that could crumble the experience of the film.
The performances are excellent and accompany the director's talents (the direction of the film itself) and the script in a cohesive, simple and direct way, highlighting Fionn Whitehead, Mark Rylance and of course the very competent Kenneth Branagh. These excellent actors help immerse the audience in the cinematographic aspect of the movie itself to make the experience as real and emotional as possible.
Again, congratulations to Nolan for choosing actors relatively unknown to the general public, but outstanding in their work of acting. Instead of trying to choose famous actors (whose private lives are always in the mouths of the people and the magazines), these people are celebrities and not actors. For this reason I never managed to pass the first act of Saving Private Ryan. Spielberg made a mistake filling his film with the most popular Hollywood All Star cast of famous actors at that time (their lives were so exposed that it was hard to see those people as soldiers or survivors of WWII). At this point, Nolan fared better than Spielberg.
By completing this great experience, special and sound effects are applied in an exemplary way and these same technologies make almost perfect use of the IMAX screen. The technical and aesthetic aspects are very good, as it comes this habit in this type of film with this type of budget (105 millions). The cinematography is very good (almost perfect, like in most of Nolan movies) and the camera movements are agile and very beautiful.
See the aerial combat of the characters of Tom Hardy (Farrier) and Jack Lowden (Collins) in aerial planes that looked with great and amazing beauty in fighting against the planes of the Germans. A technical amazing work of Nolan and his production team. Amazing, no doubt. Especially on the IMAX screen, where the film shows all its beauty, and if there is a movie that deserves to be seen in IMAX, it is one, this new work of Christopher Nolan, no doubt. The ambitious ideas of the filmmaker and the great sequences in parallel assembly that characterize his works. Making the storytelling move to viewers in three different locations (The Mole, The Sea and The Air). In a cohesive, precise and confusing way. This film shows a great talent of Nolan, and it reaches his talent to create sequences in parallel assembly the characters of the film in a brilliant way. The soundtrack composed by the veteran Hans Zimmer is amazing, Hans in turn creates a memorable theme for the theme of World War II. Fantastic and great.
The great and only problem I see that disturbs the experience of the film is limited by the PG-13 and thus limit the blood and violence, for God's sake, it is a film about a war blood and violence are common. At times it seemed like I was looking at some scenes and these same scenes seemed so artificial and displaced from the film itself, like the scene of the soldiers corpses coming to the beach, or the English troops being smashed by the sinking ship (two clear examples that PG-13 influenced negatively the movie).
One problem that some people go through seeing this movie is the lack of depth in some characters, however there are characters with depth, but not the kind of depth shown through dialogues or exposition. Nolan wanted to show something bigger. And I think Nolan did it. Nolan created in this movie to show the question of survival and its consequences in the lives of the people close to war and the soldiers who were fighting in that war. He wanted to show us how and survival define us, and I think he got the message very well across this movie. Even for this, he sacrificed some dramatic depth. Depth for certain characters, however Nolan passed a larger message, which surpasses any dramatically deep element. Nolan wanted to get something bigger. And in my opinion he did it.
Nothing more than a Alien Rip off, with an absurd ending
Last night I've seen 3 movies in theaters, Life (2017) was one of them. To my surprise, this film was made by Daniel Espinosa. And I was even more surprised that Mr. Espinosa did not try to make this movie a sci-fi drama as has been usual in Hollywood for the past few years.
So what to expect from this movie? Firstly, the technical and aesthetic aspects are very good, as it comes this habit in this type of film with this type of budget. The cinematography is very good and the camera movements are agile and very beautiful. Daniel Espinosa's direction is interesting (at least in most of the film).
In other words in the technical department the film is very good. You can have a beautiful movie visually, but a movie needs a good story and good characters if it want to be a good movie ten years (or more) from now. The problem is that the script is fragile (one example, the Earth sends a spacecraft to push the station into space fearing that the contamination hits the Earth if the station falls on the planet, after a few minutes after this scene, this information is completely forgettable by the script) and full of holes, the story is way too simple and some acting is very bad. To start with, I've never liked Ryan Reynolds, he's a bad actor and his character is annoying, I think the director got this idea and because of this, Ryan Reynolds's character is the first to die (thank God). What a annoying and uninteresting character we got here. To tell the truth the actress Olga Dihovichnaya could have done a better work with her character (Ekaterina Golovkina). Her acting was very bad. The other actors are fine, however they needed more time to work on their characters (most of the blame is because of the stupid script). Especially the character of Jake Gyllenhaal.
Some lines of dialogue said by the actors are also very stupid (example the character of Jake Gyllenhaal agrees to commit suicide to prevent "Calvin" of contaminating the planet, because according to him, it is not worth living with these 8 billion stupid humans and he wants to stay in space is better for his life - ridiculous, I know).
But the biggest problem of the film is that the film is just a poorly made copy of Alien (1979). Yes, Hollywood copies another classic movie, this time - the Ridley Scott classic sci-fi and horror movie. But the this film can not maintain the intensity, nor the pace nor the amazing construction until the very end that the film of Ridley Scott has. What's more, the movie is full of stupid moments. One of the most stupid moments was the camera moves to the first person (too see through the eyes of the creature) when "Calvin" flies inside the station. What is the purpose of this? The only thing that comes to my mind, is the director wants to do these scenes to appeal to video game fans who play Call of Duty and other FPS? Ridiculous. Yes this movie is the Alien for the new generation that likes games and consoles and the same generation that likes to see blood and violence gratuitously to satisfy the ego.
What a lousy movie we have here, the icing on the cake and the absurd and unnecessary ending. In Alien (1979), the ending was a perfect construction from start to finish of the movie, here the director Daniel Espinosa puts only this ridiculous ending to give the air of the film wants to be different from the other sci-fi movies that currently exist in the market. That is, a different ending just for the sake of being different and not according to the purpose or construction of the narrative. In other words, an absurd, unnecessary and irrelevant ending.
Do not waste your money and your time watching this absurd movie.
Kong: Skull Island (2017)
Sorry, there is no king here.
King Kong (1933) was a perfect movie in its proposal. A simple, direct and clear message. No remakes or sequels required. This is why all sequels and remakes are always inferior in impact to the original. Filmmakers always want to add anything new and unnecessary.
In this new film, Kong leaves the territory of quality and embarks on a trip to the territory of blockbusters, in other words, special effects and jokes (just watch the retarded and unnecessary joke scene about the Skullcrawlers name with Hiddleston, Larson and John C. Reilly) overlap the story, and so the film is passable and totally forgettable in a week.
Once again, Hollywood treats scientists as idiots when the character of Corey Hawkins can not even open a can of canned food and feels intimidated by a woman. Not to mention the macho colonel, who wants an unnecessary revenge with Kong, because Kong killed his men (in a casual meeting).
And not to mention the idiotic plans that Jordan Vogt-Roberts uses to focus the eyes of the Samuel L. Jackson character with the eyes of King Kong. It seems like the director Jordan Vogt-Roberts wants to make a kind of (unnecessary) fight in the old west style. Pure waste of time, as we know that the macho colonel, is no challenge for Kong, so why waste precious screen time with these situations? Because Kong's story can be told as in the original in just 90 or 100 minutes. And the filmmarkers have to put 2 hours of film and for this they have to put unnecessary situations and scenes.
As the disposable soldier of the colonel, who gets lost from the group, just to see Kong crush a giant squid (and then Kong eats it), then after some scenes, be killed by another giant monster. What could be an interesting conflict between the characters of Tom Hiddleston and Samuel L. Jackson, but that ends up in nothing. Because people are written from a stupid one-dimensional way (like the stupid macho colonel). That is, more movie time, for less story. This is because Kong never leaves the island in this movie, Kong will only leave the island in 2020 in the movie Godzilla vs. King Kong. Yes this movie aims to create another shared universe (MCU type of crap), and in the end this compromises the quality of this film. The filmmakers have their hands tied, because they can not put their best on this film, however they have to think how this movie will work with another movie from another guy, three long years into the future.
I went into the movie hoping to see a good and fun Kong movie, and I ended up seeing a crap and bad one, because of the ambition of the studio that compromised the quality of the movie, for the money. Not to mention, even as a fun movie, this movie fails so much.
You see, the scenes with special effects, you can see that the scenes were all filmed on a green screen. And the final fight between Kong and the giant lizard is even inferior to the T-rex fights in Peter Jackson's 2005 remake. Yes, the fights and clashes between Kong and the other giants monsters were better, bigger, more epic, more brutal and vicarious than in this pathetic 2017 movie. I'm not defending the Peter Jackson movie, that film obviously had its flaws, but in the department of special effects and action scenes (this department that does not save a movie, nonetheless) is vastly superior to this Jordan Vogt- Roberts movie. Even as an action movie and blockbuster, this movie fails in a big way.
But if you were disappointed, and if you were sad that you had lost money unfairly, you can wait until 2020 to see the rest of the film in Godzilla VS King Kong.
My God, that's why commercial filmmaking is in the mud. The commercial cinema has as main target children, teenagers and young people. And this is why the quality bar is so low.
Manchester by the Sea (2016)
Nothing new under the sun
This movie started like any other drama, the main character has a problem, where the story of the film has a beginning, the main character and history suffer a turn and in the end of the second act, and them is the end of the story (third act of the movie itself). In other words, like any other drama, this film follows the already very used old paradigm of Syd Field for scripts. A story told a thousand times before, the same way a thousand times, only the characters change and nothing else. The same situations, the same problems.
However I must say that the director of the movie at least had the idea of the main character does not learn anything (moral lesson) at the end of the third act. This earned points to the movie for me, at least.
The characters are interesting in most of the part of this film, but only three of them take advantage of the good actors that are in the movie , the characters of Casey Affleck, Lucas Hedges and Michelle Williams. The remaining characters are irrelevant in movie story and they basically do nothing interesting (basically they are filler for this movie).
Casey Affleck is good enough but only shows potential in only one scene with Michelle Williams. There are other scenes that his character underutilized, like the scene in the police, in which Lee tries to commit suicide, this scene fails, because the construction of the character itself until then, there was no indication that this character wanted to kill itself, there is not enough tension until that moment. Michelle Williams is also underutilized in most part of the film (she is annoying, to speak the truth, but she also appears little time on the screen), except that scene with the character of Casey Affleck (In the third act of the story, Randi appears with a baby of its new husband). In which both have a talk about their past and about their separation. In this scene there is a lot of tension, and the drama of the actors is well applied. It's an emotionally amazing and perfectly executed scene.
Lucas Hedges is good enough, not amazing, but good enough for me to sympathize with him, the freezer scene is pretty good, nonetheless. It's a perfectly executed scene to watch and be admired.
But this is the problem of the film for me, taking some scenes (pretty good by the way) where the actors can show their potential, the film is the same thing seen a thousand times before, with the same situations and problems. Nothing new under the sun. If you do not see this movie, you will not miss anything new that you have already seen. It is a good movie, but no classic or masterpiece level of quality.
Super Mario 64 (1996)
The most overrated game ever
This game came out in 1996, I went to school, at the time the game magazines did not talk about anything else, pointing out the amazing graphics and how revolutionary it was.
Gaming magazines and sites never knew what would be good for the market (the mass of the population), but they know what's good for hardcore gamers (gaming companies just need to put the entire budget for graphics in boring games). Or what it is fun for the mass market, but once again, magazines and gaming sites and geek (the minority) only care about themselves.
To please the hardcore gamers (a type of audience that frequents forums, blogs or youtube channels that speak in a professioanl way about games. Which are best sold games or which games are best evaluated by "specialized press", among other aspects), you just need to do something distinct to a franchise that already exists, as hardcore gamers play games with the mentality of a jobs instead of a hobby to have fun. Due possibly to the frustrated real lives they have (many of them have no father figure due to divorces). And they need to feel special about something.
They hardcore gamers need something different, they make them feel special (in the small heads of them, they think they can change the direction of the gaming market). But still, they are just a minority. A vocal minority (which makes a lot of noise), but still a minority, nonetheless.
This is a mass market, it's a business. This is not art. The creators at Nintendo are not artists, they are programmers. They work for what the market wants. This is a market of hundreds of millions/billions, and it needs hundreds of millions/billions to be profitable and stay active and well alive.
After all I was affixed in Super Mario World on Super Nintendo, I like everyone I expected a Super Mario 64 on 2d scroll platform. But with 3d technology for the scenarios themselves. Instead I received, a boring 3d game with high camera problems (Yes in this aspect Banjo Kazooie is superior game, however Banjo Kazooie is a game of exploration of gigantic scenarios). SM64 is a 3d exploration (collecting crap) broken game, and to collect coins (filler crap). SM64 should never be the sequel to the great Super Mario World.
In other words, there is nothing, in Super Mario 64 to be a sequel to Super Mario World, irrelevant if it belongs to the same franchise. It is not the label on the box of the game that matters, but the gameplay that comes within the game. And the gameplay of SM64 is nothing to do with SMW.
SMW was an adventure and non-stop action 2D game but it had reflexes to pass the challenges. In SM64 the character (In 3D) is floating on the scene, being impossible to pass the challenge (without mistake) due to camera problems, not because of the player, but because of the broken nature of the game.
Because the games are challenge in their essence, not art. Different than the hardcore gamers go around every place of the internet to preach that games are "art". The purpose of games is to amuse, not to make you think. The music, the art style of a game can be artistic, but not the game itself.
This game was a betrayal to all Super Mario World players, who expected one thing, and came out a completely different game. And so the market responded with SM64 having smaller sales than SMW.
Irrelevant what the creator of the game said. The gaming market is in charge, it's the market that pays Nintendo and it's the market that has the last word. This game represents the decline of the biggest franchise of video games, which would last until 2006 (launch of New Super Mario DS). This game represents all the arrogance of Nintendo (in wanting to control the market in its own will) and launch a completely different game that consumers and the market want.
And for this reason they lost market for the Playstation, and in all fairness.