Review
stringlengths 6
10.3k
| Rating
int64 1
10
|
|---|---|
When I entered the theater to see this movie, my expectations were already really low, because I had been told that the movie was not that good and very predictable. When I came out of the theater, I thought that the movie was not bad, but, indeed, very predictable. I left feeling I had seen that story a thousand times before, even in Disney movies, which is funny,because a lot of people was saying that the plot was really original.That makes me think that Avatar is the only movie they have seen in their whole lives.
It still has a deeper message that you'll discover through the movie which should be listened, but I honestly don't think that a lot of people will follow that advice.
If you're into big Sci-Fi movies, with great visual effects (that I must admit), then see it. If clichés are not your thing, they avoid it.
| 4
|
The good point is that there are some thrilling good shot, but the amount of pop music used as bgm is rather absurd. The cuts are awful, confusing, totally messed up the plot. It could have been a quite normal thriller telling the story of the modern-day Robin Hoods, but with constantly switched locations and missions, the story line remains unclear. But what kept me through the movie is its fighting scenes as well as car racing. Quite typical Michael Bay one. Even though it is not well made, it can offer you a good laugh if you are looking for something to laugh at.
| 4
|
This movie is in no way bad, but it wasn't as good as I'd have hoped, since I wanted an improvement upon the first. It was just around the level of the first venom, they both had their up and downs, but this movie was definitely still worth the $20 (OMG AMC WTF? I KNOW COVID HAPPENED BUT ?!?!?!?!).
| 8
|
"a beautiful mind" was good. there is no denying that, but for it to be getting the kind of press and accolades that it is getting is a bit undeserved. this movie neglected most of the things about john nash that some people would find questionable, eg. his bisexuality. russell crowe may, in fact, deserve to be amongst the nominees for the oscar, but he in know way deserves to be the odds on favorite. this is especially true in a year in which performances by gene hackman in, "the royale tennenbaums" and john cameron mitchell in, "hedwig and the angry inch" went totally un-noticed.
| 5
|
I'm a huge fan of David Tenat so when I saw the ad I was excited. Only on episode 2 and I'm about to blow my brains out. I don't get it. Ugh
| 2
|
Not much to say here other than the film is watchable, Sandler tries to be funny and 99% fails as per usual, he made me laugh once in the entire 1.4 hours, Anniston carries him through this. So I am left feeling how many classic Ferrari's did they smash up to make this? I know they probably had a kit car or two or used CGI, but if they killed a Testarossa in making this disposable flick, what a waste.
| 5
|
Solid look in the late 60s' film scene with great acting, dialog, cinematography, humor, action and more. The biggest issue with the film was the lack of story and the huge build up that you are waiting to see. One of the rare Tarantino films I will not be watching again.
| 6
|
I have NO idea why this series is ranked so high, I am in the middle of S2 right now and the majority of every episode is either some 10min long internal monologue, or the characters screaming at each other in Japanese! The amount of "action" in each episode is MINIMAL and makes for a VERY boring series...
| 2
|
I was expecting some kind of psychological thriller. I was mistaken, and highly disappointed in finding out this was just another action movie, based on a comic book, and not buttressed by very much, except by an estimable performance by Phoenix. The gritty insouciance of The Joker could not have been more painstakingly executed.
There isn't a whole lot of explanation about the joker. We are supposed to derive our explanation for this complicated psychopathy from Alfred's (now with a cockney accent, instead of the patrician, high brow, RP sort of butler, I had seen in previous iterations) flimsy juxtaposition.
There are some surprising reverses in this movie, but they are not at all satisfying, nor are they disappointing. I just haven't been drawn in enough to care about the characters.
Well, turned, easily evacuated and satisfying for the American masses, but still a piece of excrement, and not without odor.
| 2
|
Tom Hanks won the academy award when it easily should have been Kevin bacon for murder in the first!! Dont believe me I dare you to watch it and NOT agree!! Hanks portrayal of gump was mediocre at best, Jerry Lewis could have done better. Life is like a box of chocolates , r u kidding???? That's famous??? Easily most OVERRATED movie ever!!!!
| 1
|
Why be on the side of good, if "everything will burn anyway"? There are cheap entertainments - gunpowder and gasoline, but a process that cannot be stopped must be led, Lenin said. The collapse of the world - rampant crime. And somehow it's even stupid to fight evil, because it's still one step ahead, and wins. You can't take your eyes off him, all our bows and applause are to him. Evil is bright, convex, masterpiece. Where is good for him? Besides, if you are on the side of good, then you are also a target. Is it worth it?
And here is another position - a two-faced person. "The world is cruel, and only chance can be moral in it." And even if you have a coin with two eagles, one side is black, the other is white, as well as your whole life.
As one reviewer rightly pointed out, Eckhart's role is a key figure in understanding the film and the backbone of the plot. "I'm Batman, arrest me." Is it possible to believe that very soon this person will fall, unable to withstand grief and resentment? Or was it in him from the very beginning?
It's not bad to pretend to be a hero. If you are just human. What do you have to lose? Moreover, the hero will repay you in full, he will take on your sins, he will pretend to be an uncontrollable jerk and he will declare a hunt for himself.
We're after him because he'll survive. A well-formed Christian idea. Ilya Kabanov in his review (thanks and applause) says that the third part - the resurrection of the hero should follow the first two. Perhaps he is right. But even if the hero is resurrected, we know (from reliable sources) that evil will still win. The apocalypse is inevitable, everything will burn anyway. But at the same time, something still remains inside, which prompts (even with the obligatory American pathos) to throw the damned detonator out the window, and not to dirty your own conscience.
Here is such a movie.
| 3
|
Well acted, well written, well directed religious themed movie.
| 7
|
I didn't really care for it, I didn't like it. I know everyone says it's so good, and yeah, Robert De Niro is in it (he's a fine actor) but I didn't like it. I couldn't get into it. It just insists upon itself. It takes forever getting in; you spend like six and a half hours just waiting, I can't get through, I've never even finished the movie. I've never seen the ending. I have tried on three separate occasions to get through it, and I get to the scene where all the guys are sitting around on the easy chairs and I have no idea what they're talking about. It's like they're speaking a different language. You know, that's where I lose interest in it.
| 2
|
The message is one everyone needs to hear though the delivery falls flat. Scenes that should last no longer than 15 minutes drag out for episodes. The message is intense enough. Cut the hyper dramatic filler please.
(My high school life played out much like the main character, Hannah Baker, so believe me when I say that the series needed no additional drama.)
| 2
|
I love most coen brothers films but even the ones I love have that one awful part to them, the supernatural unexplained arty farty scenes (The biker in raising arizona, the devil & the flood in oh brother, the ufo in the man who wasn't there, etc) I find them to be the low points in every one of their films. Fargo either missed that obstacle or the entire film consisted of a variation of it, either way it failed me from the first 5 minutes I was unhappy with this film. Just stripped down simple times in a simple place with complicated deadly themes. Disregard the value of life and be entertained. Art? yes lots of art, if you want to think it's there.. This movie should not have been the staple for the Coen brothers, people hold this movie in such high regard it just makes me think they are just wanting to sound smart because they only had to watch it twice to understand it. That and Wood chipper wood chipper wood chipper.. Yes I always hear the talk about the wood chipper scene, over & over, maybe the highlight of the film? wow.. so sad.. This film is nothing but a basic simple life town with wood chipper shock value. Bring up Fargo in a coversation & you will hear the words "wood chipper" within five seconds..
| 1
|
OK--I confess to enjoying films from graphic novels. Also, I confess to alternative universe themes and general sci-fi. And I love post-modern work. Well if you like any of these aspects, tune and get hooked!
There are lots of references to the graphic novel series that gave rise to this work, There is the back story that we anticipate in a graphic novel. There are tons of special effects (for example, the world faces at least two, perhaps three apocalypses across the first season). And best of all, look for how the title, "The Umbrella Academy," is worked into each episode. It's pure joy to see that twist.
I was sold on "12 Monkeys" (the movie) when a friend loaned me his Motion Picture Academy nomination copy. "The Umbrella Academy" takes the idea of alternative universes and raises the ante to wonderful heights. The only caveat is the alternative universe ending which compels me to have to wait until the next season is released.
Sci-fi: there is a robot "Mom" (Jordan Claire Robbin) (I don't even know if "robot" is correct), a chimpanzee "Alfred" (think Batman), mysterious pneumatic tubes that appear from nowhere to deliver messages, and interactions with the dead. WOW!
My favorite part is the post modern aspect of the series. First, time is manipulated in many ways from flash backs to flash forwards. Title cards are used, which add even more to the self-referral aspect of this show. There is never-ending pastiche nearly every time Klaus (Robert Sheehan) is on screen. There are gender reversals and LGBTQ nods. And the one that really rocked my world is Hazel's referral to "No Country for Old Men" (2007) (Episode 3).
If, however, you are more of a romantic: Hazel (Cameron Britton) falls in love and Luther (Tom Hopper) and Allison (Emmy Raver-Lampman) have a great dance number late in the series as well as a compelling moment in a telephone booth (you know why this scene HAD to happen in a telephone booth, don't you?)
I don't want to tell you too much more, so I apologize for the understatement. But I don't want to give away any spoilers. I recommend binge watching, but I have to give you a caution: there are only ten episodes and that can easily be digested in a weekend (e.g Friday and Saturday night). Then you have to wait--perhaps until 2020--for Season 2 to emerge, assuming Netflix chooses to make a second series! So you decide: gobble it and savor the memory OR stretch it out over weeks to relish every moment of this wonderful, character rich series.
| 9
|
After Season 1 I was so excited to watch S2 but it was like an entirely different show! The humour, acting, story it all felt weak compared to S1. Disappointed!
| 6
|
Technically, this episode is only good in vision, the script has no heart at all. No touching point like the first one and really don't understand why James has to make the movie length so so so long. It can be much better if it is concentrated into 90 minutes. The last fight is also boring, you can imagine the ending like the first one. There are also great flaws as so many aliens can speak English so fluently. In the last one it is understandable as some were taught. Also why it is so important for the 'Sky People' to revenge on one single person with a whole squad instead of finding way to migrate/invade the planet. In sum, the story telling is a big failure.
| 4
|
I really wanted to like this but I can't. The dialogs are terrible, the GCI and the acting are not believable.
The narration is all over the place, jumping from one character to another, one scene to another, moving between timelines (yes they do this in the books but it is not as brutal and summarized), not building attachment to characters nor a proper dramatic arc due to very awkward pacing.
I watched all episodes but I had to fast forward several scenes to be able to finish, especially in the last episode. The dramatic effects just fall flat. The books didn't had the best writing but this much worse.
The whole thing is very Americanized and has lost all its Slavic color and culture. The casting is just very awkward. I don't mind having different races present but make it cohesive! The books contain several detailed physical descriptions of many characters and lineage/origins (you can also figure the origins by the names). Here you can't even guess where a character is from by watching the show unless you've read the books. It is all over the place. This is a medieval setting with a Eastern European flavor and genetics traits are attached to geographical regions; it's not NYC in 2019. The world they created is not convincing at all.
...and Nilfgaard...what are those costumes???
| 2
|
The story line was below average and very predictable. It seemed that I watching a kids movie. Shriya pilgaonkar should have chosen a good script, her acting however was good as usual. After watching guilty minds of shriya pilgaonkar, i was expecting another good series but this disappointed me a lot. As soon as the magic part came , it spoiled the excitement. Bhuvan also acted good but the storyline was too weak to support his acting. I wish that in future they should invest their time into a a strong script rather than these kinds of scripts. 8.5 IMDb stars astonish me. In coming days it would settle down to which it deserves.
| 4
|
The show is about Mare-ders, not murders. I started Mare of EastTown a couple weeks after watching True Detective for the first time, so there was a lot of comparing going on in my mind between these two show, which I would advise not doing. The title really gives away what the show is about - Mare, all the murders are just an entertaining path for her to grow and overcome her traumatic life spoiler. Though a very different detective show form what I've watch in the past (aka True Detective) I did enjoy the twists and turns, and watching our gritty, somber main character open up - even if it was just a teeny bit.
| 8
|
So I seen that this show is getting the ratings compared to game of thrones, breaking bad, ext. so I had to check it out. After the first episode it caught my interest so I continued to watch. The show stayed consistent and was good a little boring at times but in NO WAY does it deserve such a high rating. I was disappointed watching it because I expected so much more with a 9.4 rating!!!! It is a GOOD show BUT not even close to a GREAT show with a 9.4. I use IMDB all the time and is usually very accurate with the ratings, but in this case it is WAY OFF.
| 7
|
As children, most of us grow up wishing we could become gravity-defying super heroes, flying around the world, battling villains, rescuing the innocent, and fighting for truth, justice and the American way. But what if the burden of such a calling turned out to be too much for us? What if saving the world became a 24-hour-a-day/seven-days-a-week occupation that prevented us from leading a normal life and finding happiness with our one true love? That is the dilemma Peter Parker faces in "Spiderman 2," a deeper, richer, more psychologically nuanced follow-up to the rather innocuous "Spiderman" from 2002. Most of the major players from the original have returned, including director Sam Raimi and stars Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. What's different this time around is that the filmmakers have chosen to emphasize the inner conflict Parker is undergoing between needing to fulfill the awesome responsibilities that go along with being a crime fighting super hero and wanting to chuck it all in order to win the heart of the literal girl-next-door. Parker finds that being Spiderman keeps him from fulfilling the mundane, run-of-the-mill, day-to-day commitments one needs to in order to have successful relationships with other people - most especially the girl he loves. When the conflict becomes too much for him, Peter has to decide whether or not he is going to continue to lead this double existence or return to the simplicity of life as a mere mortal. It is this added intellectual dimension that gives "Spiderman 2" the thematic heft that "Spiderman 1" lacked.
The plot, involving a brilliant scientist who inadvertently becomes a killing machine when one of his experiments goes awry, is reasonably entertaining and interesting, though it pales in comparison to the love story and the complex internal conflict taking place in our superhero's overtaxed psyche. The special effects seem vastly improved over the original, with Spiderman's movements through the air appearing considerably more graceful and natural than they did the first time around. A spectacular scene involving Spiderman attempting to arrest a runaway train racing uncontrollably through Manhattan is the action highlight of the film.
As Parker, Toby Maguire provides the emotional gravity the story needs to be effective. His shy, self-effacing demeanor draws us to the character and makes him a believable, sympathetic figure whom the audience can relate to and root for all the way through. The sweet, vulnerable, yet eternally self-assured Kirsten Dunst makes for the perfect romantic counterpart to this young man who's all thumbs and who seems perpetually tongue-tied when he isn't donning his webbed designer jumpsuit.
I wasn't a big fan of the first "Spiderman" movie, but "Spiderman 2" has an intelligence and charm that make this particular installment awfully hard to resist. Raimi may have struck out the first time around, but he has managed to hit a homer - or at least a solid triple with the bases loaded - this time at bat.
| 8
|
It's the movie must watchable one. Well directed and didn't missed anything. Each and everything is shown everything in detail.. Salute indian army and movie crew.
Don't miss the movie on big screen pls go and watch in near by theater's
| 10
|
Im 26 and watched this again and felt the same love for it at 13. it's like the characters drive the plot of the series and the shenanigans they get up to translate into episodes. of course it helps that the moody antagonist is the hottest guy ever.
| 10
|
If you can get through the first three episodes the rest of the series is about an 8.5. The first three slowly get better but are bad spoofs of old sitcoms with laugh tracks and the first two are in black and white. They actually set up the rest of the show but aren't needed. If you really can't stand them, skip to episode four. You'll miss some context but not much and you'll catch up pretty quickly.
| 7
|
There is nothing original about The Change-Up. The plot line of two people switching bodies in order to appreciate their own lives has been done more times than I can count. In fact, I think this is a storyline that has been done more than any other, and certainly more than it should.
Luckily for the Change-Up it had Ryan Reynolds, Jason Bateman, Leslie Mann, and Olivia Wilde. The first half of this movie was slow and didn't show much promise. Fortunately, the movie did get better with the second half being much stronger.
I was somewhat surprised with how much I enjoyed this movie given its lack of originality and somewhat crude humor. This flick certainly wasn't any of these actor's best work, but I am glad I rented it. It was worth the rental, and not completely disappointing.
| 6
|
I feel the reviews are not doing this show justice. The show has an interesting premise and lets us explore different scenarios and characters.
It's fun but don't take it too seriously.
I feel the reviews are "made" to seem negative but the number of users tagging negative reviews as "helpful". Most user's default sorting is by helpful. Maybe IMDB can do something about that.
| 7
|
The Boys, a series I started watching on someone's recommendation, grabbed my attention with its first two seasons but had me feeling a bit let down by the latest installment, leading to an overall rating of 8/10. Initially, the show impressed with its bold take on the superhero genre, blending dark humor with a gritty, more realistic view of what a world with super-powered individuals might look like.
The first two seasons of The Boys were particularly strong. They offered a refreshing and captivating twist on the traditional superhero narrative, with well-developed characters and a plot that was both engaging and thought-provoking. The show's ability to mix action, drama, and satire was executed brilliantly, making it a standout in the realm of superhero-themed entertainment.
However, the latest season didn't quite live up to the high standards set by its predecessors. The plot began to feel a bit too far-fetched, even for a show that revolves around superhumans. The shift towards more unrealistic elements seemed to detract from the gritty realism that made the earlier seasons so compelling. This change in tone caused the show to lose some of its initial allure and impact.
| 8
|
Years ago, this series immediately turned me off when i noticed that all the lead female characters were unneccessarily-blonde, perhaps there was a reason in the plot/setting, but that-was-that, a superficial annoyance turning me off, i chose something else to watch, and moved on - anime being the smorgasboard it is,
---
Now that i've actually watched it, as the series has progressed, some of the effort put into the methods particularly, of the monsters versus the rather stale & near-homogenous heroines, kept me interested,
when i might've otherwise got sick of the repetitous competitive-aggression vs. Disciple theme amongst the heroines , which although parallel to the conflict, limits how diverse the 'good-guys' ARE,
which indirectly makes them LESS-interesting than the monsters (plus a few other more diverse characters like the shadowy leader/liason of the org that's constantly giving orders),
And-then, because the monsters are usually / mostly disposable characters, the lack of diversity remains and the limited culture if that's not too much of a word for it, amongst the org. Doesn't change or adapt all that much, and there seems to be an obvious abscence of non-Claymore powers of the (100%)humans themselves, aiding, working parallel, or even at times, competing-with the Claymores, in their OWN defence.
That simplification of the 'settled'-balance of relied-upon power in the setting, limits what-happens in each episode, as-well-as who gets involved in the ending,
so while there isn't too much to have to think about, if intrigue bores you, especially if still-frame + opening&closing mouths visuals bore you, and the series DOES do a reasonable job of making sure there's enough action and visuals progression for an anime, to keep you interested most of the time, i can't help but feel that there's a a niggling few missing-realism-pieces to a more complete setting, so i had to shave a star off for that.
Aside from the setting/writing/breadth,
the deliberativly limited weapons/armour consistencies of the Claymores also seemed un-neccessarily homogenous/limited, even-if you're to believe they're an order with rules/reg.s,
surely the grumpy/cynical/better-survivors amongst them, would have a crossbow or two with good penetration, or grenades, or poison, or something - instead, the constant 'big-sword' perhaps-even peeny-envy/imitation ... :D ... got a bit... mmm ... difficult-to-swallow?
Surely axes-with-spikes / picks/hand-scythes / spears , would've made better piercing weapons, for the persistently tough-skinned monsters, but instead they all go for long-blade slashing, which just doesn't seem to match up.
---
On personality, many of the Claymores are far too limited by relative similarities with-few-differences amongst-the-disciplied,
and of the a-little-but-not-enough cynical +more aggressive , too limited by their org.s rules/reg.s, despite being cynical-enough to've ended up higher-up amongst the org., even-if they had to stick with the same armour/weapons.
Some of the side-characters or non-Claymore characters are more diverse and realistic, but considering how much TIME we spend with only-Claymores, the more we hear of their stories, the more reluctant they seemed to me, to be likely to have contingencies that break the rules - there were some exceptions, i have to admit, but the 'established-balance' (of the order ) still seemed too unrealistically inflexible, if more flexibility would've meant it could keep greater numbers, as-well-as be able to rely on more ranges of capacities.
The simple acceptance of the hidden/secretive leadership, without a more realistic range of DIStrust, considering that the upper leadership protects itself by sacrificing the lower members is just too much as a balance - it seems more like an abscence-of a balance.
Although that's perhaps an OK realism in the context of the internal-doubt in EACH Claymore, in terms of losing-control, the by-product of that chosen-constricted-realism, should've created more cynical / mixed-loyalties / conditional-service ANYway - as in, although you can set-aside how much wider-society could-not trust and rely on something that limited, INdiverse, and constrcited, for example, none of them even seem to ride a horse, for instance, for faster arrival times?.. you can still RE-criticise the abscence of more RANGES of capacities of an org. That's supposed to be USED TO protecting against different threats - surely the humans would at least have other mercenaries or something, that can fill a gap / meet a challenge that the Claymores cannot - a wave of FLYING ones, say - Claymores standing around with 2-handed swords would be useless - surely humans would've fostered / supported similiar orders / mercenaries,.. something,.. with more ranges of readiness-FOR different threats.
Had to drop a star for that, too - the setting seems to have quite advanced building and metalworking crafts, but i barely remember ANY missle weapons, and there was a near-total abscence of magic weilding BY humans also, which is also too-unrealistic.
Especially considering that the more powerful of the monsters, amongst the awakenedBs, start to RELY on psychic / mind-control / soul/aura capacities, and humans willingness to sacrifice themselves when we/they have SHORTER lives. I.e. With a short(er) life, there is less sacrificed compared to lost, with each Claymore lost - at one point the dialogue contained that they don't AGE - yet both the order AND the humans, are happy to have them constantly losing their experience, by this limited gear/weapons rule?
Why. Couldn't give it 7, when just too many plot-conveneiences to have the two opposing sides going at each other constantly withOUT human resistences/help, forced a limit on the entire setting's goodly-types versus the force-of-evil - althoug the terrain/scene-by-scene settings change a little, the persistence of the useless-humans-in-contrast-to-neccessary-evil within EACH Claymore, was an interesting limit on their powers UNlike many series where the heroes are too over-powered, the various LANDS and powers they travel THROUGH ... all have the same policies!
There's never any monster-hunters, never any mercenaries, never any standing-armies elite forces,.. nothing!
---
Has a well suited stop-start rythmn intro tune eliciting altenation between blocking & swinging a weapon / running & stopping, etc,
time-management / storyboarding/scene-sequencing is good, and the art itself, is a suitably dreary mostly-greys & blacks, which indisputably maintains a consistent 'north' / winter setting, but then, humans seem to go around in temperate clothing! :D
so yeah, a little more double-checking in the realisms in the plot-balances / fleshing out the world/setting would've made for a more complete plot/setting, and then a few more sub-plots / additional antagonists / changing-style as the Claymores moved-throughout various lands, would've made for more of a ... we're-a-responsive-emergent-order-that-responds-to-monsters-emerging-to-ADD-TO-what-you've-got-for-defences-locally ... mmm ... arrival, in a theatrical sense.
Instead, it felt like more like repetitive games of chess / lined-up ... select-your-team to fight the repetitous monsters, and on-that, those that they fought MOST of the time, were visually pretty-plain, rather than more cunning / a hidden-monster-or-two-amongst a population, like there was in the first episode.
Yes, Claire's own adventure is meant to be SCALING up, else she might've been just continually doing similar scale work, but as the conflict, well-beyond her own direction/control, clashes with what SHOULD be more cunning/better-surviving monsters, most of them simply start to get larger / stronger / in greater numbers - that got repetitious too - more creativity in HOW stronger ones were supposed to've ALREADY learnt to survive weaker Claymores, SHOULD've meant more moderately strong, but intelligent ones - instead the few intelligent ones, kept leading plain, lizard-like / golem-like muscle-mass target-practice styles, and that really didn't make for much of a challenge. I'm exaggerating a little, maybe the balance was 40%/60% ... i wanted to see 80/20 ... not-many, would be simple/armour+strength ones, if they're exactly the kind easily chopped-up by the supernaturally-strong Claymores - there's a who would've survived question there left un-addressed - over-time, the monsters would've become LESS crude&chunky.
---
Some of the word usage, at least in the English-translation, is too-modern, too - unsuited for a medieval setting - swearing, concepts of divinity/prayer are all christian ... is it meant to be a christian setting?... etc.
If they were meant to NOT be in a christian setting, then why do some of the characters, again at least in the english version, call out to / pray to "god" ?
Yaaaawnn...
| 6
|
On a routine shuttle maintenance mission in space, two astronauts find themselves caught up in a life threatening disaster. Stars Sandra Bullock and George Clooney.
This is visually stunning. The CGI is incredible. It's almost non-stop tension throughout the movie too and carries some decent emotion. The plot is actually very simple and the movie is short.
Unfortunately, I did get motion sickness watching this due to all the spinning.
| 7
|
Jhund is the story of the tall wall fenced with wire between the privilaged and non privilaed. It is the story how non privilaged conqer the wall and climb it.
Although as movie I did not like few things, but the message movie gives is superb.
| 8
|
The Barbie movie got a lot of buzz from critical praise but I was intrigued even before that because there were stories about how it had quite the journey through development. I don't know what the previous versions would have looked like but I wanted to start with how Greta Gerwig's version is structured. It would have been pretty easy to play to formula writing and developing the script, to just repackage a popular framework and insert Barbie with some different touches (paint it pink and glam it up a little). But the creative team wasn't content to do just that here, my favourite part of Barbie is the unconventional directions the plot shoots off in. Barbie coming to the real world could have been predicted but the parallel journey of Ken, Barbie bonding with Gloria and Sasha, the odyssey that the Mattel executives go on are so off-kilter and fresh. It's all firmly tongue-in-cheek as well, the movie is deliberately poking fun at both itself and the system (including the corporate owners of the Barbie brand Mattel). Is there the occasional misstep? Sure, but this movie was so rare that while I could have nitpicked and poked at inconsistencies, I didn't want to. Barbie encourages you strap in for a ride and I can forgive the occasional bump in the journey if you deliver the goods. With such a silly tone and some well-intentioned rhetoric, Barbie absolutely does that and more.
In Barbie's debut, we travel to Barbieland, a candy coated toy-like version of reality that is perfectly curated to the needs of all the Barbies (and to a lesser extent all the Kens). The production design, costuming, sets, lighting are all dynamic and creative. The creative team does an excellent job of adding little touches to flesh out the world while maintaining the glossy veneer of the toys. The cars, the houses, the outfits are picture perfect and magnify how much money and effort clearly went into designing and creating this world. They use set dressing to great comedic effect too and it helps sell how strange and eerie coming to reality would be for our heroes.
Margot Robbie is pulling double duty as both the star and a producer in this feature. Robbie is her typical excellent self here, she's what the movie is centred around but she isn't afraid to share the spotlight with some of the other heavy hitters in the cast. She's as advertised in Barbie, she's funny, dramatic and magnetic all in equal measure. Ryan Gosling is really going for it as Ken, he's also underrated as a comedic talent. The jokes are fairly simple here but his enthusiastic delivery is what sets his work apart. Some people have mentioned awards consideration, I wouldn't go that far but he's great and he showed up to work. My favourite performance actually came from America Ferrera as Gloria. She's got great chemistry with both her on-screen daughter Sasha (played by an also great Ariana Greenblatt) and Robbie. She's playing more the everywoman in the minefield that is the world today with a frenetic energy that totally fits. I also wanted to congratulate Rhea Perlman, Will Ferrell (in a very President Business-esque turn), Issa Rae and Alexandra Shipp for some excellent work in their respective supporting roles as well.
Barbie has plenty to say and uses the platform effectively to get the message across. There's so much packed in here from how problematic it can be excelling as a woman in today's world, the fragility of the male psyche, how corporations flip-floppy attitude towards gender politics are based upon greed instead of the collective good etc. Depending on the scene, some of the material is delivered in a more subtle manner than in others but I was continually impressed by how the creative team was able to get the message across while weaving it into the movie without coming across as too heavy-handed. I'll also concede that I felt like they got 80-90% of the way there instead of the whole 100% (there's still an aftertaste of non-equality at the end). But I'll also concede that I'm not the target demographic here, I completely approve of the movie in its completed form and I'm all for what the message is trying to say (woman power, working through insurmountable obstacles bit by bit, getting in touch with yourself through introspection and acts of kindness, shape your own standards for beauty etc.)
Barbie was a little uneven for me but I really enjoyed the overall package. Barbie is bold, vibrant, well-made and delightfully weird in the best of ways. The performances are great and I liked that despite it taking advantage of existing intellectual property, it stands out by being a self-contained story that doesn't hinge on a Mattel Cinematic Universe or suggest that there will be sequel after sequel. I want to tip my cap to Greta Gerwig and her team for subverting expectations and giving us an unconventional blockbuster experience. Go see Barbie in theatres if you get the chance.
| 8
|
Having not read the books or been as much a fan of the source material as others....I was pleasantly surprised. The show completely exceeded my expectations.
Fascinating storylines that immediately pull you in, excellent dialogue, interesting characters (perfectly portrayed by a top-notch cast), and a rich, layered world of lesser evils. The world of The Witcher is very much worth visiting.
| 9
|
I love Tim Burton's filmography, Edward Scissorhands is beautiful and Batman Returns is an underrated gem, and I love The Addams Family with the 90s movies and the original TV series. But this show didn't feel like an Addams Family show, it felt like Tim Burton's 2nd attempt to mimic the X-Men concept like what he did with Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children even though it's based on a book but the premise felt like the X-Men, and Wednesday's just X-Men + Riverdale + Nancy Drew. A school is full of special children born with special abilities with racial-centered conflicts.
The family dynamics are absent in most of the episodes and they're what made the Addams Family so iconic in the first place.
Jenna Ortega is the only best part of the show with her great acting skills.
| 6
|
No spoilers. In this show, Hannibal character was produced differently than the movies yet it was absolutely amazing and admirable. Even if you get annoyed quickly, i am sure most of people will not feel this way. The show have number of serial killers with crimes that are more close to art ! The show gets deep in each character's personal philosophy. It is of course expanded from the original story yet the same old red dragon story exists. All the actors actually had a remarkable performance yet Madds (Hannibal) was absolutely something else. the story is very well plotted and twisted with a huge shot of physiological horror and thriller. Personally, this is my favorite show so far and unless you are one of those who only watch romance and comedy, it is very recommended that you watch it and i am sure the vast majority of you will enjoy it.
| 10
|
Money or materialism is the embodiment of human greed and the way the gangsters go about their lives, breaking laws and committing barbaric animalistic acts of terror just for money is a poor cultural showcase to people around the world. I give it a 3 out of 10 as the characters at least dress well and have some sense of professionalism though twisted as it is.
The plot is actually quite simple and basic for a movie with such a high rating, there's a few thought provoking lines but other than that it's just the case of lawless organisations pitted against each other for the sake of money so if a mindless violent movie obsessing over money obsessed gangs is your thing then go for it and cheer your heart out for the amounts of money the rich mafia firms you imagine stole or received.
| 3
|
Scene after scene just explosions and hollow dialogues that were meant to be funny but they´re not. This montage of CGI with idiotic dialogues serves only for bucks, it´s not made for cinephiles not even for comic collectors like me. Avengers: Infinity War is dull, not funny, extremely artificial and definetely extremely boring, btw I love Marvel universe since I was a child but this is not Marvel, its garbage
| 2
|
Boring boring weird and boring. I'm a huge fan of the Witcher RPG games so I had high hopes for this show after watching three episodes I could barely even watch anymore it is extremely weird and extremely boring. Bad British accents terrible acting super low budget it looks like something that you would see on the Syfy channel
| 1
|
I really love The Witcher, i readied books before playing games... I like Henry Cavil, he is really good in this role, at least he could be if that was good adaptation of Mr. Sapkowski's books, but instead they are doing a lot of their own crap. The best episodes are when they are trying to adapt books without changing anything. I will not watch season 3. First was ok, it could be better, it could be worst (5/10),but then the second season came... It was supposed to be far better... It's just a crap, (1/10). I gave 3/10 only because of Henry, cause he is the best part of this series. Go read books before watching it, then you will see how bad comparing to them the series is.
| 3
|
It is incredibly difficult to assemble such a star studded cast and end up producing such an uninteresting show. By casting people like Yoo Jae Suk and Jennie, you'd expect to see a show in which they can shine. Instead, the show is filled with dumb games, people sitting around eating ramen, and just wasting time. The "mystery" they solve is not interesting at all and how the mystery is solved offers very little entertainment value. You see camera crew blurred out in the background on multiple scenes. What's that about? I am not sure what future episodes have in store, but if they are anything close to Ep 1, they are going to be highly unentertaining.
| 3
|
This show started out exceptionally well, with a perfect first season the show did decline in quality since then but ended on a fantastic finale episode in season 4. I think the show could've wrapped up it's story in 2 seasons but the characters were interesting enough to carry the show further. Still remains one of my favourite series on Netflix.
| 8
|
Wow .. this one is dark. It presents a rosy face but the shots are greyscale and rainy with gloom and foreboding throughout. Series touches a lot of dirty stuff. Kate does a great job although it is funny they keep referring to her as Detective Sergeant, which is a British rank. The other actors and actresses are awesome. The girl that was murdered was captivating, perfect. We are hooked.
| 7
|
As was true of the first Avatar film Avatar The Way of water has all of the very very good special effects necessary to present a quality film of this character. Most certainly story development of Avatar The Way of water was lacking both in content and associated meeting. Directing seemed more soap opera quality than feature film level quality. Far too predictable is an app comment on the second story involving the planettoid Pandora and the indigenous species known as Pandora's American Indians as Hollywood studios would depict them. A major let down from the first film which was both unique and interesting. I would caution against a third film.
| 2
|
New characters look extremely real but all lack one little thing - emotions! This is what made them look so human to us in the original animated movie: the way Simba laughed, the way the Scar looked angry.
| 3
|
Pretty good. Hemsworth is slick as the killing dude and the action is relentless and gruesome. The locations are gritty too. Old David Harbour kinda doesn't belong though
| 7
|
Really bad jokes and storytelling. Bad acting and even worse settings. A lot in inconsistencies throughout the whole movie.
| 2
|
Not sure how no one sees this is pretty much a bootleg version of marvel. It is similar to brightburn where you take the hero's people admire and make them into characters who you would despise. Then you have the good guys just like marvel to try and save the world from these depraved characters. Watched 30 min of one episode and said yea this is trash and moved on to something else. There are enough shows out there on the same theme but are able to display it better without the cliche lines and actions of the evil superhero's. So if you want to watch gore and a stupid script by all means waste your time but fair warning this is not anything different from what's out there.
| 1
|
"Captain America Vs Iron Man! Wrong. It's Bucky Barnes Vs T'Challa - Nope, wrong again. It's Bucky Barnes Vs Tony Stark - Oh, wait, it's Steve Rogers' movie. Avenge!"
The preface should tell you what the film is all about. Yes, it's one hell of a film!
But I'll show you how to criticise it, still.
With his propaganda-poster jawline, WW2 promotional adverts to fitness inspirational videos and air of unimpeachable nobility, Captain America (Chris Evans) has always been one of the duller members of the Marvel universe.. Which is probably why, although this film or "the Avengers 3 with a Boy Spidey and a giant Ant?" - outing bears his name, the film-makers have press-ganged (almost) every spare ounce of Marvel muscle to back him up. Oh yeah, it's not entirely the "American War Mongering" spectacle titled Civil War (with Captain USA).
Ignore the crap above, this is, as it should be, very much Cap's movie and Evans' Steve Rogers proves he's the heart and soul of the MCU. And no matter what, he's a good man - who has to make tough calls, who's essentially alone in the world despite the company of his superhero pals. His battle of ideologies with Tony is compelling, but it never quite evolves past the same argument being repeated throughout and both sides doing something to show why the other might be right. Guilt over collateral damage is what prompts some of them – Tony Stark, Natasha Romanoff – to sign an accord ceding responsibility for their actions to the UN. But Steve Rogers, AKA Captain America, demurs.
The freedom to deploy a spot of unilateral ass-kicking where needed is what makes the Captain so great, and by extension America, also, great. But let's not get into that shall we? The scene is set for an internecine Avengers smack- down; the plot – hooked on an under- cooked vengeful grudge – is of secondary importance to the opportunity to watch them knock titanium alloy spots off each other. Fortunately, the zinging screenplay, by Marvel regulars Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, hits home almost as frequently as the punches.
The Hulk-sized gap in the lineup is filled by an engagingly geeky Spider-Man-boy-dork (Tom Holland, a promising taster for the stand- alone upcoming Spider-Movie - where Captain is returning the favour by making an unusual cameo, I think, based on the trailer). While the little guy, the ANT-MAN got a round of applause in most of the theatres/cinemas, including the one where I was at and I didn't even try to be cynical about it. It was great.
Downey turns in an uncharacteristically morose turn as Tony, even moodier than he was in Age of Ultron and in parts of Iron Man 3. He certainly has his good reasons for being down, although it does sap the movie of some of the charm and fun Iron Man has long been relied on to deliver. His differing ideology from Cap's is the crux of Civil War's philosophical and literal battle, but, like 2016's Other Superhero v Superhero Movie, this heady and repetitive debate also grinds down the pacing at times. Between Civil War and Batman v Superman, hopefully both filmmakers and audiences have fulfilled their need to address the issue of collateral damage and can once again embrace what superhero movies do best, namely pure escapism. That's not at all to say superhero movies can't or shouldn't address heroes' moral culpability or echo real world concerns, but continually lecturing to and piling the guilt onto the protagonists (and, by extension, the viewer) for superheroes doing what superheroes do is growing rather tedious and, frankly, taking the fun out of the genre.
As much as Cap and Tony's relationship is put to the test here, it's ultimately Cap's Bro-man-tic devotion to Bucky that trumps all else. Sebastian Stan once again finds the humanity in his cold warrior killer, and even gets a rival to Cap's affection in Anthony Mackie's Falcon. Their relationship is played mostly for comic relief to help offset the overwhelmingly tense and even gloomy tone of the movie. Know who else brings the chuckles to Civil War? Your friendly neighbourhood and highly anticipated new addition to the MCU... (Hint: He was beaten by some crappy insect).
Overall, the Civil War does a far better job of juggling so many different characters than AOU or even X-Men. Sure it has a very complicated story-line but it's one hell of a film which you don't want to miss out on. While memorising who is in which of the colour- coded, armour-plated exoskeletons can be challenging, the sheer force of so much super-powered personality on screen makes for a blast of a movie.
And the best one from Marvel, yet.
*A "Spoiler" not necessary need to be "Alerted" about: Stan Lee appears to mispronounce his own-created character's name: Tony Stark to Tony Something else!
| 9
|
This is so boring I don't even care what happens. It's obvious they are in some weird world or reality but this just falls flat. Waste of time
| 1
|
Wright is very good, but look out for that Sterling K Brown, he's going places. The whole cast is wonderful; extra kudos to Uggams and Taylor, who have roles that could lean more into melodrama and then don't go too far into tipping the scales for the tone the filmmakers want to have as a more subtle/natural feeling film.
American Fiction is a fun, knowing and cutting satire of stereotypes and cultural identity (both of macro and micro), though if it seems like this is even more of a commentary on tropes that were more prevalent or pervasive in the 1990s, it's no accident as the book "Erasure" this is based off of was released in 01 - not that gangbanger or slave narratives ever went fully away, but the dynamics have shifted a *little* in the thirty years since Boyz n the Hood and so on. And there's never a comedic scene that doesn't hit somewhat - Adam Brody is a scene stealer as an example, and you can never go wrong with RBG art in the background to communicate all we need to know about a particular brand of white liberal - but it actually works better as a tale of familial dysfunction and grief and trauma.
My wife made a great point after we left that a point in the film's favor is that the way Monk is comes more from his parentage and upbringing than from his own defects (and the mother and brother and for the short time shes in the film the sister are all drawn with good dimensions and empathy dialog), even as he brings all of his problems on himself in his big goof of a move to make a point (which, naturally, is taken the wrong way by everyone... except Issa Rae, who calls out how phony and half hearted the book is), and his stubbornness to keep the lie going.
It's a very good film because it is about the thing you think it is going in - racial appropriation, how Whites see Black's vs how Blacks sees Blacks (and, though brief, how a woman is judged differently than a man) - but it's also about things that are more universal, like the harm in thinking you are superior to others because of X or Y or Z, or (on a more emotional/feelings level) not seeing when other people... like or even love you and not thinking you're worthy of that.
Two critiques: the ending having those multiple Wayne's World type "Let's do the mega happy/violent" ending has a decent punchline, but cutting to black and coming up on the film shoot is a little of a cheat. And on a lessor note, one thing I would've liked a little more of were seeing a couple other scenes from the book "Stag R. Leigh" writes (or an idea of what Monk's "Blue Label" books are like conversely), albeit that's mostly because it would mean more Keith David and you can never get enough of him.
| 8
|
Hollow, empty, superficial and without honor.
Like an 80s feel good buddy movie, with disco instead of Motown, Damon instead of Julia Roberts. And instead of cracking predictable jokes and laugh lines with his buddy....we have a diary cam. So convenient to move the plot along.
It's amazing to me how people don't understand when the plot is being telegraphed to the audience through contrivances -- we're not in the hands of a talented screenwriter. This can be conveyed through action and subtlety i.e. Hanks on the island. Or though clumsy exposition and cardboard characters designed to move the plot forward and explain things to the audience the other characters would already know.
Forget all the implausibilities -- I am not a scientist. I just want a good compelling story about a man trying to survive. Instead, it has the tone and depth of a Friends episode.
That this averages over 8 stars has not only lowers my faith In IMDb -- I had to shut it off after an hour -- but in Americans, and humanity as a hole. Have you people lost your minds. This is rubbish.
| 2
|
Quite good but I think if twist n turns would be there then it could be more interesting...It's like normal movie...
| 6
|
Yelling is not acting or my kid is Al Pacino, annoying score , poor performance by most of the staff, annoying score, easy to figure plot twist , annoying score, over the top hectic yelling and screaming scenes, annoying score.
| 2
|
This is one of the most educational, pro-science dramas of all-time. In the same way that Breaking Bad would occasionally teach you something about science once per season, this show does that every episode.
The premise is that, with every human turned to stone and all technology lost, a teenage scientist becomes the first human to escape petrification, and now intends to restore the rest of humanity and recreate all lost technology from scratch. Very few shows will ever stoke your respect for science and human progress as much as this one.
| 9
|
The film was released relatively recently, but left a lot of emotions, both good and bad. The plot is interesting, but it is rather primitive. From the very beginning it was clear that everything would end exactly as in the film.
| 6
|
Argo is based on a true story. Somewhat loosely based it will turn out. Director Ben Affleck bends some historical truths in an attempt to make his film more exciting. The story of the rescue of six American diplomats from Iran during the 1979 hostage crisis is certainly compelling. But it turns out the real-life story, ironically involving a fake Hollywood movie, was not dramatic enough for a real Hollywood movie. Affleck had to jazz things up, create tension in places where there really was none. That effort fails largely because some of the fake incidents Affleck throws in are such obvious Hollywood creations. No way it happened like that you're thinking as you watch the movie. All the contrived razor-tight close calls fall flat and actually come across as a little silly. Silly is not what you're looking for as you ramp up to the big finish of a thriller. Seeing as it is more or less a true story, meaning you know the ending, it is admittedly hard to create that great dramatic tension. Some films which tell true stories overcome this problem better than others. Apollo 13 comes to mind, that was real edge of the seat stuff. Argo is not. It's not nearly as gripping and exciting as you would hope. Affleck seemed to realize this and tried desperately hard to make it more exciting but those efforts end up hurting the film more than helping it.
So this is a bad movie then? No, not at all. It's a good movie, maybe not as good as you would hope, maybe not Oscar-worthy but good nonetheless. Yes it has its flaws but the overall package is more than acceptable. It is a great story, the CIA working with Hollywood to create a fake movie to get Americans out of Iran. It's in the putting together of that fake film that Argo really shines. The inside Hollywood stuff, helped immensely by great performances from Alan Arkin and John Goodman, works really well. Bryan Cranston also does fine work, bringing good energy to his role as a CIA supervisor involved in putting the plan together. The one real flat performance unfortunately comes from the star, Affleck himself. He plays CIA operative Tony Mendez, the man who will ultimately go to Iran to get the Americans out. And Affleck doesn't bring much to the role. Everyone around him is more interesting than he is. It's an oddly bland character, the guy is supposed to be some kind of CIA super-spy but there's very little personality there. The gang of six who are to be rescued don't infuse the film with much life either. We don't really get to know those characters very well which maybe doesn't make us as invested in their fate as the film needs us to be to really succeed.
There is a lot to quibble with but there is a lot to recommend the film as well. The opening scene of the Iranian takeover of the American embassy is brilliantly done. The film may lack some needed tension later on but this opening gives the film a thoroughly gripping start. The real-life plan to extricate the six Americans was brilliant and this film does an excellent job as it puts that plan together. It's a story which has to be seen to be believed. The story draws you in and you expect the big, dramatic payoff to come with the ultimate rescue. But that rescue is not as exciting as you would hope. Affleck tries really hard to make it more thrilling. But he tried too hard, forced it too much. Much of the film's final act comes off as much too fake. You know it didn't happen like that so you don't really buy in. Couple that with the sense of inevitability that lingers with any true-life story in which you know the outcome and these final scenes can't help but be a little disappointing. It's a good effort from director Affleck but there is the nagging sense this film got much more acclaim than it deserved. A good film but greatness definitely eludes it. And movie star Affleck didn't help director Affleck very much.
| 7
|
Well, people, from now on i take my words about Game of Thrones start back(like s1 or so), cause this TV series is far more lame, dull, empty, poor on the stories and cool characters, but this thing moreover is so santa barbaric and sugar that it is just impossible to watch. The only characters that made sense are hands of king(ok and Larys Strong), and the thing is, they are not doing anything except being reasonable and partly noble. In Game of Thrones start, we had Ned Freaking Stark, mature tone and dirt, and here we have cosplay, wanna be series. If you don't believe my word, just check out the weak king that we have here and how lucky he has such a good court compared to GoT(in sense of loyalty and qualification) and it is strange, cause the king is weak and unwise, i believe in Game of Thrones this guy would not live that long. And i could also say a few things about characters (un)development, about their aging too fast(or not at all, or not looking natural), about useless scenes where kid flies on the dragon, just to show you graphics(to my opinion, even graphics not impressive at all). To be honest, i got general impression that i'm watching some kind of fan fiction theatre or so, i didn't have suspension of disbelief even for a moment. No twist, no interesting events. Dummy.
| 1
|
I'm writing this during my 2nd viewing. Good grief, I'm bored. If you take away the crutches of the CGI & the relentless, endless, oh god make it stop 80's references then you're left with a dull story full of plot holes, terrible dialogue & very poor acting.
I grew up in the 80's. I love it. However having every single pop culture reference of that decade on screen every 2 minutes in this movie, that's an hour too long, is quite frankly making me irritated & disappointed in Spielburg. It's like when a child in a candy store got too excited trying to make a cake, and put EVERY SINGLE THING he could see in it. It feels like watching the battle scene in Avengers Endgame, but for 2 hours and 20 minutes. If you're (physically or mentally) 15 & under, you'll love it.
| 5
|
This sequel is of the same level as the first movie. It's a bit of entertainment, for the whole family, with some good CGI moments. If you don't like fantasy movies with weird creatures and alot of CGI's then you shouldn't watch this one because that's basically the whole movie. The story is okay, just a bit more complicated than the first movie, but still a movie to watch with the whole family, kids included. The acting is okay from most of the actors excepted from the main character Newt Scamander played by Eddie Redmayne. To me he's just a mediocre actor but that's my opinion. Like in the first movie he's the weakest link and both movies could have been better with another actor.
| 7
|
I have wondered why Steven Spielberg's The Fablemans has almost ten times more nominations to it's credit than awards. The Fablemans missed in all seven nominations at the Oscar.
Loosely based on his own life's early years, the story narrates the coming up of age or rather the budding of a world renowned film maker.
The Fablemans starts rather unsure of it's destination drowning out in the portrayal of Sammy's family gatherings. Sammy's indoctrination into film making is portrayed like any kid's playtime and doesn't portend to his lifelong mastery of the medium.
The movie ultimately catches up with it's intension and goal but the first half takes away a star or two and a couple of Oscars. Barring his interest in holding and panning the camera, the film fails to find for the viewer the genius in him who became a celebrated moviemaker.
| 8
|
Combine heavyweight producers with heavyweight actors and a heavyweight script and you end up with something very special. The paradox is that this show never found a following. Likely because all the characters, Bacon especially, are unrelentingly awful people. ((Designated "IMDb Top Reviewer." Please check out my list "167+ Nearly-Perfect Movies (with the occasional Anime or TV miniseries) you can/should see again and again (1932 to the present))
| 8
|
It's alright, not this stellar amazing thing people in the comments and reviews are going off about. Honestly don't even know if half these people even watched the show with what they're saying.
It's similar to the game, and seems to be following the games pretty well, but we need to watch more to see if Joel and Ellie are playing as Joel and Ellie the way fans hope for. So far it's okay. It's watchable, entertaining, people who haven't played the games would probably enjoy this a lot.
Joel is okay, I'm not the biggest fan of Ellie so far, I think if the writers and director actually had her play the games that she would've gotten the character better.
| 6
|
SEASON ONE REVIEW
A series with Jenna Ortega as Wednesday Addams and directed by Tim Burton could be something spectacular, but personally it was not as spectacular as I expected.
I wasn't sure where the series was going to go and it turned out that it was the typical teen show about teenagers solving mysteries, which has fed me up, these types of shows abound nowadays, I was wondering if Jenna Ortega and Tim Burton can save this show, and they did since everything I liked has to do with them.
Jenna Ortega's performance is the best the series has to offer, it's not complex at all but she knows how to play Wednesday and without being expressive, it's seen that she enjoys the character, but the other characters.....the other Addamas are fine, no they shine a lot but they do it well, all the others without forgetting them and something clitches. Tim Burton's style is present, I love the settings among other things but the problem is that.... They do not shine at all, they do not have moments where these details are noticed and they simply remain as something in the background.
The Addams are weird in each of their versions but in this one... they almost always just say they're weird but they almost never show it. I would have liked them not to show it anymore and that the Addams shine more than just Wednesday. As a last complaint, the cgi is terrible.
Enjoyed the series, but was hoping for something slightly better.
| 6
|
Had to watch it for school, and i found it a bit strange.
| 6
|
After watching Chernobyl I had high hopes for this series.
The prologue of 'When Your Lost in the Darkness" had me shouting at my screen in excitement. They absolutely hit the nail on the head when talking about the effects of a fungal pandemic, followed by a spectacular title sequence.
However, aside from the title sequence, this show was lacking in terms of visual effects. The use of green screen was so incredibly obvious and the lighting came off as amateur. They really should've used an LED volume and a different lighting company.
The CGI animation of the infected had its highs and lows. The sudden upwards jolt of their head comes off as incredibly corny, while the running, jumping, and stumbling shots felt truly impressive.
Bella Ramsey on the other hand was a complete miss for the part of Ellie. Even the performance of seasoned Pedro Pascal felt like rehearsal during his exchanges with Bella. This really goes to show how important casting is and how it effects the entire mood of the show, cast, and set.
The story telling could've been better. At times it felt like the writers of this show chose to shoot the least interesting perspectives of the entire situation for what I could only guess to be a cut in cost. I would've liked for them to have jumped around a little more to offer the unfamiliar viewer some character development.
| 2
|
The strongest trump card of the Beautiful Mind is its storyline. So much more could have been achieved by so much less, if only the story had been allowed to unfold without the need to mislead or dazzle the audience with special effects and directorial coups. An enjoyable, if schizophrenic film (excuse the pun).
This is the classic nevertheless compelling sociopathic-genius-turned-schizophrenic story. The magnitude of the Nobel prize and thus the deduced importance of the genius's work serves to augment and hold the audience. We all secretly admire and even envy the truly dedicated and gifted people, so our attention is guaranteed from the start.
This attention is wasted firstly by a script that at times focuses on non-story-serving scenes (several Princeton-based ones spring to mind, as well as the GO circular scene, what a pretense..) that dilutes the pace of the film and needlessly prolongs its length, presumably to adhere to the latest "more is better" Hollywood fad.
Mr Howard overstates. There is a distinct desire to dress up the story with effects, to tease or mislead the audience with a view to thrill, to fit in every trick of the trade. Understandably, since having an Academy Award story potential, one goes for the big "8 Oscar" prize.
The net result is, unfortunately, a dilution of the story, and the attention of the audience on things that don't really matter.
Mr Crowe is acceptable but not consistent. He is struggling, perhaps by directorial misinformation, to balance the character between idiocy and sociopathy, brilliance and simplicity. Even considering the evolution of the character, the inconsistency is apparent, especially when frantic head or hand gestures are used to denote stress and reality shocks. Definitely not an Oscar performance.
Mr Harris is poignant and ghostly and in general positive, although a bit too cowboyish at times.
Ms Connelly brings grace and beauty, but her character is not well defined to the point that it almost becomes a support role.
Good if sparse humour, tasteful cinematography and a soundtrack that serves but does not dominate are some of the positive points of the film.
A Beautiful Mind is a thriller, a biography, a venture into the unknown depths of the mind, a sociological study, everything and nothing at all. Perhaps that's what schizophrenia is all about...
| 5
|
The acting is bad, the cgi is bad, the writing is worse; but the plot is however pretty interesting. Would hope someone with a bigger budget and infrastructure would have picked up the script.
| 4
|
Teen suicide rates increased following this tv show. Do I have to say more. Well yes, kind of, I do. Not only is this show unethical, it's also dramatised and cliche. It's not even worth your time. If you're into watching addicting tv, I get it. This is pretty bingebable due to its lack of reasoning. But, you could just watch something else. I recommend sex Ed if you want to watch something a bit raunchy and unbelievable. Riverdale is not great but it's definitely better than this. I'm sure there's others as well, just please don't watch this.
| 1
|
Despite the recent news that Henry has been ejected from the series, Netflix's "The Witcher" was already on a downward slope from the ending of Season 1.
The series does not follow the novels, it does not even closely resemble the same sequence of events within each segment of the novels, the only similarities it shares with the novels is major plot points, everything that made "The Witcher" novels great was butchered by the writers of the series in favor of their liquidated vision.
This is very visible in Season 2.
If you've never read the books, you might find some enjoyment from the series but having read the books you will almost certainly despise the series. If you've played the games, you might find some enjoyment seeing Geralt in live action but beyond that, you will find the story in the video games to be significantly better and far more enjoyable in comparison to the series.
1 point for Henry's portrayal of Geralt.
1 point for the soundtrack.
1 point for the makeup department.
| 3
|
Venom 2 feels like the plus 1 version of a crafted weapon in a video game. It doesnt change what it is but it is a strict upgrade. The move from an extremely forgettable antagonist played by non remembers gets a huge upgrade in woody harrelson surprising literal no one. Is Venom 2 a great movie. No. But if you enjoyed Venom you are going to enjoy this one. Probably slightly more.
| 6
|
Nothing is perfect, and I give props to the cast & crew for their significant effort in making this game a show. We all know: it could have ended up like the poorly made Seeker of Truth (my favorite book series, terrible TV series.)
The very beginning is disappointing, underwhelming if you will. I expected something more impressive, or differently impressive at least. Should have started with a bar fight where he uses one of his sigils and surprise the viewers vs. Grabbing a sword under water.
The series is also very dark and depressing in general. I enjoy Tremors because Kevin Bacon and Earl Ward keep up their energy and humor despite unbelievable terror. This show has none of that.
The time fragmentation between episodes becomes more clear depending how close you're watching, but frankly trying to copy Quentin Tarantino is just a bad idea unless you know what you're doing.
The main actor, Henry Cavill, is excellent and the LAST person I would cast for that part, but turned out to be amazing. Yennifer is also great. But otherwise you could substitute any other actor and the show would not change.
Story is pretty base-line, there isn't much interest in side-stories, just the main focus.
The show doesn't portray as much as the game does, I wish there were more monsters and more Geralt-action, but so be it.
The ending is a complete cliffhanger, waiting to see how things turn out. I can only guess the 2nd season will begin with Geralt trying to train Ceri and she messes up and gets frustrated at Geralt and there is tension that ends up getting resolved by the end of the first episode. Its too obvious because anyone that makes TV and movies now-a-days follows a scripted template. Mark my words, it could be better with people who have good original ideas vs. Youtube stars and millennial undergrads.
*Season 2 update*
Unfortunately the shows writing is really driving the series into the ground. Season 1 wasn't exactly a nail-biter, and now its even less engaging. The main spell caster (Yennifer) can't casts spells through the whole season; that was a terrible idea. Why not make the 3rd season have Geralt lose his swords and his magic too? And what do you know, I called Ciri and Geralt fighting like father and teenage daughter.
Ultimately if the writers don't get their heads out of their rear ends and start coming up with more intriguing dialog and plots, this show is going to crash and burn before it even gets started. It's a shame they don't just listen to the fans.
| 5
|
Although ostensibly a crime thriller, Fargo is really a dark comedy and probably the best one ever. I love how this movie makes fun of midwestern culture and total schmucks like Jerry Lundegaard and Carl Showalter.
Frances McDormand is the best actor of her generation and perhaps the most underrated. I think she doesn't get enough praise sometimes.
The Coen Brothers have certainly crafted their best with Fargo. I think it's even better than No Country For Old Men or The Big Lebowski (two films I also love).
Not too many films of more than one genre can be good let alone great. Fargo is a true masterpiece and a must see experience.
| 10
|
Seven hours, roughly, in which not a whole lot happens, even though we are presented with more characters than we know what to do with, and action piled on action. The acting is sometimes very good--I enjoyed Guy Pearce as the writer tied to mama's apron strings, Angourie Rice as the lesbian daughter, and of course Winslet as the detective ties everything together. Trouble is, by the fourth episode I no longer cared who killed those girls. It had become simply a wait-and-see game played out over many hours, with some grotesque characters thrown in to keep us watching. I checked the set out of my local library; there's no way I'm going to pay for an HBO subscription.
| 7
|
From what I understand, "The Wolf of Wall Street" is loosely based on a real-life individual. However, director Martin Scorsese delivers such an over-the-top caricature that either Jordan Belfort was truly the wildest individual to ever roam this planet or this is the most bonkers "based on a true story" liberty-taking of all time.
For a very basic overview, this film tells the story of Belfort (Leonard DiCaprio), a Wall Street banker who experiences a market crash on his first day in NYC. As such, he starts his own firm--Stratton Oakmont--duping clients into buying massive amounts of penny stocks. But Belfort is an excellent con man, and soon he's challenging Wall Street institutions in terms of profit. Along the way, he lives the most profane, drug-addled, sexually promiscuous, over-the-top lifestyle one could possibly imagine. All this puts him on the radar of the FBI, of course, in particular Agent Denham (Kyle Chandler) who is out for the bust of his life.
At heart, I think "Wolf of Wall Street" is a parody of Wall Street culture--the kind of shyster existence that generates as much depravity as it does wealth. I'm sure there are some genuine lessons to be learned from all that.
The problem here is that Scorsese leans so hard into the debauchery of the whole scene that by the end I didn't find anything or anyone likable. I don't consider myself a prude by any means (especially when it comes to movies), but the amount of profanity, drug use, and sexual antics in "Wolf" did reach--and surpass--my limits. There is not a nuanced moment in the entire picture--everything is a slap to the face, so to speak.
All of that being said, there are just enough things happening in "Wolf" to make it somewhat memorable: DiCaprio is on fire from beginning to end, Margot Robbie is utterly entrancing, Jonah Hill is reliable solid, and it has certainly produced some gif-able moments or speeches.
But other than those aesthetic pop culture snippets, I found the whole of "The Wolf of Wall Street" to be quite a mess. Mainly for a lack of nuance in trying to convey any sort of message about Wall Street and its ilk. By the end, I felt bludgeoned to death as opposed to thoughtful or engaged.
| 4
|
Suffers from too many heroes and is slow to start, but it keeps the right balance of light hearted action and emotional stakes of the franchise. This is mostly thanks to the characters, their individual reasons for being involved, and their well-suited actors. Top notch special effects and exciting scenes abound, but the story seems repetitive to the previous instalments at times.
| 8
|
Great movie everything is perfect and connected well.
| 9
|
I usually like fantasy and thaught the two first episodes were really promising. But as the relationship between Diana and Matthew grew the story became slower and she became weaker. A powerful witch and aclaimed academic hiding behind her boyfriend. Nah...
I watched the whole first series just to see if it would shape up but it didn't and I will probably not see season 2. Too bad for a promising theme and beginning.
| 5
|
The story starts with the explosion and how they fire fighted the problem. The last episode on explaining what happened exactly at chernobyl was so terrific. End credit made me realise this was the most terrific incident happened ever.
| 9
|
"One man army" are OK, and there always will be audience. This movie is exactly of the kind. Starts very good: 1. Great lead 2. Very nice work with weapons, cool up to date technics and mechanics the way weapons are used 3. Great hand to hand combat that brings the right feeling of realistic horror But.... the plot is so dull - all of it!
It's just not realistic, the situations, the decisions... everything!
So I'm just sorry for the lost potential in this one. Such a wast of bullets and screen time :)
| 6
|
Being a superhero was never easy. I suppose Sam Raimi liked melancholy movies, ever since he made A Simple Plan. Melancholy, or sadness, was the main point of the movie. "It's the superhero movie for people who don't go to superhero movies," Roger Ebert says.
There is a bit of a melancholy element behind the sequel to the Spider-man. Peter Parker faces numerous personal problems, which bring down his self-esteem and bring in a whole lot of dialogue. (Which I didn't think was corny!) First of all, there is Harry. If you can re-call the first movie, Harry is still upset about the death of daddy. He knows Spider-man is connected to it, but doesn't know that Peter is Spider-man. Now, he wishes to take revenge on Peter Parker a.k.a Spider-man. So much for being a best friend! Next in line, is Mary Jane. Apparently being a superhero isn't all it's cracked up to be. There seems to be so much trouble, Peter can never arrive in time for his appointments. Sadly, one of them is Mary's play, which Peter has promised to see, but can never make it! And to think that Peter and Mary Jane almost had a relationship. Too bad she's getting married to somebody else.
Every superhero needs a villain, and Doctor Octopus is the one for Peter. After his experiment goes wrong, he accidentally fuses four metal tentacles onto his back. Now, crazed to finish his failed experiment, he puts the city in danger. Poor Peter. Only superheroes can stop the super villains. Now he must defeat Doc Ock. Add that to the "to do" list.
What more can we pile on?!?! Sadly, Peter there's much more. His grandma doesn't trust him, his grades are dropping, he can't even pay the rent and his stress even results in drastic consequences. Wow, after saving the lives of all those innocent people, so much bad happens to him! I wonder if karma does actually exist. Well, at least not in movies.
Spider-man 2 is a definite improvement on the first. Sam combines drama with action sequences to help the those with short attention spans.I hope Raimi has a lot more in store for us, because this is solid proof that sequels can live up to, or even surpass the originals. I just wish the film wasn't so darn predictable!
8/10
| 9
|
Oh, what the hell.... I certainly won't argue with the obvious fact that The Matrix did contain some very fine moments of CGI excellence, but I will argue with the fact that every single character in this film was less than likable (some clearly less likable than others). And because of that painfully plain truth The Matrix only rates 5 stars.
In particular, it was The Oracle who I thought to be nothing but a big, pudding-faced phony, baking her stale cookies and cheerfully dispensing away with her worthless "kitchen-counter" prophecies and laughable "dime-store" philosophy as if it were all to be taken at face value by gullible fools, like the stubborn, thick-skulled Morpheus.
And, on top of that, no one can tell me that NYC has such an incredibly vast and spacious sewer system that a literal fleet of ships the size of the Nebuchadnezzur can actually get lost within them for days and days on end, while scouting around for who-knows-what (?).
| 5
|
Storyline not good. Acting has to be worked on more. Copied plot.
| 1
|
This show learned from all its predecessors and accumulated that knowledge into one of the best kids horror shows ever made. Does it have any real scary moments? No, not really. But it does a fantastic job of taking what movies like this attempted in the past and doing it much better. If you find yourself feeling nostalgic about goosebumps or are you afraid of the dark but know your to old for that now, this shows takes ideas from those and amps them up with plots from the classic horror films. Love the show and each season has a totally different theme to it so no matter what kind of horror fan you are there will be something here for you.
This show got a bump up from an 8.5 to a sold 9 from me just for the amazing D&D references. They do a fantastic job of making D&D seem more believable then most other movies I've seen try to capture that magic.
| 9
|
It was a pretty solid 8/10.
The movie was very strong in first and second third. Nice atmosphere and you started to slowly piece together the clues but still couldn't be sure what was going on. When they started slowly revealing in the last third it just got stupid with the weakest character and actress of the whole movie.
But the ending... holy f no. Not its not "smort" to end a movie like this. It doesn't leave you questioning. It's plain stupid and a movie trope that some directors think makes the move better or adds more dimensions. Ffs just add one more scene instead of annoying everyone. Because of this crap alone I deduct two points.
| 6
|
We've all seen it. Hollywood frequently come back to the paradigm of changing bodies(or places). Background changed up a little bit in The change up but its still a cliché. Humour is very low and first few seconds of the movie explains it very vividly but if you ll manage to look pass it ll get better. I personally liked scenes with Olivia Wild she has really strong screen presence (or maybe its just because she so damn HOT). Anyway there will be few laughs and few WTF. Although film is predictable and starts off awfully I must say its one of few that I liked among 'OMG we changed our bodies' clichés.
The story is about 2best friends Dave Lockwood(Jason Bateman) and Mitch Planko (Ryan Reynolds) which after drunken night change up their bodies. That of course lead to awkward situations, gags and rediscovering your own I. Dave is a lawyer with 3 kids and loving wife.Mitch is completely different person without career, living like a men-child and chasing skirt all the time (he also had daddy issues). Jason Bateman as an actor (and probably as a person) completely lacks charisma so he s tailor made for role of Dave. (btw he always play the same guy). The thing is that after the "change" it just doesn't work any more. As douche he cant convey anything beside few facial expressions. Same goes for Reynolds although he doesn't act he just looks pretty. But who da hell cares about acting while watching light and for most parts brain-dead comedy.
I recommend it to all those who have not much experience with cinema. If want to have some fun and leave cinema rather with a smile then without this is for you. For the rest of us it will work only when we're sad at the moment with out anything better to do. Oh and whats important we get to see Olivia almost naked +1 for da movie thanks to her :P
| 3
|
The second season has nothing going on because it gets erased by the final episode.
The final episode is just retelling of the whole season.
If anyone says they can follow the story they are lying because its uther illogical nonsense.
I mean what is it even about, multiverse? Timetravel? , no sense?.
How can it get high reviews for pretending to be something higher then avarage posh.
Why al these characjters requured?
The final episode is just retelling of the whole season.
If anyone says they can follow the story they are lying because its uther illogical nonsense.
I mean what is it even about, multiverse? Timetravel? , no sense?.
| 6
|
This movie is obviously made for kids. Any adult will find the unnecessary explosions and cheap action tricks more of an annoyance than entertaining. If it had been made more realistic it would be a much better movie. What is intended to be funny lines and situations is also very childish.
| 3
|
Forgetting Sarah Marshall is such a hysterical movie!!! Shot beautifully as well. The cast made the movie even better!!! It's has heartache, LAUGHTER THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE MOVIE, love, silly antics, plus more!!!! I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND THIS MOVIE TO ANYONE ABOVE THE AGE 18!!! A+++ Film
| 10
|
Started off well and was good upto Episode 6 and got diluted after.
| 7
|
This movie lacked diversity and inclusion. It was all black people acting as black nationalists. Where were the asians? The Native Americans? The hispanics?
This was a snoozer. Same tired comic book plots but FBBB, For Blacks By Blacks. Nothing inventive, nothing original, nothing worth watching, and obviously funded in part by the Department of Defense.
Save your time, save your mind, save your life. Avoid Black Panther and everything connected to it.
| 2
|
Just finished watching all three seasons in a couple of weeks and I was feeling glum about leaving the characters even before watching the finale. I haven't watched many TV series. Normally I just devour movies as I don't have to commit too much time before finding out if it's dull. I'm glad I gave this show my time. The first few episodes had me expecting another generic crime show, just more gory, but that was a forgotten thought toward the end of season one when the storyline focuses more on Hannibal. It was smart, surprising, disturbing and darkly amusing. I was surprised with just how far they did and were allowed to go for something shown on TV. This is certainly not safe or dumbed-down viewing. It often felt a bit too macabre to binge on.. a world one shouldn't stay in for too long, but at the same time how delightful it is. The casting of Mads Mikkelsen as Hannibal was superb. His acting is very subtle and his face and presence intriguing and it was perfect Dr Lecter. The homoerotic undertones between the two leads put a whole other dimension into the storyline and in season three it felt like the writers played along with what they knew the viewers wanted more of, teasing, which was a fun element. The only issues I had with the show is that it felt uneven at times. A few episodes (namely the first few of the third season involving the Lady Murasaki's character) were lower par than others. I found some aspects of these episodes a bit silly and pretentious, although still enjoyable. Apart from those other episodes were often quite brilliant. It's incredible what they did with just 40 minute episodes as some felt like watching a feature film. All in all I loved it. It's deliciously dark, visually beautiful, the dialogue is thoughtful and it's packed with interesting and often horrifying storylines and characters. It's for those of us who like to be struck by what we're watching, ponder over dialogue, enjoy dark and atmospheric worlds and find sinister characters and psychology interesting. I can certainly see why this show is a required taste; but if it is to your taste then you will adore it. 8.5/10
| 9
|
The first season was great, it was original, well written & the actors were fantastic in their roles. Unfortunately after that the hype of the show & it's actors became more important than the show itself. The following seasons are just an exact rehash of the events of the first season with slight changes to make you think it's different. It's become boring & repetitive, I didn't even finish the latest season because it All felt very "been there done that"
| 5
|
Plot: inexistent. Engagement of the spectator: impossible. Aesthetics: beautiful. Content: awful. As cinema (in terms of art): awful. As entertainment: also bad. Seems they are more interested in delivering movies and series at regular intervals than with quality. Don't wast your time with this one.
| 4
|
The worst and most stupid movie I have seen in the last 25 years, The story, the acting, even the effects were SOO BAD, what a waste of time and money.
| 1
|
What is it about this turgid piece of rubbish that attracts such high praise? It's long, it's dull, and it goes absolutely nowhere. There are no spoilers in this review - there's nothing to spoil. The story, such as it is, centres on one dull American who meets another. To make this story more interesting, it's set in Tokyo, not the US. Whoopee! The characters are still dull, but they're in an interesting place. This could have converted the movie into something that had a pulse, but unfortunately Ms Coppola sucks the life out of one of the most vibrant cities in the world and reduces it to a caricature. Tokyo deserves better than this - and it's had Godzilla to contend with...
| 1
|
The Netflix original series Stranger Things is just superb! It is keeping me engaged and exciting all the time. It is also fun and entertaining to watch. It is the best shows I've ever watched with no doubt at all!
| 9
|
I am a huge fan of Tarantino's work but this one disappointed me. Margot Robbie's character was completely unnecessary to the story line and could have been left out completely although I thought she did a really good job. I don't know why there was so much rage towards a few stupid hippies. I also don't really care about Manson. Maybe the murders were a big deal 50 years ago but who cares these days. This is more a movie for boomers than anyone else. Tarantino also throws in Easter eggs from his other work a little more than he needs to in this one.
He does a great job at capturing attention and story telling but I left feeling like I wasted my time.
| 4
|
Such a brilliant movie...amazing story line, great locations, perfect dialogs and above all unbelievable acting by SRK as Gaurav. SRK as Aryan was great but as Gaurav he was as Grand as expected. The film has various undertones which were obviously part of the play as well. It would have required a director and screenwriter who is at the peak of his direction and writing skills to have made it happen. Screenplay, perhaps one of the finest in recent times as real as possible- without the extra sugar that you expect from a Fan affection towards their Idol. And best thing, it felt like it ended early as audiences were wanting more. Seriously Indian cinema standards will take a rise more with this movie.Enjoy in the large screen with as many SRK fans as possible along side non SRKians. You just cant get enough of this man's performance Highly recommended to watch more than one.
| 10
|
With over 2000 posts already, what else can one say about this extraordinary movie? Sure, it's derivative. Yes, it is episodic. It is certainly very spectacular. But that is the nature of 3D: it's nothing if not spectacular. Even stereo slide shows are pretty, but prettiness is never enough. The sound, the music? More Wagner than Morricone, but how many original tunes are there anyway? The Morricone sound is there, and even the visuals from 'The Mission' are there. Look at that climb up the waterfall. What point was it, except, say, 'Why don't we have a waterfall?' Then there's the too-lengthy horse-breaking sequence. Every second Western has to have one. You want acting? Thankfully, none of the cast is required to act, even though there is a hint or two that one or two of them have some histrionic ability. Drama? The essence of drama is conflict, with a change in the characters as part of the resolution. The character, Grace, does change, but altogether too early in the show to be really part of the drama. I did stay until the end of the credits; were there really 3000 on the payroll? I suspect that the walkouts were more a matter of bladder control than boredom. Or was it the headache from the 3D glasses? This retired cinematographer has great admiration for the technical staff. They are very clever indeed. But it is possible to be clever and unintelligent, and in this movie they go close to that.
| 4
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.