Review
stringlengths 6
10.3k
| Rating
int64 1
10
|
|---|---|
I mainly we to the movies because the last one was good It's a 3 + hour movie and the scenes move really slow I thought that it would be interesting like the last one but it turned out to be really bad I asked some people around they told me the same so I asked my smaller cousins if they liked it they told me it was boring this movie got a lot of hype I really don't recommend going it's a waste of money and time. They say it's action but the action part of the movie was the last bit which was not enough since it's a 3+ hour movie If you want to take my opinion I would really recommend you not going even if your friends told you it's a waste of time and Money. | 4 |
From a 7 in season 1, to a 6 in season 2, to a 5 overall in season 3.
A good example of having writers that do not understand the fantasy genre, which in turn leads to misunderstanding subversions of the genre, attemping to write a fantasy show, which just ends up being a genric superhero action series with a fantasy theme.
As average as average gets, which isnt exactly suprising from a netflix title.
The thing that sadden me the most is the extreme flanderization of Ciri's character arc, completely missing the point. The original intent of the character in the books was to show the flaws of her character archetype, instead of celebrating them, but instead all the subversive aspects and failures of her archetype have been removed and instead it has all been boiled down to the tropes and cliches of her character archetype that like every other generic fantasy action show has done for decades. I bet in this series Ciri will "fill her destiny" instead of giving it up and leaving for another world to make her own path.
I'm not even gonna get into the Ciri-Yennefer relationship arc, it is completely void of any substance in the series, as opposed to the books.
The writing is just kinda boring, overdone and extremely predictable.
"I planned Ciri as a monster, i wanted to show how people make a human into a monster" - A. Sapkowski.
Nothing about this is suprising ofcourse, if you look at the writers previous works and the writers interviews over the years. | 4 |
The amazing Music saved this film for me... other than that.. Not as good as the original IMO. | 3 |
SPOILER FREE - (As long as you've watched the trailers)
(TLDR at bottom)
Going into Captain America: Civil War (I'll call it Civil War from now) I was extremely excited for the film. This was something I was really excited for, especially after the success that was Winter Soldier. I knew the Russo's knew what they were doing with Cap and were good at both progressing plot and developing characters. Something I love in film. So how does Civil War stand up? The answer, in short, is that it's good.
All I've seen said about this film is praise, 10 stars and shouts of this film being a classic. Whilst I wouldn't say this film is a classic, it's not a bad film. One of the film's main attractions comes in the promise of the Avengers being split in half and going head to head against one another, and you get that in heaps. There are plenty of fights in this film between heroes, with the exception of the very first fight every single fight in this film is between the heroes that have been developed in previous movies, and the action is stellar. Considering the vast majority of these heroes only rely on hand-to- hand combat it's really amazing that the action feels so fresh and swift, it's something to definitely be commended, and all of the fights feel swift and real.
With the action pretty much down, how does the story do? Here I have a bit of an issue. In my eyes, the plot is a bit of a mess. Literally so much drama could have been avoided if anyone just TALKED to someone on the other side of the argument, at least ATTEMPT to reason with the opposing side before going in with guns blazing. There is also a villain in this film that has an extremely convoluted plot, a plan that relies almost entirely on coincidence and luck. I think the film could have done without him. So overall, the plot is relatively weak.
But how does the character development fair? For the most part it's done pretty well. The film wisely decides to focus most of it's attention on Captain America and Bucky (aka: Winter Soldier) as it is still a Captain America film. With these two characters you can really sense both of their struggles. Bucky's done a lot of bad things that fall on his shoulders but he did them all brain washed and only now is regaining his identity whilst nearly everyone else wants him gone. Cap is determined to help his friend where no one else will, to help that one lost soul from his past, the last healthy memory of the world Cap once knew and can never get back. It's very well done stuff. Iron Man gets some decent development too. It's good to see Stark on the back foot and struggling to keep everything together when it's all falling apart, Stark trying to amend for past mistakes and being fought against. It's a side of Stark we haven't really seen before. Widow also has an interesting plot in her deciding between choosing what she knows is safe and what her guts want her to go. Other than this, however, the development is poor, ESPECIALLY for Vision and Scarlet Witch.
But overall, here's why this film can not be higher than a seven. It accomplishes nothing. It's a problem I had with Age of Ultron and it's a problem I have here. In these movies, where the universe is slowly being build upon piece by piece, I want each movie to have an impact on the universe, for the world to adapt and alter because of the events in the film. I felt Civil War could have been more. Ultimately, once the film is finished, everyone pretty much ends up where they began and it just makes me a little disappointed. What I loved so much about Winter Soldier was the pretty interesting plot, the development of characters and the companionship of Cap and Black Widow. Understandably this couldn't be focused on as much due to the cast, but it still feels lacking. Also, Winter Soldier changed a lot. It introduced a new character, new motivations, it collapsed SHIELD and the characters changed. You don't get that in Civil War. It's not that the film's bad, it's not it's actually quite good, but for me it's good in the places I care less about so I can't really give it more than a seven. I had fun and got what I wanted at the core but I felt like just a few more tweaks could have made this one of the greats. | 10 |
It's not a masterpiece nor it wants to be. It doesn't want to challenge our view of the world. It doesn't have political commentary at all. It is just a thriller of a disappeared girl and the desperation of its father, from the point of view of the father and the heavy influence of social media and internet in our lives.
Cho was good. Debra was ok. Some people found some wrong uses of technology (nitpick?). My problem was more about how the first and second acts have really slow/boring segments. But I don't think they damaged the movie at all. It is in fact a good movie, more than anything because of that great third act and the conclusion. | 6 |
I'm a book fan.....the show is disgusting....misscast....lost atmosphere....it lost the meaning and gray morality..... it's fake! read the books and see what I mean... sorry for my English... | 1 |
It is surely one of the best films of the year. Although, if you expect something accurate historically, you should lower your expectations. This is a nice film that tells the human side of a german family, in which Jojo (the youngest) is learning the fanatism of the nazi propaganda and his mother ( Scarlett J) tries to convince him there is still kidness in the world. That idea sounded great, but then it gets mixed with other story plots and it seems like they wanted to be very funny and dramatic at the same time, and the main plot gets lost in it. Still,its a great movie. Hope you enjoy it. | 7 |
The show is so good the storyline is amazing it's definitely a watch worthy because the story is a good setup for every season and legends of korra | 10 |
I remember watching this show while my friend and i used to commute. What started as a casual timepass soon turned out addict, and we couldn't wait watching a couple of episodes everyday.
Good acting by primary and side casts. But its the antagonist who stole the show. Mads Mikkelson had surpassed everyone with his quirky acting and frantic skills. I mean we used to feel pity on his victims but that never changed our mind to hate him.
A must watch. | 9 |
Plagiarism on plagiarism.
Sorry, Disney, your imagination is too short. Sorry, Disney, your imagination is too short. Sorry, Disney, your imagination is too short. | 3 |
I used to watch Arrested Development on TV when i first came out, some fifteen years ago. At the time I thought it was hilarious, smart and edgy. When the new episodes were in the works, I started rewatching the show from season one. To my astonishment, I hated it! Sure, some of the jokes are funny, even though they're sitcom-funny, and many times can't stand on their own. There are a million references to what were going on in the news at the time, and pop culture in general, which kinda makes you feel smart when you get them.
But there are two problems with this show. Firstly, and the minor one, is Ron Howard's narration. For the most part, it's unnecessary, and sometimes an obstacle for the action on-screen. Also, it's always structured the same way. It always starts with "And that's when X realized/discovered/knew that...", and that annoys me to no end. You could easily have a drinking game where you do a shot every time that trope comes along. You would pass out on your couch in no time, covered in vomit. The voice-over is supposed to make what's happening on-screen even funnier, but it's more often irritating than funny. Unfortunately, this is a problem, since the on-screen jokes sometimes actually requires the narration to be funny.
But that's nothing. The major problem are the characters. They all are totally unlikeable! All the characters are selfish and greedy, and that's all they are. Not a single one has any good in them. I'm not saying that a depiction of sociopaths like that is unrealistic, but it doesn't work dramatically. Instead, it makes them flat and uninteresting. Not even Michael Bluth, who's supposed to be the good guy, really cares about anyone but himself, not even his son. The show The Office, that came out a couple of years later also had characters who were like that. But they all had heart, behind all the egoism and obnoxiousness, which made them feel alive and multi-layered.
All this put together: The repeating voice-over tropes, the one-dimensional characters, and jokes that often can't stand on their own, all boils down to what it's really about: Lazy writing. This is a lazy show that people (myself included) for some reason found smart and funny. I really don't know how that happened. | 5 |
SE1 had it all attitude, dialogue, gore, suspense, fun, kuku and most importantly GAITONDE!!
SE2's conclusion could have been way better would have kept the gaitonde's fire alive but what a way to ruin a classic masterpiece | 7 |
Never have I been more upset at wasting 2 hours of life! I have seen my fair share of garbage but LA LA Land now tops the list. Here's an idea for producers considering a musical - Hire singers and dancers and then teach them to act enough to hold someones attention. Do NOT do what the producers of this heap of steamy crap did and bring in two actors and then try to get them to sing and dance. Gossling is massively miscast! He MUST have some sort of talent to still be making movies but it certainly is not singing and dancing. I imagine everyone involved in any musical prior to this one is either rolling in their graves or, if still living, are making plans to do so. Stay as far away from this puss bowl of boringness as you can. Now we all know why the Academy took back the Best Picture Oscar. | 1 |
I've read all the critics, the show wasn't THAT bad. CGI was beyond good, spacwship was good, the robot was great and the scenery was absolutely beautiful. Only thing that annoyed me through the whole show was the acting of few actors like Dr smith, silly and obvious mistakes that coudl've been avoided, even by a 3rd grader. Secondly relation and bond between the family was more than worse, I know they've gone throught such circumstances but still their realtion shoudn't be like that, they acted like kids in their realtions especially mommy Robinson. If you guys are upto the seasons 2 please consider all the critics, so we could enjoy the show not to get annoy with the things Mentioned. | 7 |
This film is a non sense and biased representation of the actual bio graphy of Oppenheimer and it's life events. This film defends Oppenheimer by showing him as he was guilty of invention which was totally opposite of actual facts. He openly feels prouds on making the nuclear bomb in its several interview and news reports. All Americans including him have celebrated that event genocide of people of Japan who killed by those 2 nuclear bombs. With this film has sex scene in which the couple shows Geeta while having sex. Also this film mis represent that Geeta is the core book of inspiration for Oppenheimer in making of nuclear bomb. A pathetic film. | 2 |
Is there anyone on Earth who still thinks either of these men are remotely humorous?
Why did any of you ever believe that any of this was clever?
I'm done with humanity. | 2 |
The time loop and the journey through time, the story plot of the first season takes place through the time loop that the main actors experience and the second actually takes place on the topic of traveling through time. There are no any visual effects in the series, the series is categorized as comedy, mystery and drama, the majority emphasis is on drama, the comic part is actually some sarcastically forced jokes of the main character that are simply not funny, in fact in the largest percentage there is some drama. Generally speaking the story is something completely new and different, a different approach to the themes of time travel and the time loop (I have to admit quite original). Ah ... from my perspective how I looking at al this is that haracters are extremely boring, their personalities (the characters are not generic far from it, they are well portrayed but they are just plain boring). The story that stretches is intricate and not in an interesting way, at times it is so monotonous and boring that it is hard to watch. I don't like the choice of actors I think it could have been a lot better. In addition to all of the above, we still have this forced woke trend that is slowly slipping through the first season in the background and consuming even more in the second. All in all, I do not recommend this to fans of classical science fiction or fiction, this is something quite far from these two genres, after all in description is only drama, comedy and mistery! | 4 |
Lets set the parameters. An Oscar-winning film, or any above-average picture for that matter, needs to fulfil criteria that sets it apart from the 'average'. It requires a breath of innovation, story-line, integrity and impeccable acting that levitates the subject above the norm. It needs also to vault hype and financial remuneration. To create a musical, which, I believe 'La La Land' aspires in many parts to be, there has to be a synergy between book, score and choreography. Sadly, for this viewer, not one of these three elements can be considered by any stretch of the imagination,'exceptional'. It's triumph is evident in it's cinematography and lighting, which were largely outstanding. But the remainder? The story is typical Hollywood fare - predictable without significant twists or intellectual excertion. Essentially, nothing out of the ordinary happens and the blandness creeps to a predictable end. The acting is OK. You would expect as much from someone of Gosling's ability, but I hope that one day he'll be provided with a script that alienates him from the type-casting that befell Hugh Grant, with a diversity that De Nero was astute to select. Choreography? What choreography? That brief moment with the bench is all that taunts the memory. Singing - best not go there. Marni Nixon could have played both roles.
And I read today that it's up for 14 Academy nominations. Figures. Trump was successful so there's no reason this will not win.
Emperor's new clothes 'n all. | 4 |
One of the most amazing suspense thriller ever watched....worth watching....the amazing performance of each artist will definitely glue you on screen.. | 9 |
This is a well shot, competently put together spy movie. It feels fairly realistic, as opposed to something like "Atomic Blonde". How you feel about that statement may predict how you'll feel about this movie.
Jennifer gives a good performance, and does reasonably well with her accent. Some of the other actor don't fair so well.
The "shocking conclusion" is unfortunately anything but. And pretty obvious, although the movie tries to present it like it's not the most obvious thing that could have happened. The final loose end is so ham-fistedly resolved that it undercuts that movies realistic appeal. | 8 |
I wish they hadn't gone THERE for the politically charged storyline. We have enough tension in the real world; don't overshadow an otherwise good show with agendas. | 5 |
What a movie. Should be a oscar entry form India.
Awesome movie and congratulations to jhund for awesome work.
One the best movie in Indian cinema.
Kudos to the director for the super thought. I am not sure this movies can become blockbuster in India or not but very sure this movie will go places because of content. | 10 |
I can't believe Knives Out was such a big hit. It was so boring and just dragged on too long. There is not one likeable character in the entire movie. Daniel Craig has a laughable southern accent and Anna de Armas is pretty but she's a terrible actress. Meanwhile the very talented Jamie Lee Curtis seems wasted in a her small role. By the time they got to the big reveal at the end I didn't even care. Skip this movie. | 2 |
I had some high expectations before watching it, but found it utterly disappointing. As a detective story, it is both predictable, buggy, and weak; as a feature film, it doesn't have much real content.
So does the movie wanted to promote or warn:
1. Americans are good-for-nothing greedy kids;
2. Immigrants are kind and innocent;
3. Immigrants should/deserve to take over "America"? | 5 |
This movie put two things on the map: Fargo, North Dakota, and the Coen Brothers.
The city has been around since 1871, and has a fairly interesting history (feel free to Wikipedia it), yet is best known for film that was made in 1996. Pretty sad, actually. You want to have some fun? Type in Fargo to Google and see what comes up. If your experience is anything like mine, then you will see first articles about the newish (and apparently very good; I should check it out) TV show, then the movie, and only third the actual city.
The Coens have a fairly similar tale, though they are by now far more well-known across American than Fargo the city. Because it was their breakthrough into popular culture (and earned them their first Oscar), it was many a film-goer's introduction to them. As such, there are a fair amount of people who think that this is their first feature film when it is in reality their fourth.
But enough posturing and preparing. Why did I give this film a perfect score? What specifically makes it so captivating? Why is it regarded as one of the greatest films of the nineties. Well, in one sentence, it seamlessly blends comedy and drama without missing a beat, delivering a film as thought-provoking as it is entertaining, as likable as it is nihilistic, as beautiful as it is gritty.
I think if the Rotten Tomatoes review recap were a little more artsy, it would sound something like that.
In 1987, a car insurance salesman, played nicely by William H. Macy, is desperate for money. A lot of money. So he arranges for his wife to be kidnapped by some random criminals in return for 80K and a new car. He will then tell his wealthy father-in-law (who owns the chain of car dealerships) about this, say the criminals want a million in ransom, give them the 80K, and take 920K for himself, so he can start his own operation and start making money his way.
Now, if he were competent, this would have been a totally different movie. But he's not. No one is in this film. From the time you learn that he's a used car salesman, he feel almost a sort of pity towards him. He bungles around and sees everything crashing down on him, and there is nothing he can do about it. I won't spoil the ending, but it does not end well for him, or for any of the characters.
There is nothing more powerful than a comedy-drama done right. Neither contemporary film critics nor general audiences usually like them at first, but history gives them windfall.
Just because there is darkness does not mean that the movie has to be miserable. Thinking otherwise is how you get (relative) tripe like The Pianist or The English Patient while some of the greatest films of all time, like Leon: The Professional, a film I was reminded of more than a few times during my viewing of this, are shut out.
But of course, Leon, while it has a more vivid, more adventurous tone than one would expect for its subject matter, is not a comedy. This is. We throw the phrase 'dramedy' around a lot to describe a series or movie or game that has a lot of comedic and dramatic moments. But that phrase has never seen more apt than it is here. This film is not just a comedy and a drama, it is a full fledged combination of the two. And it is beautiful to behold. The drama makes the comedy better and the comedy makes the drama better. This approach is hard to pull off, but when it works, oh it works. And it never works has well as it does here.
A major theme in this film is imperfection. Think back to the title: they are in the far north, not the bright lights of NYC and Los Angeles. This motif is everywhere if you look for it, particularly in the characters. No one in this film is that confident or assured or smart. They are tragic characters, but not in the sweeping, cinematic sort of way, or even in the way we like to see reality portrayed. Rather, they are clumsy and awkward and angry; but not in an absolute way; they have some good in them too. Even one of the villains does something surprisingly selfless.
At the start, we are told that this is a true story, but at the end, we are told that it is not. Right there is the confusion and sense of hollowness that the Coens make so much use of here. Risky conniving and strategy are cool when they are done well, but are tragic for most others, for most of us. And after all our quests and ventures, it so often is empty and worthless, which us all dying. It doesn't lull on it like dramatic films can, but rather weaves it into the dark comedy, which makes it all the more poignant.
I do not like this film quite as much as No Country for Old Men, but it is a thoughtful, dark, masterfully-written, stunningly-shot, radiantly-scored film that you would be doing yourself a disservice to not see. You will not realize how invested in you are until half the film is already over. | 10 |
Of course there are people who are always expecting that every movie they are going to watch is OSCAR material. 😂😂😂 Goodluck to that, you'd be dissapointed most of the time...
Back to this movie. Yes story isn't like original. But hey it's entertaining enough. Actors were good.
All in all, a very entertaining movie. | 7 |
I see people really raving over the film and the awards it won, so I was keen to see it, sounded great. And it was great until about two thirds through when the ending kicks in.
The ending was just so-so, seemed to build up to a crescendo and then the plot let the actors down. | 5 |
Don't get me wrong, there were parts I really enjoyed. Number 5 was my favourite character throughout. But there were also parts that really frustrated me, and unfortunately there just seemed to be an ever increasing list of the latter. Perhaps if season 2 was cut to fewer episodes maybe there would have been more focus in the storyline. | 5 |
I've never taken the time to write a review, but I felt compelled to log on and submit one for this load of crap. This was seriously a bad movie. The violence was absolutely over the top, and seemingly nonstop. I've only failed to finish a movie I started a handful of times in my life, but I couldn't finish this one. Waste of time doesn't begin to describe the hour and a half I actually sat through hoping that it would get better. It never did... | 1 |
Avg. target group is definitely under 18, mb under 16.
8,5 out of 10 episodes and so far is everything rly predictable ... and not logical. | 1 |
The first half was good with some laughs all thanks to Boman Irani and Saif, in that order. Amazing music by Pritam genuinely saved the movie for its entertainment quotient! Anil Mehta is always a class with cinematography. Direction by Homi Adajania is good.
The surprising part is this story is written by Imtiaz Ali. I never thought the 2nd half could be this boring with predictable screenplay. Ali disappoints me for the first time with the writing and dialogs and the stupid 1 liners of Saif.
Acting wise, I liked Boman Irani, Dimple Kapadia and Deepika Padukone. Saif needs to be told he was far better in Dil Chahta hai, Salaam Namaste and Love Aaj Kal, though I feel its not his fault with such writing! Dianna was just fine. In the end, Cocktail tastes like an average film and its already a box-office hit. Watch it once. | 5 |
Watched two episodes. Nothing happened. Stereotypical characters, hackneyed zombie apocalypse without many zombies or much apocalypse.
On an adventure level, there was none. Suspense ? There was none. Mystery, none. Action? None. Human drama? None. Thought provoking future doom ? None.
Practically none of the film would've been any different without the apocalypse.....essentially any tale of freedom fighters in a Dictatorship would do. And quite incredible that, yes! There is a "chosen one". Like it was done by numbers.
I love SciFi, Fantasy, Disaster movies, and Computer Games.
This was none of those. At best it was like an overextended poor Doctor Who Episodes.
There are countless Series done by Marvel with more entertainment in an opening sequence than this had in 2 hours.
Awful. | 1 |
The Godfather Part II (1974) is one of the best sequel's out there! Following the story right from the first film! I love this film as much a is love the first one. Drawing on strong performances by Al Pacino and Robert De Niro, Francis Ford Coppola's continuation of Mario Puzo's Mafia saga set new standards for sequels that have yet to be matched or broken.
Francis Ford Coppola's legendary continuation and sequel to his landmark 1972 film, The Godfather, parallels the young Vito Corleone's rise with his son Michael's spiritual fall, deepening The Godfather's depiction of the dark side of the American dream. In the early 1900s, the child Vito flees his Sicilian village for America after the local Mafia kills his family. Vito (Robert De Niro) struggles to make a living, legally or illegally, for his wife and growing brood in Little Italy, killing the local Black Hand Fanucci (Gastone Moschin) after he demands his customary cut of the tyro's business. With Fanucci gone, Vito's communal stature grows, but it is his family (past and present) who matters most to him -- a familial legacy then upended by Michael's (Al Pacino) business expansion in the 1950s. Now based in Lake Tahoe, Michael conspires to make inroads in Las Vegas and Havana pleasure industries by any means necessary. As he realizes that allies like Hyman Roth (Lee Strasberg) are trying to kill him, the increasingly paranoid Michael also discovers that his ambition has crippled his marriage to Kay (Diane Keaton) and turned his brother, Fredo (John Cazale), against him. Barely escaping a federal indictment, Michael turns his attention to dealing with his enemies, completing his own corruption.
The Godfather Part II presents two parallel story lines. One involves Mafia chief Michael Corleone in 1958/1959 after the events of the first movie; the other is a series of flashbacks following his father, Vito Corleone from 1917 to 1925, from his youth in Sicily (1901) to the founding of the Corleone family in New York. Al Pacino as Michael Corleone did do a strong lead and a wonderful perfect job he acted in this film superb and strong. Robert De Niro as young Vito Corleone did a brilliant performance I have ever saw. He played an Italian immigrate superb and brilliant, there isn't any connection that he is American at all, his ascent is gone. It is like he was born an Italian by birth.
I love this film Because you get both sides of the story, because you're able to see where De Niro's coming from, just seeing those guys in the movie. Again, I think there's something that, when a sequel can hit it right, to keep pushing, instead of, "Let's capitalize on what we did the first time." And for me, maybe one the first movies where I felt like, "Ooh, we're getting a backstory." That, to me, was really thrilling. And just to see those guys, that young and hungry. That's it, that is the right thing there. Coppola is at the top of his form in both films.Simply as a story, the Michael scenes in "The Godfather: Part II" engage our emotions. I admire the way Coppola and his co-writer Mario Puzo require us to think along with Michael as he handles delicate decisions involving Hyman Roth (Strasberg), the boss of Miami; Fredo (Cazale), his older brother, and the shooting of Sonny (James Caan). Who has done what? Why? Michael floats various narratives past various principals, misleading them all, or nearly. It's like a game of blindfolded chess; he has to envision the moves without seeing them.
But finally it is all about Michael. Even the attack on the night of his son's first communion party is on his bedroom, not our bedroom. His wife, Kay (Keaton), leaves him, and his focus does not waver: He will keep his son. Tom Hagen (Duvall), the most trusted confidant of father and son, considered a brother, is finally even suspected. In Michael's life, paranoia is a useful defense mechanism.Coppola shows Michael breaking down under the pressure. We remember that he was once a proud war hero, a successful college student, building a legitimate lifestyle. But on their wedding day, Kay first began to fully realize what an all-controlling cocoon the Corleone clan was. There would always be things she could not be told about, could not be trusted with. Finally Michael has no one to tell or trust except his elderly mother (Morgana King). Michael's desperation in that intense conversation explains everything about the film's final shot.
The early life and career of Vito Corleone in 1920s New York is portrayed while his son, Michael, expands and tightens his grip on his crime syndicate stretching from Lake Tahoe, Nevada to pre-revolution 1958 Cuba The Godfather Part II is a 1974 American epic crime film produced and directed by Francis Ford Coppola from a screenplay co-written with Mario Puzo, starring Al Pacino and Robert De Niro. Partially based on Puzo's 1969 novel The Godfather, the film is both sequel and prequel to The Godfather, presenting parallel crime dramas.
The most memorable best epic Francis Ford Coppola's classic masterpiece sequel ever, the film stunned everything for brilliance to superb acting. I love this film to death, I love it!!!!!
Score: Bad-Ass Seal Of Approval Studio: Paramount Pictures Starring: Al Pacino,Robert Duvall,Diane Keaton,Robert De Niro, Talia Shire, Morgana King, John Cazale, Marianna Hill, Lee Strasberg Director: Screenplay: Francis Ford Coppola, Mario Puzo Producer: Francis Ford Coppola Rated: R Running Time: 3 Hrs. 22 Mins. Budget: $57.300.000 Box Office: $57.300.000 | 9 |
I definitely prefer this one over the first movie, not saying the first one was bad or anything. The action sequence was done very well. The jokes i found funnier and the chemistry between Eddy and Venom is always awesome but no lie I wish the movie was rated R. I feel like a character like Carnage, given how gruesome he is in the comics; deserves even more satisfying kills and the movie should've been longer... felt like alot of things happened and they needed a longer run-time to make the movie seem less cramped. Andy Serkis is a incredibly talented man and is one of my favorite actors and I know this is one of his first BIG movies he has directed ( know he's directed a few movies but nothing to this caliber) I'm hoping that he can direct the next Venom and do a even better job than he has already.. Overall though I really enjoyed this movie and would watch it again. | 9 |
I Love It. So many negative reviews about the beginning. For myself, its brilliant. A lovely served meal with a great starter. Its a innovation and it absolutely worked.
I watched it a couple times and it felt just good. | 9 |
This really feels like 50 Shades of Grey and Twilight. It's better written than both series, but that's not really an accomplishment. A rich, powerful, and dangerous vampire meets a beautiful and naive female witch. For a powerful witch, Diana doesn't really seem to have much agency. Instead, it's her new found love interest Matthew the vampire who protects her. It's a more mature version of Twilight essentially, but the influences are obvious. So, if you enjoy will-they-won't-they forbidden romantic dramas then you'll probably like this. If you're looking for some supernatural show about witches, vampires, and demons, I doubt you'll enjoy this. | 5 |
I don't know why everybody who loves this film loves it so much. Maybe the fact everybody hyped it up meant i was never going to fully enjoy this but to be honest, it seemed slow and confusing and i struggled to keep my concentration. Constantly, i found myself drifting off and daydreaming. I would have stopped watching but i had a Uni assignment on it.
It has some great scenes but everybody has seen them before anyway. The acting is good but I thought Al Pacino has been better in other things.
Also, it was hard to make out, the characters speak so quietly it just turns into background noise.
It's not the worst film I've ever seen, no way. but it certainly isn't in the top 10, not even close.
The game is better, you get all the good scenes without the fairly dull bits in between. | 3 |
Despite Adam Sandler's tour de force, nothing about the degenerate, lying, manic, and utterly irredeemable gambling addict he plays makes you care about the character enough to invest your feelings in his fate. Unlike James Caan in The Gambler and Harvey Keitel in The Bad Lieutenant, Adam Sandler's character Howard Ratner is not the least bit introspective or repentant. Therefore, when his inevitable downfall comes, there is no meaningful catharsis or poignant tragedy. I also found the constant thumping of the cheesy musical score detracted from the film. | 5 |
Let's begin stating that I love Nolan and all his movies that I've seen so far, so I tried very hard to like this one. I'm not going to repeat what many other reviews already pointed out, but my critique is that the complicated time-line was not needed if not for adding complexity and reducing clarity in the plot. In every one of his movies, the use of flashbacks and non linear storytelling is somewhat related to the characters or has the effect of making a plot twist much more powerful, but in this case I think it was used only to mask an otherwise bad narrative. | 5 |
Better read the synopsis before watching The Martian. I did not. That's why I thought it would be some fun sci-fi movie about astronauts landing in Mars and having to defend themselves from the attack of creatures from another planet. Well, that wasn't what the movie was, and I wish it would be. The first hour of the Martian felt long, dragging and utterly boring. Matt Damon, left alone by himself in Mars spends the first half of the movie regurgitating technicalities to a camera where he records himself while explaining what he has to do to survive alone in this new "home". If he didn't it would be just impossible for people to understand all the things he is doing. In the second half the movie, a rescue mission gets ready to pick him up, so they talk an talk and talk again in endless meetings about what needs to be done to save their man while the world is watching. Although this second part is slightly more entertaining than the first one, I really could not wait for the movie to finish. Boring! It's all i can say. | 5 |
Best series ever made on students life ! Covered the whole spectrum of student teacher emotion ! Acting was top notch by each and every character ! Jeetu bhai and meenu deserves standing ovation ! | 8 |
I love The Godfather, the original film, and Part II seems almost like a necessary past and future to place the events of the first film into context. I really enjoyed the scenes from the 1900s through the 1920s, and was fascinated by the 1950s scenes primarily to see how precisely furniture, costumes, and other accessories would be captured a mere 15 years removed from the 50s. For me that was a big part of the information I took from this film, to see a more accurate portrayal of the 1950s from people who actually lived through it who weren't training to portray it in a film in a glamorous or kitschy way 50-60 years later. I wasn't disappointed, I was actually quite pleased with how ...natural...the 1950s seemed in the context of Francis Ford Coppola's film, a decade he was old enough to remember but nostalgically. I was surprised at how much the furnishings in particular reminded me of my grandparents in the early 1980s and the homes of other relatives in their age range.
But enough about that...this movie is absolutely flawed because of the way it jumps around. Non-linear is fine, and Coppola somehow made it work in the beginning and at the end, but in the middle it felt muddy and incoherent to jump back and forth from 1920 to 1958.
Three hours and twenty minutes is also too long. I got really bored with the "man talk" and have no interest in seeing part 3, as by the end of part 2 Micheal has basically turned into the devil and is worse than his father ever was. | 8 |
Season 1 was of course the best,but also season 4 finale was great , I understand why people are hating, because the story kind of drifted away from the main cause, but up until season 4; it shows how young kids could be really affected by such one incident. How clay almost Broke from the accumulations of carrying those secrets and supporting his friends
All in all, some people might find the ending irrelevant; but watch closely! It's all connected.
Well done. | 8 |
Movie review from Reel Tunez: The Radio Show All About the Movies (11/27/21): "Venom: Let There Be Carnage".
Eddie (Tom Hardey) is back.. and now Cletus (Woody Harrelson) and their "monster symbiotes. The first Venom was interesting, different, and entertaining. But this one I found sort of boring. Woody Harrelson plays same same Woody Harrelson character he always plays (with the exception being Woody Boyd, the bartender from Cheers).
Though only just over an hour and a half, it just seemed to drag on. Plus it sounded like they changed the voice of Venom.. and it was NOT as good as the previous.
I'd give it a 5.8 out of 10. Is it worth seeing? Yes.. IF there's nothing else at the theater and you want to go to the movies. Otherwise, don't expect a lot and you probably won't be disappointed. Overall, not nearly as good as the original, drags on, and probably worth missing. | 5 |
Con (ish):
The story of this movie is complex, but straightforward - not a lot of hardhitting twists and turns, but it keeps itself interesting through fast pacing and time jumps
Pros:
More so than a story of political intrigue, the movie is a heartwarming depiction of camaraderie, love (both met and unmet) and the consequences of war
I always like Christian Bale, but this is the first time I've seen him be so charismatic and endearing - his performance was a standout and trully stole the show for me
Similarly, Margot Robbie was fascinating to see on screen and has a thorougly vibrant presence | 9 |
I watched this movie at 150% speed, increasing every time pacing felt off. And it was still slow.
The message seems to be: even old "planes" can still perform.
Almost as if it was made for older conservative American males.
When you consider that, and it sure continues the Top Gun tradition, it checks all the boxes: token/trophy women, machismo, utterly faceless antagonist posing a vague nuclear "threat", utterly silly numbers going brrr (Mach 10, 9 G etc.), machismo, barebones plot laid out in detail in advance so to not shock the viewer, hostility towards novelty, military advertisement, and machismo.
At least the airplanes aren't CGI, mostly, allegedly. | 2 |
For the people who never read anything by Tardi, who actually seems to be the only inspirator. Good enough movie though | 7 |
Stuff happens I suppose but it's all a big lead up to nothing. This was as dull and formulaic as an action movie can be. I don't expect intelligence but it's not entertaining or the least but humorous. I like Tom Hardy but he hardly seemsbb cnn present, just going through the motions. Woody Harrelson is one big cringe. He's awful and the rest are just meaningless filler. Very disappointing. | 3 |
Interstellar is an interesting, thoughtful science fiction film with a good cast. It depicts a near future where an environmental disaster has sent Earth into an irreversible decline, forcing humanity to seek a new home in another galaxy. Although it is not as good as Christopher Nolan's other work, it still rises above most other blockbuster, high budget sci-fi.
A number of factors make Interstellar better than average. First of all, it avoids the clichéd film apocalypse with lots of CGI explosions and a central villain. In this movie, the world dies not with a bang, but a whimper as our food crops gradually die out. It also gives interesting consideration to the social effects of such a catastrophe. More importantly, it treats the audience as at least somewhat intelligent. Although I'm certain Neil DeGrasse Tyson could pick it apart on Twitter if he so desired, the film attempts to be somewhat scientifically plausible, incorporating relativity theory and even a mathematical equation as major plot points. It's disturbingly rare for movies in recent years to aim at an intelligence level above that of a thirteen year old.
The film also benefits from good designs of its space ships and robots. The robots deserve particular mention. Rather than the typical humanoid looking designs, the filmmakers created a genuinely original, even plausible robot.
The main weak point in the film is that it tries to insert too optimistic an ending, when the story really wasn't building to one. Nevertheless, it is well worth watching. | 7 |
The original Dr. Smith was a coward, funny, untrustworthy but for all his faults the audience could find him likeable.
The movie Dr. Smith was more or less a terrorist, smart, and evil. One of the better actors of that movie, so it worked.
Now for the Dr. Smith of the TV series (2018): Underachiever that will stab anyone in the back and does it all the time. She is the stereotype of a drug addict, and no charisma what so ever. It is probably not the actress fault, just bad writing.. Killing her off could help the series, but a "lost in space" without Dr. Smith? No that will not work! She could get possessed by an alien entity. And change this horrible personality for something more likeable. | 2 |
I think most people have heard enough about The Fault in Our Stars to know what they are getting into. So, making complaints about the way it manipulated me emotionally seems a bit foolish. Yes, it is a tearjerker, much like any movie that deals with cancer and death. I expected to cry a number of times with this film, and I did. That's neither a good thing nor a bad thing, because it's what I anticipated, the only thing I was hoping for was that I'd get something else I didn't expect. This kind of heavy romantic drama can utilize a lot of clichés, and I was hoping this one was beloved because it broke the mold a bit. In some ways it did, I was particularly pleased that they didn't fall into the trope of the jealous and controlling parents who don't approve of their daughter's romantic relationship. Instead they were kind and loving parents who merely wanted what was best for their daughter.
There's another somewhat unexpected element to the story, but I'd rather not discuss that in case someone reading this plans on seeing the film someday. I think where The Fault in Our Stars disappointed me, though, was in the plotline of the author. I won't go into too much detail, but a lot of weight is put on a particular book in the film, and there are some interactions with the author of that book which I found to be a frustrating cliché. It feels like a cheap plot construction merely to get the main character to face her fears, instead of a useful part of the story. Aside from that, I can't criticize too much about The Fault in Our Stars, but I also can't say it's all that enjoyable to watch. I suppose if you're in the mood for a therapeutic cry, then this might be the film that could accomplish that for you, but watching teens suffering with cancer and facing their inevitable death isn't my idea of a good time. | 6 |
I think it is a very good opportunity for Marvel to try something fresh and different. The result is quite positive, well done. Some episodes have more to tell some are not, and the finale are very satisfied. Looking forwards to see more. | 7 |
More like slow, lot's of pointless dialogue, ...
One of the main characters (thankfully, the irritating one) get's stabbed trying to save a German downed pilot when he was determined to get to his brother not 5mins prior! Dies a minute later and is already blue in the face?
There's a cow on an "abandoned" the farm, but there's a bucket 3/4 full of fresh milk but neither look for anyone?
Then all of a sudden, two soldiers appear and help out. Where did they just appear from because the farm was surrounded bu open hills at least 200m all round?
Cinematography and loud orchestral music does NOT make a movie, especially when that music is trying to convey emotion but just does not fit with the scene!
Compare this to Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers, both of which I've watched about 5 times because the story, characters, etc were believable and GREAT!
Average at best and fast forward to the end after the first hr! | 4 |
I like Tarantino a lot, but I simply can't put this movie anywhere. The whole movie could fit in 20 minutes with credits, had no story or character development whatsoever. Had some entertaining moments but beside it was boring as hell. | 3 |
Casting: Great Editing: Glorious SFX: Consistently very good with a few small exceptions not worth mentioning. The rest...
First, I am not a comic book fan in general, I prefer prose and rate the first Iron Man (2008) as well within my top10 films from the last decade and loved Iron Man 2. Having seen the trailers and felt the build-up for the last several months, I went to the cinema barely able to hold in my excitement. I was bitterly disappointed.
This is a strange movie in that there are many excellent elements which are unfortunately lost in a morass of sluggish pacing - I actually said to myself "I'm bored" at one point. The pacing issue is mainly due to the entirely unnecessary second act which feels like it's there to give the character some space and realise his potential/clear his head. Unfortunately, it actually just wastes a massive amount of time not really doing anything to forward the plot.
The character of Tony Stark, while obviously deeply affected by the events of The Avengers, is completely changed with almost no sign nor hint of the character in the first film. All I can say about this is thank the celluloid gods that we have RDJ at the helm to lend his incredible charisma to the lacklustre plot.
Another good point deserving of a whole paragraph to itself: GUY PEARCE! He brilliantly delivers a phenomenal performance which again, helps carry the bloated, lukewarm story and lets the viewer ignore the almost total lack of real back-story for the character.
The Mandarin is the biggest disappointment I've encountered since all of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Attempting to avoid spoilers, all I can say is that it's nothing to do with Sir Ben Kingsley whose performance is probably the best in the whole movie, but the way the character is used.
The technology, obviously such an enormous aspect of the film, has its role massively changed from that of a tool to almost an annoying hindrance.
I recall hearing somewhere a while ago that the new director, Mr Black would take us to a darker, more emotional place with this film. I hadn't expected that the darkness would be literally having many scenes at night and emotions would be people crying. I was expecting great things that would allow us to follow Tony Stark as his Iron Man armours improve and he sorts his head and priorities out. In the case of the former, things have become more flashy for sure, but apparently at the expense of reliability and durability. For the latter, remember the more mature, healthy Tony Stark at the end of The Avengers? Sorry...
I would say "Come back Mr Favreau, all is forgiven", but he did an amazing job and there's really not much to forgive him for, so I'll just say "BRING BACK FAVREAU!"
Go in to this film with VERY low expectations and you'll be pleased. For those among you who don't care about plot and just want flashy action and SFX, you'll be happy. This is unfortunately not a people-film and there's scarcely enough depth to fill a saucer.
Not without bright points, but ultimately such a crushing disappointment. | 4 |
Mother Teresa India charity home 'sold babies'!
yes it's factual! watch hells angel by christopher hitchens if you don't believe it.
movie is just a propaganda to do push the rice bag conversions.
let's talk about the plot. drug,crimminal. BORING stuff. movie is slower than the moon cycle. i took 4 power naps the movie was still going on! | 1 |
I got to say I conquered by Kate acting in this drama. For many years watching her acting, I feel she's good but in this, I found her actually have so many level in her acting. Probably she's too pretty before and I ignore her acting, but this one makes me feel being a strong detective with poker face as well as tender mother, angry daughter and romance side all in once. Really another Meryl Streep if she continue her acting career. I really stay focus on how she acts via this drama. Enjoy it! | 7 |
I don't know why all these people are reading into everything too much. I actually think it's good. And trust me I'm not a TV show person you can't get me to watch it no matter how much you sell me that it's good. And the last TV show I've only watched 1 TV show on Netflix and that's Stranger Things, other than that I only watch movies because I honestly can't sit and watch anything too long. But after watching season 1 of Lost in Space. I have to say I really like it. The acting is pretty good, they are selling me that they are in space and the CGI is definitely good also for a TV show. And I like Mom and Dad they make a good team. I will agree that they are always running into problems after the next. But it's a TV show they have to, I'm sure the writers can't let them get to Centuri in one season guys lol. | 9 |
Writing weak, more Hokus than Pocus. May give up after third episode. | 6 |
This show completey sucks, nothing impressive in it, buvam baam bots/fan Bois giving it high rating, most overrated show of all time. Don't waste your time watching this. | 1 |
(Spoilers)
The film starts off great. Diana's origin story and her life on Paradise Island is well told, and the unexpected casting of Robin Wright made me excited to see this film. Even Chris Pine's entrance into the film is good; but then they leave the island, and all of their great storytelling goes in the garbage can.
The screenplay and characters from that point on are recycled from other films. The only thing that separated the antagonist in Wonder Woman and Darth Vader from Star Wars is a breathing problem and a glowing sword. I like Gadot better than I thought I would, and the effects are cool, but the screenplay simply sucks. Wonder Woman becomes a weakened "fish out of water" story for way too long, and the love story seems forced and thrown in at the last minute.
I know I'm going to fork over more cash for Justice League, but so far in hindsight, not one of the DC movies has deserved a penny of my money. | 5 |
Must watch if you like dark comedy. Screenplay, direction and is too good. | 10 |
Where to start....This movie is so over the top weird that it ends up making so sense. It's so all over the place, so over acted, so dumb, so poorly acted and so boring that it's just a pure all around bad movie. Matthew McConaughey poorly acts the same boring, hick character he plays in every movie he was ever in (similar to nick cage). The plot is just lame and way to retarded to follow or even attempt to make realistic or interesting. Apparently getting sucked into a black hole sends you to some library of time... I wont say anymore than that because it gets even stupider. Just a bad bad bad movie. There will be only one Kubrick...and its not you mr.Nolan! | 2 |
I am so happy they made Milkha Singh's biopic. In my opinion he is the greatest athlete India has ever produced. PT Usha comes a distant second. A life filled with emotions that just calls out to be adapted onto the big screen. A life which has ups, downs, triumphs, disappointments, rejections all rolled into one. I was really happy to see Farhan transform so closely into Milkha Singh. I was very happy with the Zinda song. Coming to the movie, its like a very very sweet dish, which you enjoy in the beginning, then its sweetness jars your mouth that you cant take it any more and yet wished and hoped that you could have eaten more of such an enjoyable dish but you cant. Its beautiful in every frame, the story highlights most of Milkha's triumphs and I was happy Rome Olympics was not the finale. It would have left a sour taste. The movie is over indulgent, no two ways about it. It drags and drags and at 188 mins, it becomes too slow to test the patience at times. It could and should have been a good 30 mins shorter. And come to think of, lip synced songs in a biopic?? Looked odd and wasted time as well. I was sad they didn't show his love story with his wife and wasted 20 odd mins on an one night stand. Rakesh Mehra's vision is fantastic, he chose the best parts of Milkha's life to highlight. Whats questionable is the screenplay and editing. Background score is very good, songs were average barring Zinda. Farhan breathes life into Milkha Singh's character. Its a near perfect role barring the inconsistencies of the beard.
Finally a movie that could have been so so much better had it been handled with a little more dexterity, a potential epic gone bust. A Sikh that flies, but movie didn't exactly take off.
6/10. | 6 |
This movie was amazing! From start to finish, I enjoyed every scene so in the Captain America series, this is my favorite and in my opinion, the best of the three films. I did not care for the first film but winter soldier was an excellent sequel to it and then Civil War does the unexpected and is even better than Winter Soldier.
One amazing thing about the movie is the choreography in the fight scenes. All of the scenes were very clean and polished. They reminded me of a Jason Bourne or James Bond fight with superheros which was something that I did not know I wanted but apparently I did because every time there was a fight scene, I was on the edge of my seat. The best fight was the scene in the trailer that everyone has seen, the scene at the terminal. The way the superheros were implemented was very intricate and you did not feel like one superhero was overshadowed by another. I felt like I saw all of the abilities of each character.
The new characters in this movie are amazing too. Tom Holland as Spider- Man and Chadwick Boseman as Black Panther were magnificent. I still do not know who I liked more but both roles were performed excellently and I can not wait for their individual films. This is Ant-Man's first time with the Avengers and he held his own as well in this movie as well which I enjoyed.
Also, the story was mesmerizing. I was intrigued by what was going on and understood the reasoning of each character. The story was not the main thing I enjoyed though. Overall, this was a great film and if you have not seen this movie, you need to. | 9 |
What a pity for a show that starts so well to become so tedious and pretentious.
The first season is interesting, but it was already clear in which direction the series is moving.
Another show that went in the predictable direction characteristic of today's entertainment industry. Writers simply cannot refrain from destroying such a great concept.
The cast is not bad, the cinematography is good, it's a shame the writers aren't equally good. Too bad, the plot is fun. Too bad, the plot is interesting, but it's not worth wasting time on another tedious and pretentious series.
It could have been great. Another missed opportunity. | 5 |
I had high hopes for this one...Directed by the writer of It and written by James Wan? I'm in!!
Well, I hate to tell you this is not a good movie, especially for the theater. I would have given it a 6 if I watched it at home and didn't spend money on it. $40 later, I give this a generous 3.
This doesn't have the Warren's in it for long...just the beginning and the end...The main characters are 16 and 10 years old...and that should tell everyone something...this movie is for people around that age..
Wait for Netflix, you'll thank me later.. | 3 |
If you liked the first Top Gun, you'll probably like this one. Fighter jets, macho pilots, American jingoism and cheesy dialogue. In fact this one is almost a reflection of the original, same idea in many scenes. Even the theme music is the same The high speed flying scenes were exciting, but that's about all.
The more I think about it, the lower my rating goes. | 3 |
This movie has been praised by many people and it's very motivated to ask why? Good science fiction puts you in a state of mind that makes you think "there's a chance that this actually can happen." That's not the case with this film, and that's why it fails. Even the Terminator movies are more believable than this flick, i mean time travels has been discussed for a very long time and advanced robots exists today, even if there aren't any Terminators to be seen...yet.
Christopher Nolan has made several great movies, i would say all of his movies are great in some aspects. Inception is a very creative effort to say the least. But I seriously wonder if he wasn't stoned when he wrote the script? The good guys are sedated, then connected and then they get inside someones head - a person who is also connected to the same neurological network that connects the good guys. Inside the mind of that person they try to steal ideas or as in this case implant them. Already here Chris should have given it a second thought, but it gets worse...
The good guys carry weapons just in case the person they're trying to steal from or make an implant in, have a defense. Because if he or she has, the defense guys will shoot at you. Paus...well armed guys defending ideas inside someones head? What? The good thing is that if you get hit you won't die, unless you are to deep down...to heavily sedated that is. Oh...but before you can get inside someones head an architect must draw the landscape in which the dream sequence will take place. What??? The film is of course enjoyable, it definitely has its merits. But it's NOT the masterpiece some thousand or so morons have claimed in this forum, it's not even close.
Batman Begins and The Prestige are his best efforts so far with Memento very close. | 6 |
...... not in this sad, emotionless, oh so pretty remake.... no they don't. The characters are so devoid of heart it's such a crying shame. The original humour and love is totally wiped out. I still cry watching the original but this left me feeling cold. The songs are not a patch on the originals. Oh I could go on and on, it's not terrible and for the PC generation it's probably perfectly acceptable but it's really just not on. And what happened to "old" Rafiki? Sad, very sad. | 2 |
Apart from the cinematography this movie feels empty and shallow.
Once the end credits start rolling, you feel no emotional connection to the characters, nothing. Very forgettable. | 7 |
There's a lot of confusion going on about Crimes of Grindelwald and I can see why. It's almost non-confrontational in its approach. This is mostly the mindgames and politics before the actual war starts. A cold war of sorts. This is meant to make you think, focus and feel. It's not an action movie and uses a more subtle approach. One of the best things about this is that they really, Really knew who to cast for each role. For instance Jude Law as Dumbledore seems almost nothing short of Gannon's Dumbledore in looks and ways. The child/teenage actors made to act their adult counterparts actually looked like them. The fantastic beasts play their part, though are not exactly focused on, unlike in the very first Fantastic Beasts film. Johnny Depp was good as Grindelwald, and had and will have more to work with than Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort, which is both great and sad. Great because they invented a complex villain here, and sad because Fiennes' just got the definition of psychopath to work with. The final twists towards the end are great, though the movie could've been more interesting. In what way exactly, I do not know. That's the trouble with it, I believe. It may be one of those films that become more appreciated after a couple of more views
7/10 for now. | 7 |
The sloppy writing, directing and acting are over the top in this season. All of the actors have become self-conscious of themselves and too fond of themselves. The writing is just childish. This should have been a season of come backs and excitement, but it is not. Someone, please tell your make up people that women in dire, life-threatening situations don't show up in full make up and lipstick. Please tell the special effects people that blood doesn't turn orange as it dries. The whole season is more of a comic book for teenagers than entertaining for adults. If that is the production goal, they have succeeded. I am not going to watch in the future should they continue the series. | 4 |
OK, I have now seen this film twice and maybe the problem is all the hype it got. Both times I have seen it I have come away with the same thoughts and feelings.
This is a good movie, no doubt about that, dark, action packed, good supporting roles (especially Morgan Freeman, Maggie Gyllenhaal, and Michael Caine). Cool toys and special effects make this fun to watch, and the good guys (for the most part) win in the end. Just the kind of film that is fun to watch in the summertime.
As for this being one of the greatest films ever, not IMHO. Heath Ledger is a good Joker, especially as this movie moves along and he has more interaction with Christian Bale's Batman. the farther into the movie it gets, the more evilly humorous he gets. For my money, I still prefer Jack Nicholson in that role, maybe it is the writing, but his lines are classic, while Ledger's lines are much less memorable (Why So Serious is pretty good). Ledger is much darker and more evil, but to me The Joker needs to have a little more humor to him.
Good movie, but I would take the 1989 version over this one (but that is like preferring a Mercedes over a BMW...you win with either one! | 5 |
Gooooo... Now and watch movie if you didn't watch this movie yet pls watch it. | 10 |
As an MBBS drop out, this show haunted me. But, it is the SHEER REALISM of emotions that makes this show stand out.
There are weak points, I hated the love story scenes, too cheesy too stereotypical.
Despite IIT, India is not at the top of the world, not in Science, not in Engineering. I am sure India is at the top in talent.
Why?
Knowledge is not at the centre, exams are.
Phir Kahan se aayenge nobel prize? (Translation : How then will we bag nobel prizes?)
This show is so special, it impacted me too much, it's life CHANGING!
Why?
There is a dialogue, the concept goes like this:
When you work too hard for something and don't achieve it, you lose a lot, a part of you is broken, and may not be fixed ever.
Is it still worth trying?
Is Failure too hard a cost?
Kota factory made me realize, I am broken, perhaps permanently. | 8 |
The book is not good enough. Lack originality, purpose and the real plot. As writer Malerman is bad as the front man of a rock teenage band. Eric Heisserer sucks as screenwriter. It is no wonder that director Susanne Bier does not want to watch her own film for shame of her work. Don't waste your time. As bad as any movie from the bad Night Shyamalan. Go to hell! | 1 |
Entertaining prison melodrama, overwhelmingly obvious and easy emotionality.
As if Freeman's explanatory voiceover wasn't enough, Darabont yells at us how we should feel about the movie and what we should think of each scene. The emotion of the scenes is thrown at us like slaps, in case we don't get it. The ambiguity, the understanding, the subtlety do not enter the universe of the director (in addition, the screenwriter of the film).
It's a film as correct as it is flat, with the aversion to risk, the standardized narrative style and the obvious tone of a television product.
The best are the performances: Freeman and Robbins. The worst, that shot-by-shot need to win over the public by giving it all away, to erase any edge of the story that might show the least ambivalence of the characters.
The educated upper-class banker is able, with tenacity, effort and intelligence, to create a habitable environment step by step in the harsh prison reality, with stupid jailers and teammates.
I have never understood the critical success of the film. | 5 |
One of the best movie of my lifetime. In kannada i loved it and recreated the experience of mungaru male of 2006. This will be remembered in our hearts till our last breath. | 10 |
Avatar , The way of disappointment.
Long awaited disappointment not only too long screen time. It seems some National geographic or Animal planet show and sometimes i feel like why this is happening and why am i supposed to watch that!
Over hype , best Director , highest budget can not make a movie good .
After watching i didn't find any good reason to make this sequel without a good story.
Please wake up Mr. Cameron. We don't have any interest for any other Avatar series .
Please show your brilliance with any other good story and screenplay . We are eagerly waiting for another masterpiece from you. | 3 |
Here , Jennifer is different from any marvel movies , she did a great job . the story was great, all actors made a great job, specially Jennifer . I real enjoyed watching this movie.
7/10 | 7 |
I get it. I don't quite get the hype but I get the point.
If you liked the lesser known episodes of Twilight Zone or those violent PSAs about drunk driving or drug use, you probably already watched this because everyone has... | 5 |
I have tried to watch the entire movie several time. every time I have attempted I fell asleep. It takes to long for any action to happen. There is nothing different or extremely interesting about this flick even though it made a killing at the box office.
This is the type of movie that the producers have an in with the critics. If this movie was made independently or by the unknown it would have gotten bad review and received the helping hand a movie like this gets at the box office as well as DVD and Bluray sales and rentals. I guess this is the way the movie industry works with movies that make your TV look and sound really good. | 4 |
I really wanted to like this but it is terrible. The script is not funny nor super hero like. It is a bad parity of 70;s tv shows. I am not willing to give it more than 2 episodes I assume it might get better but no way it can recover to interesting. | 3 |
I gave 2 stars because some of the scenes were really beautiful but the movie only gets 2 stars due to it's slow pace, boring plot, and lack of any logic. Why not run tests at the edge to gather data? Hell, tie a rope around someone's wais and let them go in a few hundred feet and pull them out. Why not use vehicles to move around faster, or at least bicycles? A tank would have helped. There was no chemisty between the leads which becomes a big issue as one is seemingly willing to die to try to save the other. In the end, I wish I had not wasted my time. | 2 |
My childhood legend. Never gets old.
A movie that I will never get bored of no matter how many times I watch it. Tobey Maguire is the best Spider-Man in my opinion. | 9 |
Ajay Devgan should focus on making such content based movies.
Really good to watch Raid and has a nice story line with good acting by all actors specially Saurabh Shukla.
A must watch | 8 |
I found the movie to be confusing, boring and very disappointing. The original was far better. | 3 |
Raid has been one of those movies where the script and the plot demand it to be kept short. Raj kumar Gupta knew it very well and with a run time of 122 mins he decided not to be over ambitious. The entire movie is based upon a single raid and 80% of the movie is shot in a single house. Therefore it was a herculean task to keep the movie interesting. Raj kumar Gupta has been able to keep the audience hooked through the earnest performances of his lead and supporting actors. The dialogues seemed real and were not over filmy. Despite being an entertaining watch there are some noteworthy flaws in the writing and it is not easy to ignore them. For instance, in the first half Ajay Devgan and his team could not find any of the black money but as soon they found the first lot, they started finding the money from very part of the house. These are some of the glitches but overall it is a nice watch if you can ignore them | 7 |
The IMDb rating is now 8.5 and I was expecting a lot of this movie. I also read a lot about it, the movie of the year and so on. I also a fan of Sandra Bullock. I love science fiction but this is not science fiction, it more like a computer game. You feel like you manage different levels when watching. But when you play games your are doing something, you can influence the story, but this is totally boring. Sandra Bullock's moaning and panting just gets tedious and annoying. The most terrible thing is when some invisible force drag Clooney in the "right" direction. If the space station was spinning i could see some logic in that but now it looks weird, very weird. When Clooney finally let go of the rope the force suddenly disappears and the end of the rope floats weightless again. Clooney drifting slowly away and Bullock falls toward the space station. How did that happen? Why did they choose that direction? The movie lost all feeling of reality. Great 3d-effects, but that is all there is to it. How can such a boring movie get so high rating? Can you buy rating and reviews at IMDb? I always thought that was impossible but after this I don't trust IMDb rating anymore. | 1 |
Three episodes in and I'm really enjoying this series as it works its way through decades of television in a way that only Marvel can. Definitely worth a watch. | 7 |
They didn't place the Eifel tower in London, why locate the famous pulpit rock in Pakistan? Totally disrupts the immersive quality of the movie. | 1 |
How does this have an 8 rating in IMDb? Forget about the insensitivity regarding the subject matter - this movie is BORING. Not funny AT ALL. And I'm a fan of the writer for "What We Do in the Shadows" but none of that humor was here. Everything that is an attempt at humor is not funny in the slightest. The dullest movie I've ever seen. Disgusted and dumbfounded by the positive reviews and the nominations. I was curious to see how they'd make antisemitism and Nazism humorous, but they didn't. I was so bored I was texting people about how bored I was. It had zero entertainment value. This isn't a topic to make light of - how this has such a high user rating just highlights that people are blind to antisemitism. Would people laugh at a dark comedy about slavery in America? But it's OK to laugh at an insanely boring and unfunny film about antisemitism during the Holocaust in Nazi Germany? I feel sick. | 1 |
Way too long, at times boring. DeNiro and Pacino let their egos soar and really ham it up. Nice cinematography though, although it's not enough to get you through this without thinking, "Did I finish my Christmas shopping yet?" | 3 |
I watched the whole thing in one sitting.. beautiful chemistry between cast members which is to be expected since Steve Martin and Martin Short are fabulous comedians. Selena Gomez is also really really good in it and all the protagonists together make a great mystery solving team. Since i am a true crime fan myself the story line was very interesting and entertaining to watch. Also, beautiful intro with a lovely soundtrack and aesthetically pleasing atmosphere throughout the whole first season. Definitely worth a try!!!!! | 9 |
Season 2 counts on the audience simpathy to go along with some plot inconsistencies, as much as your average super heroe movie and much less than S1. The show chooses to go for a comedy tone by sacrificing almost all of the seriousness of season one by dismissing the imposible and incestuous love between 1 and 3. Luther passes from a self righteous leader who is constantly suffering, to being a complete comic reflief by having every single line he says made to a joke (fart jokes included). Despite of all above, the comedy works smoothly and is never cheap. Considering how ridiculous super hero plots are in movies and tv, choosing a comedy approach is an elegant move if achived and this is the case. The character development is great and this is what makes the comedy work. The acting is solid and Ellen Page achieves some powerful emotional sequences, plus not making the viewer cringe on her super power scenes. All in all, the show goes from watchable and amusing in S1, to and interesting adventure comedy in which you will always want tp know more about the characters. The music is flawless too. | 8 |
Spider-Man 2" is the best comic book superhero movie made to date, and not simply by default. The story and screenplay come from Alfred Gough and Miles Millar (co-creators of "Smallville"), Michael Chabon (author of "Wonder Boys"), and Alvin Sargent (Oscar winner for "Julia" and "Ordinary People"), and more than any other film in this genre it is true to the character and what made him Marvel Comics' most popular superhero in the 1960s. I teach a unit on Spider-Man in my Pop Culture class where we compare the original Stan Lee & Steve Ditko stories to what is being published today and my students have to deal with the key elements of the comic book. This time around Sam Raimi has those elements nailed big time.
The story picks up two years after the first film, which is reprised through artwork by Alex Ross during the title sequences. Peter (Tobey Maguire) is now in college, working a part time job, fighting crime, and generally making a mess of everything. Being Spider-Man is a burden and it is beating Peter Parker down. He loses his job, his grades are slipping, and even his powers seem to be leaving him. He still loves Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), but all he can envision is a life where his enemies would threaten her life and he has to endure seeing her picture on billboards and posters all over New York City. It becomes clear that our hero is coming to a cross-roads in his life, but we have no idea what will be the final straw, as it could be anything from the bank foreclosing on the house of Aunt May (Rosemary Harris) or Dr. Curt Connors (Dylan Baker) flunking him to J. Jonah Jameson (J.K. Simmons) really firing him from the "Daily Bugle" to Mary Jane ending up with some other guy (Daniel Gillies).
What made Spider-Man endearing was that he was the victim of such bad luck. With power comes great responsibility but you would think a guy could catch a break now and then. There is a point where a bruised Peter tries to make his way home and as he reaches out to steady himself against a parked car you KNOW that as soon as he touches it a car alarm goes off. Spider-Man endures a lot of slings and arrows in this film (e.g., Aunt May never told him how to do laundry) and all the while the gods just look down and laugh.
The Green Goblin was something of the ultimate villain for Spider-Man because he was the one who learned the web-slinger's secret identity. But the consensus of my students each semester is that Doctor Octopus is the best Spider-Man villain. Dr. Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina) intends to make nuclear fusion work and is employed by Harry Osborn (James Franco), who dreams of making a fortune during the day and of killing Spider-Man to avenge his father at night. Of course things go horribly wrong, and the four metal tentacles that Octavius has created are now fused to his body and have driven him insane.
We have all seen the trailer for "Spider-Man 2" and the scene where Doc Ock interupts a potentially tender moment between Peter and Mary Jane by throwing a car through a window at them. This must happen over an hour into the film but it starts off a series of fantastic computer generated fights between the hero and the villain. The reason for this and why the pairing is so perfect is that Spider-Man and Doctor Octopus can both fight on the vertical axis as well as the horizontal. These two go at each other on the side of buildings and falling through the air as well as on top, on the sides, and through the middle of a subway train. Then you throw into the mix that Doc Ock can be carrying off someone Peter loves and still have three mechanical arms pounding away at Spider-Man. More importantly, when Spider-Man travels around by his webbing in this film it no longer looks like something we would expect from a Saturday morning cartoon.
But the conflict between Spider-Man and Doctor Octopus is only one of a half dozen that provide the interpersonal web of problems closing in on Peter and the way they all fit together gives "Spider-Man 2" a weight hitherto unsuspected in superhero movies. This point is best evidence by the fact that Aunt May is major supporting character in the film just as she is in the comic book. There were always two women in Peter Parker's life and the one constant was always Aunt May. | 10 |
Don't waste your time. Codswallop of the highest order. Nonsense from start to finish. Overly long at 2hrs 49mins - however I felt as though it lasted years as I was stuck on Earth while they were piecing together a plot that had more holes than the wormhole. Honestly felt like they wrote it as they went along. The basis of the sentimental story does not sit well in the overall story - the sentimental part and "from beyond help" has been done (to death) in other films - and done far better. The acting is awful - Matthew M getting buy on plaudits from recent shows - but acting the same part / vocabulary over and over again - c'mon. Michael Caine - oh dear - had the bewildered look of someone watching the movie.
As I say this is nonsense - in any dimension | 1 |
There are episode that were really great and it got you thinging. On the other hand there are also some really boring episodes. | 6 |
All the movies should be released with National language Hindi so that everyone can watch and tell others about this type of masterpiece.
Movie was perfect according to me. | 10 |
Subsets and Splits