Review
stringlengths 6
10.3k
| Rating
int64 1
10
|
|---|---|
Unique romance and great show Also short length episode make short unique. | 8 |
Annabelle Comes Home is really slow, but maybe that's the way it was meant to be. The ending of the climax isn't too exciting but the scares are fun here combining with old music, making for an effective addition to this universe. There's a good Easter egg and other things are well in it, especially forgiveness and what not. | 7 |
This movie does not live up to the hype. It's ok but nothing special. | 6 |
Dumb actions, macho show-off, boring at times, and quite a void moral. The thing that annoys me the most about all these movies about Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, is this: I know Iraq was a place very close to Hell - tell me something I didn't know. | 4 |
Where to start about this one, first let's just say that I would recommand to see this movie for the extremly impressive special effect. I saw this movie twice in IMAX 3D and it was a very good experience.
Now let's talk about the story. Well it's basically dances with wolves in space with giant Smurfs and that's pretty much it. The script is extremly unoriginal, no twist, no suprise, nothing, it couldn't be more predictable.
To me this movie show exactly what's wrong about science fiction, action etc movie these day. We have a lot of remake, reboot etc. Or this: a new movie with a stolen script. | 3 |
The series was Epic in the first season, there is a start to its level, I am afraid of the fourth season | 7 |
Actually this is not a movie this is a honest tribute to Indian army | 10 |
I got hooked with the concept of evil super heroes run by a company mixed with politics. So, it started pretty well.
Unfortunately, the show gets worse and worse. The storytelling has huge holes, the character building is mediocre, the violence gets annoying. I kept on hoping to ger another turn but the spiral kept going down. The characters of 'the boys' even started to be more and more annoying. There's so much without sense, it's hard to look away and play it down by fiction.
I m shockingly disappointed after finishing the third season today.
If the show would be a character, it would be 'Deep'. | 3 |
But in the end it's just not that good. Marvel has had a few disappointments in it's short history and this is one of them.
IMDb says my review is too short so like much of this show I'm just going to ramble without really coming to a point.
And ramble
And ramble.
Lawdee, how many more words do I need to complete this review? | 5 |
The crime thriller fans, need a little patience with this series, because the real tension only builds up after a few episodes. But the series is definitely not real crime entertainment, because it is more or less comedy. What their two male protagonists play out excellently. Well worth seeing, especially for tough fans of Steve Martin and Martin Short. | 6 |
If it wasnt for the fact that it hasnt ended or that Breaking Bad exists, this one could be right at the top.
The character development it's exquisite. The dark humor and the way they present hard situations is very memorable. I really hope this show keeps going strong like it is now. | 6 |
Great show. Loved it. Milk. Eggs. Bacon. Bread. Butter | 9 |
I was so looking forward to this movie. What a major disappointment!
The biggest problem: there is absolutely no sense created of how monumental was the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of men. No feel of the flotilla of pleasure boats it took.
The movie concentrates on a few vignettes that follow the trials of small groups of people, with each vignette overstaying its cinematic effectiveness. The effectiveness is made even worse by the attempt to tell 6 or 7 stories simultaneously - the back and forth between the stories becomes tedious quckly, as we revisit situations we had already lost interest in and forgotten.
But worse is the annoying film score from the usually dependable Hans Zimmer. I get the attempt to create a feeling of oppression using minimalistic composition techniques, but the effect here is what one feels when a car alarm is stuck open for a 30-minute stretch outside your home, with the owner of the car who knows where.
Seriously, I can believe people were raving about this flick. Awful. | 2 |
'Now You See Me' is a slick and stylish production and, depending on what you look for in a film, potentially an entertaining way to pass a couple of hours. The average viewer, who probably cares more about how a film looks than what is has to offer plot wise, will most likely enjoy 'Now You See Me'.
Those who prefer a film with a coherent and logical plot, however, are going to be disappointed. Looking past the many on-screen gimmicks, and 'Now You See Me' is soon exposed for what it is - a shallow film with a poorly constructed and, at times, nonsensical plot. For all its fancy production, it lacks the most basic of requirements. | 5 |
Falling back on well-worn boxing movie clichés, 'Southpaw' would feel rather tired if it weren't for a trio of really strong performances. Jake Gyllenhaal continues to be one of the most dependable and unconventional leading men in Hollywood, and veteran Forest Whitaker gives real depth to a character that could've been nothing more than a generic sage. But the real revelation here is young Oona Laurence, who more than holds her own against her more experienced co-stars.
There are several key plot points that remain on the margins and unresolved in a satisfying way, and too many things go from A-Z in snap, but 'Southpaw' lands just enough punches to score a split decision. | 6 |
Yes, you read that right, it is indeed India's first epic masterpiece. Mughal-e-Azam, does'nt hold a candle to Ashutosh Gowariker's magnum opus.A brilliant film in all respects,Jodha Akbar scores not only in the story department, but also in the acting and visuals. Ashutosh Gowariker and his team brings a bygone era back to life in this larger than life extravaganza.Everything from the clothing to the jewelry to the gigantic sets put the viewer right there in the prime of the Mughal era. Visually, the movie is a sight for sore eyes.Never has any Indian film been so impressive as far as visuals go. The opulent splendour of Jodha's palace,the battlegrounds, the Rajputana kingdom are a treat to behold. Actingwise, Hritik Roshan outdoes himself. Clearly, this is his best performance to date. Seldom does a character from a movie takes on a life of its own.Hritik breathes life and energy into the role of Akbar,making it his own.His body language, his voice and his expressions are chiseled to perfection.Aishwarya Rai's performance as the Rajput princess is superb.She depicts her character's transition from a reluctant wife to the Empress of India with aplomb.Other actors fit their roles with ease. Gowariker's direction s top notch. Enough said. The background score is highly effective. The music is soul-stirring. As for Hritik, he would do better to stick to these kind of quality cinema rather than act in brainless farces like Dhoom 2 which cater to an equally brainless audience. That said, I would recommend JA to all who liked Troy,or other epics along the same lines.JA's strength lies in the simplicity of its story. | 8 |
Oh my glob! I freakin love this movie like total so much like holy wow!
Ken is the bestest character of all times. He's such an inspirational inspiration I can't even come up with words to even like totally explain it and stuff.
He was the highlight of the movie by far. I hope they make a Ken movie next time. Ryan Gosling is so amazing in this movie like holy freak! He deserves the Grammy award for this master piece of perfect performances in the Barbie movie like whoa!
How is it even possibly real that he was that good in the movie that wasn't even his own thing?! Like oh my globbbbb for really real I'm blown away like wowie wow. | 4 |
I really wanted to like this show but it left me more irritated than excited.
Everytime the story reached a problem in moving forward in the storyline they just chose the obvious way neverminding the stupidity of the choice. But ok hadn't they done that it would have been at short 8-piece miniseries. And who does that in 2020 ... sometimes maybe they should ... make a good, thought-through show instead of going for a 8 season Lost-style show ... And Lily is cute and querky but also tiresome after a while.
But the philosophy in the show is fun to wonder about ...even though the human idea of the Universe evolving around only the Homo sapiens' choices is very much Homo sapiens 😅 | 5 |
Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra's film is a tribute to the legendary sportsman. After having made films like 'Aks', 'Rang De Basanti, 'Delhi 6', Mehra succeeds in pulling off BMB; a feat that speaks volumes about his passion for the subject. Not that the film doesn't have any drawback. But it surely leaves you with feelings that you may not be able to describe in words.
Farhan Akhtar as Milkha is an absolute treat to watch. None could have reprised the role of the athlete but him. Sonam, though has very little screen time, does her bit quite well. But the actors who add colour to the film are- Pawan Malhotra, Prakash Raj and Yograj Singh. They have pulled off stunning performances worth loud applause. The film on the whole is entertaining but has certain glitches that could have been avoided. Had the run time been a little shorter, perhaps it would have been a lot better. Prasoon Joshi weaves the story with various emotions. But the one that stands out is Milkha's love for his country- India. The music by Shankar-Ehasaan-Loy is like breathe of fresh air, but Mehra could have avoided lip-syncing songs.
A handful of films sprint that extra mile beyond providing meagre entertainment to its spectators. BHAAG MILKHA BHAAG is one such cinematic experience. However, director Mehra and writer Prasoon Joshi encompass pertinent episodes/chapters from the icon's life and create a film that makes you salute the sports person, besides evoking the spirit of nationalism in the spectator. | 7 |
This review is spoiler free.
There are so few films that conclude a story right. The very few I can think of are The Return of the King, Toy Story 3, Back to the Future Part 3, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and Return of the Jedi. I am very glad to add The Dark Knight Rises to the list. The reason the final Harry Potter film is not on that list, is because after watching both parts of the final film in a row, they feel uneven when viewed together and the second part grows weak after multiple viewings. The Dark Knight Rises is what the final Potter should have been like.
I usually try not to get too excited for a film. In this day and age, a movie theater is mostly full of disappointment. But this was different. I am a Batman fanatic. I always loved him as a kid and Batman Begins opened up a whole new world for me to dwell in. He is my favorite fictional hero of all time. So after four years of waiting for this, I am so happy that this truly is the ending this series deserved.
I am not going to reveal plot details. Like most of Christopher Nolan's films, the less you know going in, the better. Like Nolan's other films, the cast is fantastic. Christian Bale gives his best performance of the series as Bruce Wayne and Batman. Michael Caine returns as Alfred, who will break your heart in one scene. Gary Oldman is still great as Commissioner Gordon, who has had an excellent character arc in this series. The new characters are all awesome. Tom Hardy as Bane is one of the best villain performances I've seen in a long time. His master plan made my jaw drop. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays John Blake, one of the few good cops left in Gotham. Marion Cotillard does well as supporting character, Miranda Tate. She is not given a lot of screen time, but she is definitely not a throw away character. My favorite of the newcomers is Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle/Catwoman. She is perfect in this role. I thought she really did the character justice and I think she's the best on screen Catwoman yet.
The technical aspects of the film are flawless, like the previous two films. The cinematography is incredible. If you can, see this film in IMAX. There is about an hour of the film in the format and it looks stunning. The action is spectacular and never overdone. The visual effects are truly incredible. I am so glad that Christopher Nolan prefers practical effects over CGI. The opening sequence is perhaps one of the most exciting stunts ever put on film. And the fact that they really did it, is amazing. Hans Zimmer's score is beautiful and really adds that extra level of excitement to the film. Even though James Newton Howard doesn't contribute to the score for this film, Zimmer has proved to be a really talented composer.
I think Christopher Nolan made the right choice to tell his Batman story in three parts. Looking back on the first two films after seeing this, it really is a solid beginning, middle and end. After seeing the Dark Knight, as much as I wanted to see a finale to the story, I was so unsure of how they could possibly end these films right. Luckily, Nolan is one of the best directors today and he has certainly given us an ending of epic proportions. It's the best film series since The Lord of the Rings. The Dark Knight Rises is not just another summer movie. It is an event and you should definitely take part in it. I doubt we will see anything this spectacular in film for a long time. | 4 |
A typical Micheal Bay flick with senseless dialogue, over the top action and enough editing errors to sink a ship but, damn, is it a good time! | 6 |
Stranger Things is simply amazing - the CGI, the acting, the writing--every aspect of it just enraptures you in the story.
The show has a very wide viewing appeal--anyone from ages twelve to fifty can connect with the characters and the nostalgic setting.
The amazing cast of extremely talented young actors is probably what makes the show stand out the most - the casting directors did their job perfectly. It's ridiculously hard to find decent teen actors, but Mille Bobby Brown, Finn Wolfhard, Gaten Matarazzo, Caleb McLaughlin, and Sadie Sink, are the best actors of their generation, and I'm sure many will agree with me when I say I can't wait to see what performances they will nail in the future.
The Duffer Brothers created a fantastic world and every line is purposeful and masterfully sculpted.
The only downside of this show has, in actuality, little to do with the show itself - it is the people who obsess over it. Many have been deterred from watching it in the first place because of the sheer amount of people who talk about it in a way that is actually pretty gross.
Everything about the fandom aside, though, Stranger Things is amazing, and, while it might not be quite deserving of the popularity it has received, is still entertaining and fantastic. | 9 |
I really am not sure if this has to be a comedy, mystery, horror, parody...? Once again Netflix try to profit from well succeeded movie ideas. Jenna Ortega did play Wednesday well, but everything else was just unbearable.
Adaptation Wednesday Addams would never dress herself as a e-girl tik tok style. She loves the classy dark gothic clothes. It is half half here. Sometimes she really looks like Wednesday's taste ,but sometimes not. Wednesday also doesn't really stay with neutral face the whole time. In old movies and cartoons if you'd like sometimes she does show some emotion no matter is it when she tries to be spooky or jokingly spooky or tired of crap. What is it with Gomez? I mean he really really doesn't look like him. Even tho this is about their daughter. There are no monsters in Addams movies,stories,scripts. So where did werewolves and vampires came from??
Locations Nevermore is basically Hogwarts. They have social groups that are really much accurate to the houses of Hogwarts. The style of the school. The spookiness, the fact that all the shots are taken night and with lightings and thunderbolts to make it spooky as with Hogwarts, i guess , where is the magic? Oh wait, Rowans sudden telekinesis. The room from which Rowan took the book at ep.2 (i think it was) is exactly like that one part from Harry Potter franchise movies where Harry found an empty room with a mirror and the mirror showed him his parents and etc.
Cliches
Fighting scenes Totally unrealistic with the exception of 1-2 moves out of 10. | 2 |
Me and my mum decided to watch it last night and our thoughts were exactly the same - meh. It felt like it would appeal to a young audience as a lot of it was just watching the beasts do their thing.
I did think Redmayne was amazing at portraying a wildlife enthusiast; as one myself, I recognised the subtle quirks and thought his performance was spot on. The beasts were cool, though nothing hysterical or ground-breaking really happened. One of my main gripes is that I don't think the film allowed time for us to become invested in the characters, which meant that when it came to a couple of farewells at the end, the emotional impact wasn't really there. I especially think more could have been done with Kowalski, because his presence just wasn't that established. I don't blame the actor for that at all, we just didn't get to see enough of him or get to find him doing or saying anything wildly amusing or likeable.
I'm glad I finally got round to seeing this film and ticking it off the list. It was a nice watch to fill in a Saturday evening, but I won't be in a rush to see it again. | 5 |
Bhout Sahi... Hai dhk lo...busss ek or reason mil jaega Pankaj Tripathi k fan banne ka... Abhishek Bachchan ki bhi a acting kamal hai... Or Sayad apko Aditya Roy Kapoor ki story line touch kar jae... Sare stories ko well connect krke rhka gya hai... Kahin bhi bore feel nhi hua... Kamal ka direction or story hai... | 10 |
I wasn't expecting much. My wife watched the first episode and told me this was great, I have to watch it. It had all the hallmarks of a bad Netflix reboot. We're going to take an old franchise, refocus on a young female character, introduce a bunch of new characters, and make something entirely unlike the window dressing of the franchise we're using to trick you into watching it.
And it is exactly that. But it's actually good! Apparently you CAN do all of that, and it doesn't have to be horrible.
The title character Wednesday is portrayed very well by Jenny Ortega, who manages to be funny and charismatic in the role while being true to Wednesday's dark and angsty personality.
The plot is interesting and the mysteries of the show are engaging and satisfying. Even the teen drama aspects, which I was fully prepared to cringe at, were handled well. The characters felt like real people dealing with real problems, even when they were silly supernatural creatures dealing with ridiculous supernatural problems. Even when the interactions carried obvious "social justice" messages, it didn't feel preachy or like some school anti-bullying video.
The only big negative for me was that the show seemed to have a hard time with the balancing act between Wednesday's character as an antisocial psychopath who loves death and murder, and the fact that Wednesday is also supposed to be our protagonist who's really a good person and cares about everybody and does the right thing, the nice thing, etc. There were a few moments when I found myself thinking, "okay, so she's a actually a big sweetheart pretending to be Wednesday Addams."
But overall, loved this, and I was pleasantly surprised. | 8 |
This is a poor story, reazonably told. Ok, the diretor gives us a different point of view -- from the surroundings of a war. Good. Quite interesting, different, I admit. But it lacks everything that is important: LOVE, LOVE and more LOVE. A film without love is a film without soul.
And more.... It's too slow, boring, lost -- although of sometimes probably setting fire in the hearts of some patriots. The diretor should have watched TITANIC more times --- this last one being a real masterpiece. | 5 |
Waste of time... horrible movie with no real plot. | 1 |
Oscar Isaac and Jessica Chastain portray Abel and Anna Morales, a couple who own and run a heating oil company in 1981 in New York City. Abel tries his best to run his business as cleanly as possible in a corrupt industry. One of their frequent problems is having their oil trucks hijacked, sometimes violently thus putting their truck drivers in danger.
Director/writer J.C. Chandor uses a lot bleak and dark lighting throughout the film which helps to keep the viewer distant from the characters. While less distance might have created a more fulfilling experience, there is at least a consistency that can be commended.
Also commendable is a story with various plot lines but always understandable, a rarity in many modern crime films. While the film is seen through the eyes of Abel, it includes the view of a working-class employee whose plight is almost dismissed as trivial to the the wealthy couple.
Isaac and Chastain do a fine job in their roles. As the head of a wealthy family empire, it's fascinating how much Isaac resembles Al Pacino (aka Michael Corleone of "The Godfather" films) at the same age.
While "A Most Violent Year" doesn't meet the higher standards of other crime classics, it is still quite entertaining. | 7 |
I went into The Boys expecting some idiotic, predictable and cliché superhero show. I was proven wrong within the first episode of the show. The show is about a band of men (and later women) run by William Butcher, who try to expose the corruption of Vought, a company that protects superheroes. It starts of slow and strong and you slowly start to feel a connection with the characters. The acting is impeccable, and the writing is unlike any I have seen in the show. Homelander is easily the best written character, and possibly has the best actor of the show, who can perfectly demonstrate the narcissistic tendencies and behaviours of his character. If you haven't watched his yer, I highly recommend you watch it, because it is genuinely the best superhero show ever. It's deep, original, and understands what it's trying to convey throughout. | 9 |
Underrated
I disliked TLJ as a SW movie and particularly disliked some of the comments made by Rian Johnson; I therefore completely understand why people are annoyed with him. However giving fictional ratings to a completely different project is just childish.
There is no way this movie is worth only one star, I give it 5 stars because the acting for the most part was decent and the overall story was fine, as was the cinematography, editing, directing, etc.
Overrated
There is no way this movie is perfect and giving it a positive fictional rating is just as childish.
To be honest, I became bored during the first half of the movie, the second half picked up somewhat. I expected more from the cast, none of them got me emotionally involved, I was happy enough to find out how it all played out but didn't find myself caring whether any of them did it or didn't do it or were ultimately 'good' or 'bad'.
Red Flag
I should know by now that when a trailer has to quote critics about how funny it is then it probably isn't. I laughed out loud once during the movie and was elsewhere amused literally only once or twice. I certainly did not get the humor that everyone 'talks' about.
Go see it if you like this kind of movie and judge it on it's own merits...please. | 5 |
So here is the thing,they are supposed to be super but they can't even take out 2 dummies.They had to be special but what is this? | 6 |
8.6
As Steve Rogers adapts to the complexities of a contemporary world, he joins Natasha Romanoff and Sam Wilson in his mission to uncover the secret behind a deadly, mysterious assassin. | 8 |
I've tried. I mean I really tried. Fact is, political thrillers are not my kind of thing. Or most of them anyway.
'Bridge of Spies' is a very long film - a whole two hours and twenty minutes - and much of the film is just conversation. Mostly political. Or espionage. This didn't really interest me. Something of interest - a bit of action maybe, or intrigue - only happened every now and again; few and far between.
There's no denying this is a well made film. The performances are good, the directing is good, the cinematography is good, but ultimately this just isn't my kind of film. And to sit there for more than two hours watching 'not my kind of film', is not my idea of being entertained. Sorry. | 4 |
I found the story compelling and the acting excellent with perhaps two exceptions. Ejiofor and N'yongo both delivered breath-taking and heart- wrenching performances that deserve their many accolades and then some. The supporting work from Woodard, Oduye, Brown, and especially Topsy Chapman who does more with her face, body movements, and singing than anyone else does with dialog also kept the film poignant. Cumberbatch and Dano deserve the credit they have gotten for solid supporting performances of characters with layered dimensions. Brad Pitt also executes well the plum supporting role he gave himself. Berry, Chalk, Giamatti, McConnell, Dilahunt, Evermore, and Dylan all score in the one or two scenes in which they are featured. The cinematography and score are both terrific and give the film vitality to take us through the torturous moments. The costume design also deserved its Oscar nomination. I found McQueen's direction compelling throughout save two scenes I found extraneous just showing weary facial expressions.
Unlike others, I was less than impressed with the performances by Michael Fassbender & Sarah Paulson (an actor whose accolades I've never understood) as Mr. & Mrs. Epps. They seemed jarringly out-of-era to me in all expressions and mannerisms. Owners of large and profitable plantations of that era, even evil ones, would have more of an air of dignity - especially when dealing with the Judge and the Sheriff. Instead, Epps makes no apologies for being rough-hewn, petty, cynical, and bitter in front of the Judge and others. Evil, believing his slaves to be no more human than baboons, sure. Displaying less couth than an overseer with his fellow planters and in front of other whites? Not a chance. His biblical interpretation for his slaves was probably his best scene. But he is just too banal and vulgar "in public" in the others.
And you'd have to comb deep and far to find a planter's wife as emaciated and as publicly shrill as Sarah Paulson. Her bearing is just all wrong. I also would have liked to have seen some speculation on what Northrup's family was doing during those 12 years. That may not be covered in the memoir but this is a work of fiction based on a true incident - not a documentary (Why the sudden critics of the excellent MOVIE Captain Phillips could not see that and why they got to wield so much influence, I'll never understand - as good as McQueen's direction is here, Greengrass surpasses it in Phillips).
Anyway, 12 Years a Slave is a worthy enough candidate in its own right. Not perfect but certainly very good, possibly excellent. | 8 |
Linear, boring and predictable. wooden acting. story doesn't make sense. Like male hero is American spy on loan to the British. really? background to story rewrites Greek mythology. its lame, too. who would like this movie? maybe someone really desperate for a woman protagonist in an action/fantasy. i'll wait for next season of game of thrones. | 4 |
**********************SPOLIERS****************** I had to right this paper for school about Schizophrenia and since i love this site i decided to submit. The movie, A Beautiful Mind, deals with the difficulty of living with schizophrenia. John Nash is a schizophrenic who attends Princeton University and is able to solve math problems that baffle even the greatest minds. Right from the beginning we noticed that social interaction is extremely tough for John. When John has to make conversation with other people we realize some of the first symptoms with his disorganized speech and disorganized thoughts and behavior. Throughout the movie we continue to notice he has much difficulty talk with others except when with one person. When John is with his `roommate' Charles we notice that all trouble talking and thinking is eliminated. From there we might understand that Charles isn't real and just a figment of the imagination. Later on when schizophrenic images have driven John to the edge Dr. Rosen confronts him at a math speech John is giving. Dr. Rosen gives John shock therapy and we see John having convulsions while strapped down on a medical bed. Besides the shock therapy Rosen also gives John a heavy dose of medicine and asks Alicia Nash, John's wife, to watch out for him. Dr. Rosen also has to face the hardest part of telling John that people he thinks he knows are not real. John has a tough time getting a grip on reality and sometimes can't even turn to his wife. During a schizophrenic episode while attempting to knock away `William Parcher's gun' pointed to his wife but instead hits his wife. This and John's forgetfulness with his baby so how hard it can be to care for someone with schizophrenia. With these two episodes Alicia even has to move out until John can understand what is real and what is not. A moment occurs when John comes to grips with reality with himself and tells Alicia that he knows that the images are not real. He says that Becky never got any older the images are not real. From this point we know John we fight these illusions until he is `better.' During the movie we become attached to his illusions and just as it is for John it is tough for us to let them go. Near the end John tells us when he is asked if the illusions are still there, he says that they are never gone I just don't answer them. Unfortunately at this time that's all that could be done. In the end John has triumphed in the biggest way, he has put the images out of his mind and wins the Nobel Peace prize. He then gives an emotional speech crediting everything that he has done to his wife, and rightfully so. What makes this so much more realistic is that it is. | 7 |
Whenever you watch Swades , you always feel that it will continue forever because the emotions / acting / scenes/background music / songs everything is SOOO. Spellbinding it moves you . Especially SRK brilliant performance one of the bestest of his career . Train scene/ Chemistry bwt Gayatri n srk/ all emotional scenes / that village scene it's perfect blend of important message/love/societal issues in one perfect box Hats off to the direct Ashoutosh Gowarikar Want more movies like this . Beautiful movie | 10 |
One of the best movie so far.. unique concept from Indian cinema... SRK nailed it with his brilliant performance... Specially, the role of gaurav chandana as a fan is fabulous. The story is unique in a Bollywood and well scripted too. The screenplay is very well maintained and full of excitement. Whatever it is, SRK is into one of his best avatars and he shows the world as to why is he called as the "Biggest movie star in the world". Take a bow! Salutes! :) Worth all your money! SRK ! This man is, was n will be forever the best Actor on this planet, it is the power packed display of skills, effervescence, energy, dedication, commitment, marvellous acting of Shahrukh Khan ( SRK ) that which would always be remembered for years to come. At a demanding age of 50 ,his portrayal of Gaurav Chandna as crazy obsessive fan would surely put many 25 years old to acceptable shame.
Lastly the climax which might receive extreme opinions, but I personally loved the ending. "Rehnede, Tu Nahi Samjhega"..... | 10 |
I read a review of this film in the New Yorker that said the title was unfortunate because it would make people think it was a sports film when it was more than that. The reviewer was wrong. This is a sports movie, with all the sports movie tropes, and it's all been done better.
The film follows car designers Carrol Shelby and race car driver Ken Miles as they work to help Ford create a car that can beat Ferrari's in a big race. This in itself is odd, in that the movie wants you to see the guys working for a corporate behemoth as scrappy underdogs, which is a bit of a stretch.
This is very much a boy movie, by which I mean it's entirely focused on testosterone-fueled competition ranging from international pissing contests to corporate competition to fist fights on the lawn. You could easily call this movie "Mine is Bigger." And much of my problem with the movie was I didn't care whose was bigger.
The best thing in the movie is Bale as Miles. Instead of the typical cocky race driver of other films, Miles comes across as grease-monkey engineer who not only engineers the car but also plans and engineers his entire race. It's a smart, amiable performance that should be in a better movie.
I am perplexed that this movie was nominated for an Oscar against genuinely significant movies like Parasite and Jojo Rabbit. The best I can say of it is that it is less undeserving of the nomination than Joker. I'm also puzzled by all the gushing reviews.
There are some good moments, particularly in the racing scenes, but the film is hugely overlong and everything past the end of the race feels like a needless and maudlin dragging out of something that should have been a zippy 90-minute film.
Not recommended. | 5 |
I'm not necessary a fan of kung fu movies . There is something about them that turns me off. So , I had my reservations about watching this movie. I'm happy that I was wrong. I had a good time . Fans of kung fu movies probably will be in heaven . Yet I recommend this movie to everyone who don't likes kung fu movies – give it a try . You might be pleasantly surprised.
"Ip man" is based on real life story , yet I don't know how much of what I've seen is a product of imagination and how much of truth is here. In the end it doesn't really matter. I was afraid that "Ip man" will have a strong Chinese propaganda in it . Thankfully the movie is told in a universal way , so every viewer from around the world will be able to relate to the story.
The fights look fantastic. The music is very epic at times . The acting is good. "Ip man" is an interesting mix of kung fu movie and war drama. There are good portions of humor and they are well placed ( the fight in the house) . The drama is also affecting . The main hero is mild mannered man , who uses violence only when necessary . He's a very sympathetic character.
"Ip man" is not necessarily my cup of tea , but it's a good movie. Watch it – you won't regret it. After all this is a movie about a guy who was mentor of Bruce Lee. I give it 8/10. | 7 |
The movie was very sad, Jim Carrey raised the value of the film by me, the film's story was great but it was not steady on one level Sometimes the movie was slow and sometimes very fast, the movie was impressive. I recommend watching it. | 7 |
I figured he's crazy, till I watched it. I had to fast forward a lot... and I mean most of it. The ending had a pretty cool scene but everything else was either targeted at people who live in Hollywood (actors, etc) who REALLY care about the details, or old people who have the patience to sit trough boring, long, long shots of someone driving and nothing happening.
This really isn't meant for younger viewers like me or anyone who couldn't care less about Hollywood. Seems to be for past and present Hollywood actors and showmen in general. It's moving as slow as movies did in the 80's back when people had the time and attention span to watch absolutely nothing happening for 3 hours, but it's a 2019 movie. Small tweaks could've made this more inclusive.
I can't recommend this to your average viewer simply because you won't finish watching it, the only payoff is the film's climax which isn't that long or rewarding either. If Tarantino still thinks his 1992 style can work in 2019 and beyond - I'm afraid he should be prepared for only his circle of Hollywood yes men to watch his movies. | 3 |
Like a bunch of fanboys had their amateur work produced by a big name studio. With all of the rage special effects, so they say. You have the 80s aesthetics, music and fashion right, but only from a magazine. It manages to translate the creators passion for certain movies, books and TV series, of a decade they clearly idealize. Which also harms the quality of the show itself, by showing how unable to be original it is, without storylines free of ideas stolen from others work. And the little time it creates something, you wished it didn't, because it's just bad writing. There's a lot of everything, from IT to Sixteen Candles, but so what? It lacks skills. The cast is ok, but the acting isn't extraordinary either. And at the end of the day, the series don't live up to the hype. Season 1 may be ok, but I agree with the rest on this. Stick with it, and forget the rest. | 1 |
I watched this movie only for Golshifteh Farahani. She is my favorite actress. She plays very well. She is a creative artist with lovely Eastern face. | 6 |
Honestly I don't like history/war movies but I still went ahead and watched it, and well I was bored don't get me wrong it's a war film extremely well done and is sort of a puzzle box which I really enjoy, The movie felt really slow and boring, there were many characters but I didn't care about them. Look just go and watch the film its a really good movie just I didn't like it that's all | 5 |
Every critic out there seems to be dazzled (as much as Pattinson in the final scene) by the undeniably beautiful cinematography (every shot an artistic photography for an art gallery exposition) and the solid performances by the two only actors on scene.
However, undeniable too is the fact that this is one of the weakest stories put on a film lately. Yeah, I know, the important here is the atmosphere of abandonment and claustrophobia... the symbolism of the lighthouse as a phallus... the combination of old sea myths with the Prometheus' thing... ok, but either you are able to make (at least) a little sense of all this and deliver a minimally believable and coherent story or you just ellaborate a pastiche, and in the end this is what the film mostly turns out to be. A pity, since the photography is truly remarkable and the natural stormy place chosen for the filming is great.
And one last recommendation for Mr. Eggers, it's not really necessary to put such amount of disgusting stuff (farts, sewage even in drinking cups, semen, feces...) on the screen to transmit the idea of filthiness and squalor... other directors have been able to convey this atmosphere in ways that did not make many people abandon the theatre halfway through. | 5 |
Meh! Episode 1 started out ok but episodes 2 and 3 really hasn't done much to delivers an interesting story.
I just finished episode 5 and I am now going down to 2 stars. This show is amateurish all around.
Not even done with the finale and I am down in my rating. Jokes dont hit their mark, sentiment doesn't draw sorrow or pity, action is boring and the story is just awful.
I am tired of being told to accept mediocre products from people that have the resources and talent to do it. Yet, even after spending millions upon millions, they hire poor writers and directors who give us didactic lessons, disjointed stories and generally terrible products. | 1 |
This show was one of the few that I REALLY got into the last few years. Season 1 was great, season 2 was good.....but then came Ani. The introduction of this single character in season 3 ruined what was a wonderful and meaningful impactful series. For my love of this show, the real life issues it tackles, and my dedication to this series, I powered through two episodes of the 3rd season. I couldn't bear Ani any longer and dropped it completely. | 6 |
Many may consider this the best Marvel movie to date, and I can see why. It does a good job of adding an additional layer of depth to the current avengers, as well as introducing a few new ones. It also does a good job of capturing some of the political mess which a group such as the Avengers might cause.
Still, I can't help finding myself annoyed with how some of the main characters are portrayed. Tony Stark, who I would label as a narcissistic anti-authoritarian, is suddenly portrayed as quite easily collared. Still slightly narcissistic, but still, it doesn't fit him. Sure, this is a Captian America flick - not 'The Glorious return of the Wonderous Tony Stark', so a few oddities about the other Avengers are to be expected. But still. These oddities are enough to have me annoyed through what could and should have been an amazing film.
And, come on, Tony Stark is way cooler than Captain America. They should have made it about him. Really. | 6 |
I agree with some of the opinions that people have about this movie. That it's a masterpiece, a cultural icon and THEY'RE RIGHT. I just don't think that this movie is still as relevant as it was in the 1970's. Unlike The Godfather or Jaws, this movie has been triumphed by other films describing an individual slowly loosing his mind (Joker etc.) and even though I consider to be a GOOD movie, I don't hold it on the same level as The Godfather, because this movie is just a masterpiece lost in time, not understood by today's viewership, myself.
It moves in slow pace, and the whole movie kind of builds to well, nothing. And that's probably my biggest problem with it. Anyway. So long. | 6 |
The show promises the battle for the throne amongst the most recent generation of kids and their parents but has done little to actually outline the definitive sides of that issue. Alicent was a great foil to Rhaenyra in the book but in the show they are to focused on putting both of them against the system in place rather than to actually create any interesting conflict between the two. Other than that, there isn't a ensemble cast that provides they're own individual ambitions and backstories into how/why they're interested in taking the throne. And the plot of Rhaenyra's affair has barley been explored which could've been used to accelerate the conflict between the houses but has been oddly been disregarded. The biggest issue of the show is that is tries to highlight and give importance to the characters of the show during the time period rather than the unspoken conflict of the "Game of Thrones." | 3 |
"Hannibal" had pretty big shoes to fill and mostly succeeds, with great craft and many good ideas; but there's also a few irritants-occasional, and chronic.
Some actors do an outstanding job: Laurence Fishburne flawlessly portrays Jack Crawford's "misleading obtuse mien", Raúl Esparza actually elevates the thankless Chilton role, and Richard Armitage's chilling physical performance of Dolarhyde was arresting. Dancy and Mikkelsen are quite up to snuff, too, but could've notched down their respective extremes: Graham too often one breath short of epileptic, and Lecter a bit too inexpressive (though at least compensated by a livelier physicality); still, I wish they'd gone with a native English speaker for a character whose every meticulous word we're supposed to hold on to, and is never said in the novels to have a thick accent.
Gillian Anderson is a fine actress and her Du Maurier character a good idea, but what was with the slow talk? If it meant her treading carefully to try and keep up with Lecter, it just left me drowsy. Mason Verger was another letdown: a hardly menacing baby-faced prat pre-Hannibal, afterwards he goes into a lame imitation of Gary Oldman sans the masterful underlying sadness.
The visuals are evocative and classy, softening the relatively abundant gore, though the cinematographer may have been a bit too in love with slow-motion close-ups of splashed liquids (no, not just blood).
What annoyed me the most is excessive quoting from the novels and movies. I don't mind a couple winks to the fandom, but so much of it became off-putting, especially as some of the quotes were so utterly trivial; "... and a modest outlay for two bags of cement"? Come on, it ain't Shakespeare. | 7 |
This show could have been terrific except it does exactly what we all laugh about bad horror movies. It has characters that do the stupidest things just so the story can continue. Two examples: The Sheriff decides to break into the CIA/NSA Dep't of Energy facility alone, with no idea where he's going or who he may come up against. AND, of course he finds nothing of value but does allow the CIA to bug his trailer. Then Karen Wheeler, in the woods at night with Jonathan, decides to climb through a wall of goo ALONE, to go inside a mysterious tree. She doesn't first call Jonathan to show him what she found,and maybe go in together or tell someone, like the Sheriff. No, instead she climbs through this goo into a tree trunk ALL BY HERSELF. And she's supposed to be one of the smartest students at school. Give me a break!!! It's garbage like this that ruins a show. | 3 |
I'm not a very avid fan of the Fantastic Beasts world, but I enjoyed the first installment of the movie, although initially I found Eddie Redmayne's (Newt Scamander's) evasive mannerisms mildly cringy. This edition is almost criminally lackluster. It feels like they removed a few scenes from the trailer and called it the film. Jude Law appears in around five scenes. They borrowed the original Harry Potter Hogwarts music, which was mildly enjoyable. The story is shallow as a puddle, precariously cobbled together. Hastily shoved in a couple new "fantastic beasts" here and there with any small excuse. Terrible acting/accent by whats-his-name Johnny Depp, the others were alright. The core story itself is indefensibly weak. Humor... I'm trying very hard to remember any. They have not only made a terrible story, but also tried to milk it by cutting it in half and leaving it for another movie. If I were a fan of the book, I'd be furious. | 4 |
..from season 1. Almost nothing of the story comes from the books, or rhe games for that matter, so they fail two times over.
And the stories they do come up with are completely bonkers and don't even follow the lore of the world.
So in short, season 2, a complete disapointment. | 5 |
What is wrong with reviewers? Really. Have we devolved into less-than apes?
How and why does anyone rate this so highly, with an average of 8.9?
People (men), (white men), are obsessed with playing the "gangsta," drugs, sex, and using the f*bomb.
This is good film??? Tarantino has been and continues to be a narcissist, and all of his fan boys like to tag along.
As much as I hate the ilk of Tarantino, his film-making skills are of high value, so all is not lost - technically.
STORY: This "story" is a patchwork of stories, like what Tarantino does with his other films. Arguably the central story is about two (2) hit men, but they are more like thread than fabric. The "story" isn't really a story with any kind of valuable message (contrary to the fan boys); no, it's more like the "days in the lives of people living in darkness."
The story has no intrinsic purpose or value - it's just white men wanting to (vicariously) play the "gangsta."
ACTING: This film has one (1) highlight - good acting. There is no character development (the director lacks this skill), but the acting is clean, crisp, and the cast remain in character throughout.
TEMPO: The pace is somewhat appropriate for its genre (whatever that is), but it too often bogs down in itself (yes, like the mythical Narcissus gets lost in his own self-affections).
CINEMATOGRAPHY: This is a reasonably well-scened film, but again, more like a "day-in-the-life-of," so nothing special.
DIRECTING: Excellent skills, but I loathe the director.
Overall, if you like watching people kill, torture, curse, use illicit drugs, and you really want to be a "gangsta," then by all means ... watch this. | 5 |
Out of all the "Avengers" and "Captain America" films this has to be the best one! The story-line and plot are great, it's loaded with action, and it introduces some new characters. As I said with the other "Avengers" and "Captain America" films I am not a comic book fan but these films are great and can be enjoyed by most anyone. What I really enjoyed about this particular "Captain America" film was the political message that ran through it, with that I really couldn't decide who's side I was in favor of. In a way both sides were right and both sides were wrong and to me that's part of what made this film so great. This film would make a nice political debate for some people. Anyway, this film is absolutely awesome! The acting brought on by these actors in this film is great especially the performance brought on by Chadwick Boseman, who played The Black Panther. Speaking of which, at first Iron Man was probably my favorite character, but all of them were awesome but now the Black Panther is one of my favorites. What he did and said towards the end of the film is what really did it for me. There's never a dull moment in this 2 hour and 27 minute film because the action is on point and the film never fails to keep its viewer at the edge of their seat. If you enjoyed all of the other "Avenger" and "Captain America" films you will really enjoy this one! | 8 |
The scenerie is like in every Harry Potter movie - fascinatic. The story is logic and i'm inspired by the way J. K. Rowling create this world and all the caracters. Sometimes the movie is a little bit long-winded, bit if you're a Potter Fan you will love it. | 6 |
Here's what is wrong with this one: 1) The protagonist; Personally I did not find main protagonist (I guess it was supposed to be Caesar?) at all sympathetic nor inspiring. Mainly bland. 2) The antagonist(s); The Human race? The repressive, and badly acted zookeeper(s) (I'm looking at Mr. "I just ate a lemon" Felton). Or were the apes supposed to be the antagonists here? 3) The script; Generic, uninspired, forgetful... very predictable altogether. 4) The CGI; Should have and could have been better. Even Serkis disappointed this time.
On the positive side; 1) The performance by John Lithgow as demented father of our . 2) Tried so hard to be scientifically witty... but failed.
The movie just made me want to yell out loud "Oh c'mon!". Which I did. Several times. | 5 |
I went to the theater with high hopes. I love planes and military hardware in general and thought I'd at least get a rousing patriotic charge from this movie. But in fact patriotism is pretty far from its mind.
Instead, we're offered the thinnest of cardboard characters involved in various strained relations with one another, and we're presumably supposed to care about them. But not a single character felt real.
There's the guy who's always smirking and bragging about being "the best." (The actor, Glen Powell, told an interviewer that he'd realized, with understandable uneasiness, that he was playing "the biggest dick on the planet"; but in fact his entire character consists of no more than his pasted-on, clichéd smirk. He's like some boastful rival in a children's book, and you know he's going to be taken down a peg.) There's the Miles Teller character, who holds a manufactured grudge against Cruise. There's a nerdy guy -- with glasses, no less! -- on a fighter pilot! -- and a handful of obligatory minorities, and a woman pilot who's given a couple of mild wisecracks. (Note: We're told that all these people are "the best of the best.") There's Jennifer Connelly, who's conveniently available but who doesn't want to be "hurt" again. (The love scenes were SO treacly and boring that I felt like a little kid, tempted to duck out to the candy counter.) Throughout the film, various stiff-necked officers berate Cruise for being such a rebel, for not following the rules, blah blah blah. These contrived conflicts were so fakey and formulaic that I found myself, at times, looking away from the screen in embarrassment at the things actors like Jon Hamm were forced to say. In truth, all the assorted subplots are silly and predictable, and you know they'll be resolved by the end.
Outside of the flying scenes, the film moves with surprising lethargy, in a sticky, sentimental, weirdly reverent way -- reverent, that is, toward the earlier "Top Gun" -- with huge screen-filling close-ups of Cruise and the other cast members, all of them speaking very slowly, with lengthy silences between their sentences. You have to wait an awfully long time for the big-deal bombing mission. When it finally comes, it just seems like comic-book stuff, with a lot constipated grunting and heavy breathing on the sound track in an effort to generate suspense. As I watched, I kept comparing the movie with "Zero Dark Thirty" and "The Right Stuff," both infinitely better.
One final complaint that will resonate with no one but the most pedantic of English majors: There's a missing comma in the opening text on the screen. (It belongs after "1969.") This is an increasingly common mistake, especially here on the net, but it's annoying that a Hollywood blockbuster wouldn't even find room, in its gigantic budget, for a decent copy editor. | 3 |
Season 1 despite a repeated theme from other shows and films had a great story line and very well executed. The characters were great and was very well thought through and executed. However season 2 just completely changed the plot, the story, the everything. Therefore not only was it the worst story line badly executed. It just had no real meaning or purpose.
It went from a great concept to complete nonsense and totally unbelievable scenarios.
Season 2 was such a disappointment from season 1 and I'm still struggling to understand what on earth was the point of it and the story line was so disjointed it was appauling. | 5 |
I was very disappointed with this movie. It had some cool computer graphics but very little acting. Only one or two humorous moments. It was way over-hyped. The one white actor in the whole movie was depicted as a buffoon. Had a totally inappropriate slap at America for slavery. | 2 |
It started off a bit slow and bland but as it progresses it really draws you in. Quirky offbeat sometimes dark, the angst, naivety and awkwardness of being young is palatable as the protagonists land themselves in unusual and unsettling situations, Both leads offer outstanding performances, contrasting and bouncing off each other. They are the type of kids who in real life you would hate to be around, in this you can't help but root for them. This definitely does not tread the usual path taking you on twists and turns. A dark comedy or just pathos? I'm not sure but it's worth watching. | 9 |
This frequently hilarious but also genuinely insightful satirical indie comedy takes on the over-prevalence of stereotypes about Black Americans in American culture, particularly in books. The film is about a writer and academic in Boston (played by Jeffrey Wright) who, believing that his books are too complex and cerebral for mass audiences, writes a book under a pen name filled with the stereotypes he loathes as a joke to try to gain public interest. Despite addressing serious topics including issues of racism and identity within the media, the film's tone is comedic, and the film is often genuinely funny in a laugh-out-loud way. The laughs are genuine and also aim to create conversation about the film's message, particularly through the use of satirical and ironic humor throughout.
Jeffrey Wright's performance as the protagonist is very strong. He is thoughtful and empathetic, and ends up showing more of an emotional range than viewers might initially expect due to some sub-plots involving his relationships with his mother, brother, and sister. However, the way that these domestic sub-plots are integrated into the broader story and contrast with the more humorous moments can sometimes can feel a bit uneven. Because it focuses more on such sub-plots than the other parts of the movie, the second act is a bit less compelling than the first and third acts, respectively; and some viewers might argue that it drags a bit during that point in the film. Yet when attention is paid to the humor on display and how it contrasts with stereotypical media representations, the film is biting and intelligently hilarious. The conflicts on display between the protagonist's disdain for the negative stereotypes he is trafficking in under his new book and the ability of the media and public to resonate or overexpose those stereotypes is also profound and interesting, creating dramatic tension and actually making the humor even funnier at times. Since the juxtaposition between the family-related drama and the other components of the film doesn't hit the mark quite as well as it should, "American Fiction" isn't without its flaws, but this is still a great indie comedy that pulls off a rare feat of making viewers laugh and think both simultaneously and in nearly equal measure. Recommended. 8/10. | 8 |
When i first saw the trailer and all the promotion on IGN and Screenjunkies, i was kinda underwhelmed. I expected it to be some dark slapstick comedy, but instead i found an amazing and compelling show that shows the dark side of superheroes (with ofcourse a few 'laugh out loud' moments) that is not only action packed but also tackles major real-life problems. | 9 |
Tons of graphical wonder, Must watch movie, showcase the courage of surviving...Dogs are man"s first friend(Animals).. | 7 |
I love most Quentin Tarentino movies, the style, the dialogues, the camera action and angles, the score. This movie, regardless whether or not QT made it, is nothing, just a bunch of acted scenes, OK the acting is good, but this is not a film, and no it isn't a new genre as others have proposed. It's a bunch of scenes stitched together to make a film. I gave it two stars because of the good acting, otherwise I am very disappointed. An example of Tarentino movies that I really like, in no particular order:
Jackie Brown
Pulp Fiction
Reservoir Dogs
All very different styles, and all absolutely brilliant. This movies has nothing in comparison, and in general. Sorry Quentin, really. | 2 |
Don't even waste the 5 minutes of your life it would take to find out for yourself. Just avoid at all cost! | 1 |
A fairly enjoyable film I won't lie Ready Player One is full of spectacle and by result of that reasons to watch, aside from being visually stunning the cast are mostly likeable and play the characters strongly but otherwise it's pretty average. The message seems to be easily missable and from Spielberg there's not much above a shallow level of entertainment. That being said as a film (despite being insanely long) its on the whole quite enjoyable | 5 |
The show is nice, but the premise of Wednesday being an outcast it's completely forgotten after the first episode. She is just too cool and good looking to be an outsider. Nice visuals, catchy atmosphere and some nostalgia effect are good basis for a couple of episodes and the characters make up for the rest. It's a must see. It's going to be viral for several scenes. BUT. A sense of "could have been better" floats around in numerous occasions. The plot twists are predictable to say the least. Some characters lack the depth they needed to stand out. In the end, for sure a positive experience, I would suggest to see it, but don't expect the best series of your life. | 7 |
The first Venom was surprisingly good, and I'm glad it's gotten a sequel.
Tom Hardy does a good American accent, and I really like him in this role. The chemistry between Eddie and Venom is very enjoyable (even though they're the same person technically) and their banter is very funny.
Woody Harrelson is a nice addition, but his characters storyline is very tiresome and predictable. A villain with the same powers as the hero? How many times has that been done before?
Quite a short film, it gets to its final climax quite quickly, and although it doesn't end on any sort of cliff hanger... I was expecting more. Where I think this film fails is with its genre. If they'd leaned into the action and horror more, or even went more comedic I would have liked it better, but instead they tried to have an even mix of all which diluted it overall. | 5 |
This is what happens when a studio thirsty for content will just pour money into a half-baked pitch by "writers" whose parents told them that they have some really great ideas, so they bought a copy of 'Screenwriting for Dummies', and moved to Burbank. In the 60's, TV was still a novelty, and a show with a completely one dimensional villain, with murky motivations (even actions that violated the character's own self-preservation) were easily dismissed. It was also easy to overlook the complete disregard for the heroes' inability to see the villain's duplicitous nature despite being represented as brilliant minds. But, c'mon, this ain't the 60s. This series commits to so many cliches and troupes that it's hard to list them all, but here's a few: >Contrived conflicts created entirely by someone keeping a secret (not that there isn't someone conveniently listening to said secret around the corner to punish you for it later.) >Contrived conflicts created entirely by someone blabbing their secrets. >Deus ex machina. Lots of it. >Situations that have a dozen viable solutions, but the riskiest and most costly seems to be the one that's settled on. >Kids are stupid. Frustratingly stupid. And gullible. At least when the writers need them to be. >Adults aren't much better. >Mother-ships don't have scanners. Or search parties. Hey, Netflix, if you're gonna spend this kind of money on shows, throw in a couple of extra bucks for writers with better resumes. | 6 |
It's rare that the sequels can out do the original, but the first Avenger does not hold a candle to the Winter Soldier and The Winter Soldier is nothing compared to Civil War.
A superhero movie with some real depth to it, Civil War is not so loosely based on the Marvel comics event. All the Events since the first Avengers movie are being called in check, when the UN forces a political policy on the Avengers that would allow them to regulate how superheroes battle the forces of evil. Captain America is not for it, while Iron Man is, putting them on different sides.
Just like Winter Soldier, what makes this movie so good is that it is basically an Avengers movie, having pretty much all of them in the same film at once, with some extra added surprises, like The Black Panther making his debut on the screen, Spider-Man joining the marvel cinematic universe and Ant-Man showing off his full capability.
I was a little nervous that Cap would get lost in the shuffle of his own picture. He does, kinda, but thankfully the movie is about him being the leader of the Avengers so he does get some screen time. I love Cap, he has the flair of a a comic book, but the moves of the greatest action hero, and even though Chris Evans gives his best performance as the Star Spangled Avenger, we all did not come to see him.
Civil War has the same appeal of X2, Just so many superheroes in the film, and it was done right. It's hard to say which is cooler, watching the spark happening between the Scarlet which and the vision. Seeing the origin of the Black Panther, or watching Tony Stark having a heart to heart with Peter Parker. Definitely the latter, because I though that Spider-Man's appearance in the film would be overkill, but you could not help but to clap when he comes on the screen. Tom Holland is going to do for Spider-Man what Christian Bale did for The Dark Knight.
For those of you who hate how these movie superheroes don't seem to go up against a proper villain, I have to say that Helmut Zemo does not have the flamboyance you expect from a villain, like if you compare him to Loki (he does have the hate of Magneto, however), he was the perfect Villain for Civil War and adds well to everything the movie is.
It's big and Epic,and action packed, and within all that is some serious drama that gets to you. Darker than you'd expect these Marvel movies to be, but still a ton of laughs and entertaining fun.
It's what Avengers: Age of Ultron could have been and what Batman Vs. Superman really (really) should have been. Sorry Deadpool, but you've been replace as my favorite superhero movie of the year!
No matter what side you pick, you win if you go see Captain America: Civil War. | 9 |
Absolutely AWEFUL! This disaster is a 2hr and 8min waste of time. Without a doubt this is one of the worst most pointless plotless movies I've ever had the misfortune of watching. Terrible acting. Terrible singing. Just a complete disaster. Proof that money buys academy awards because on merit alone... this one just adds to the fact that the academy awards are nothing more than propaganda not merit based. Wishing I could un see this one. Painful to say the least | 1 |
The ' Best movie I have ever watched'. I will take these words to the grave with me. Alfred Pacino should have won an Oscar for his role. Lee Strassberg proved that he is like a father figure both on and off the screen for Alfred Pacino. John Cazzelle will be missed, despite 5 iconic performances in 5 iconic movies. | 10 |
Nothing special about this movie, cgi make it silly at times. Story over long, nice to see the old actors, but would never watch again. | 3 |
Lots of questions never answered.
No movie ending. | 1 |
Unquestionably one of the smartest films I've seen recently, the biggest strength of Johnny Gaddaar is its unpredictability. Unlike most conventional thrillers with a heist at its core, this one's not a whodunit it can't be, because you know all along who's done it the question instead is, how's he going to get away with it? Really the film's biggest accomplishment is the manner in which it compels you, the viewer to think differently midway through the film you've got the drift, you begin to expect the unexpected, you even begin to predict what's going to happen next. That's the level of involvement you're able to muster up for this film.
Dharmendra as leader of the gang, Zakir Hussain as the crass club-owner, Vinay Pathak as the smarmy card-shark, and Neil Nitin Mukesh as the rookie, the youngest member of the gang you couldn't find better actors to fill out these roles.
Zakir Hussain in particular, stands out with a performance that is ingenious in every sense of the word. And Neil Nitin Mukesh makes an inspired debut; he's clearly an actor to look out for.
it's a thriller very unlike his own previous film Ek Hasina Thi, and very unlike most thrillers you've seen recently. Watch it because it's that rare film that actually expects you to use your brain.
8/10..! | 8 |
This is the movie for you if you enjoy 2 hours of Bill Murray doing absolutely nothing but staring into the camera. Seriously there is nothing to see here. I get the whole being an outsider in a foreign land but that doesn't change the fact that there is nothing fun to watch about the movie. Are you really going to tell me that this movie has any replay value to you? I think I would rather watch paint dry then watch this movie again.
I'm not a brain dead idiot who only enjoys Michael Bay movies either, but a movie has got to do something. You can't just use the lame excuse well it's art and you don't understand. I understand that I paid for a movie and instead I got Bill Murray bored out of his mind. Ought as well watch the weather channel if I wanted this level of excitement. | 4 |
Molly Parker is a great actor. The show has a fantastic look. 2 Stars for that. That's all the stars it gets. None of the characters are likeable. The science makes no sense. It stinks. A Solid ETM Don't bother unless you want to see something that looks good non-recommendation. | 2 |
Not that my word is worth much on here but I'll say this. Don't listen to the overwhelming positive reviews AND don't listen to the horribly bad reviews either.
It's a basic story,, has a few plot holes but nothing too bad, and the acting is semi-decent.
If you enjoy just watching this sort of thing to try and figure it out before all is explained then it's not too bad.
Turn it on, turn off your brain and blank out for 100 minutes. | 5 |
Stellar performance by Sandler, but I really never got grasped into the story. It was rather exhausting. I found my self wanting it to be over after the first 45 minutes. | 5 |
John Wick 3, instead of being an exciting action movie was ruined by fight scenes that were twice as long as they needed to be. The only truly interesting fight scene was the one with Hallie Berry and her dogs. And the scene with the horses in the stable.
In order to fully appreciate a movie like this the viewer must be able to suspend his/her disbelief. During most of this movie that was impossible. | 2 |
Best childhood cartoon I have ever seen. Enjoyed till last episode. | 10 |
6 stars for Rajkumar Rao and Pankaj Tripathi. They are best. Their part is best and worth watching it. Nepotism fails again. Poor acting by Abhishek and Aditya Roy. He just wants to act expression less and be Imran Hashmi in films.
Just one time watch, movie seems to be lengthy and boring in between when Aditya Roy and Abhishek comes in between. | 6 |
At every chance the 3 plot relevant women get hurt and yet the emotions that drive the show are those of the male dominant cast. It's a series of edge lords, preeching anti-corporate ideals in a series made by Amazon. | 1 |
Boring movie. No valubile content.Boring movie. No valubile contentBoring movie. No valubile content | 1 |
Just bad. Bad script, bad story, the movie was just a fail. Jokes not funny, annoying scenes...... Waaaaaay too long. Really, there is not much to like about this at all.
How did this happen? | 3 |
I've long been a masterpiece Monitoring, has watched it starts Serdar oldum..shahid khan khan continued, punctuated by a super godfather- faizal khan why a film like gods ctiy recital
I've long been a masterpiece Monitoring, has watched it starts Serdar oldum..shahid khan khan continued, punctuated by a super godfather- faizal khan why a film like gods ctiy recital
I've long been a masterpiece Monitoring, has watched it starts Serdar oldum..shahid khan khan continued, punctuated by a super godfather- faizal khan why a film like gods ctiy recital I've long been a masterpiece Monitoring, has watched it starts Serdar oldum..shahid khan khan continued, punctuated by a super godfather- faizal khan why a film like gods ctiy recital | 10 |
Season 1 showed some sparks of good intention and skill - casting of Geralt and Jaskier, some dialogue moments, some sets and fights were good.
It made an absolute mess of the story, using a confusing non-linear progression (a thing you shouldn't try if you're not an experienced film maker).
Season 2 suffers from most of the things than Season 1 suffered. Yes, CGI is better, yes costumes are better, but the rest seems to be amplified in stupidity. I honestly don't know who is responsible for this, but I have to blame the showrunner, Schmidt, who pretends to be a big fan of the series, yet still makes fool of herself and the fans.
Show consists of mostly dialogue - which isn't a bad thing - but most of them are gibberish, with whole conversations set up for some wannabe clever line to be inserted.
I can skip a good CGI, sets, costumes if the story is good, well paced and it seems like the director and scriptwriter knows what they are doing. It's not the case here. Everything seems so rookie about it - even the lighting, choices of props costumes for the scene (Geralt in a shirt in the middle of winter? - that snow looks horrible by the way.)
Some sets are nice (Nivellen's mansion, KM), costumes are better, but not by much - you can clearly see the difference between main cast and less important roles - they kinda looks like DnD larpers - mostly very clean, no wear and tear, just some clothes.
Changes to book story is sometimes needed to adapt to a new medium - but most of the changes here were not, it didn't add any value to the scenes, characters or anything.
Characters are not affected by events at all (where is the traumatized Ciri?), they show up everywhere in the right moments without the regard for distance. Pacing is way off, to the point you don't care about what happens next.
Acting has gone worse (for the main cast) - even Cavill seems to be kind of tired of being Geralt.
It's all a big joke - I'm so disappointed. | 2 |
This movie seemed like it was catered to my sense of humor. I also love Tom Hardy, I loved the first Venom. Not everything has to be a classic, people need to lighten up. I'm just afraid they'll ruin Venom combining it with the boring, mediocre cinematic marvel universe. | 10 |
I watched the first episode, the idea was interesting. The second episode though was about 50 minutes and I watched in like 7 minutes.
You know a show is bad/ boring/ drawn out when your finger is on the skip button for most of an episode and you miss absolutely nothing. Not once did I skip back to check something.
They're capitalizing on the fact that the game has fans, but if this continues, this won't last for sure.
The rating 9+ is actually comical. This show in on par with Game of thrones and breaking bad? Like in what universe? It's not Even on par with the walking dead and I didn't even like it that much.
If you want a proper sci-fi, go watch Raised by Wolves. | 1 |
I'm sure it's terribly clever and artsy. I could appreciate the complexity of the graphics. But I just couldn't get into the story that much. Like some others said, it seemed really long. I definitely liked the original spider man movies better. | 2 |
I watched this web series in 2018 for the first time and it was so amazing. Its story gives a lot of information at a good pace and the twists this series brought in never kept me bored. I loved how beautifully the casting was done and how everyone fits the role perfectly. Loved this series. | 9 |
Worth watching this movie after a long time................ | 10 |
"13 Reason Why" is a pretty good movie I would give it 4 out of 5 stars. I thought it wasn't bad but it wasn't my favorite movie but also this is just the first episode. I liked the way they put in the music so it match what was happening in the movie like if there was a action part the music would speed up and if was a sad part it slowed down. I like that it took part in their schools because it is easier to relate to it because we know how high school is. Some things I didn't like was if you didn't read the book I think it would be a little hard to follow with how many times it switched from the past to present in the book. One thing that made it easier to keep track was when Clay fell and got a cut on his head. Overall I would recommend it to many because it is a pretty good. | 8 |
Very good movie but a bit creepy. It is the longest movie I have ever seen so you need to hsve good time | 3 |
Ryan's worst movie after green lantern. Even green lantern was okay to watch. But this is what we call a disaster. We can expect such from Michael bay😂😂 | 1 |
I think the whole premise of this project was interesting from the start. A modernized and focused spin-off of a decades-old gothic sitcom? Sure, let's give it a try.
Without any real spoilers, the premise of the show is Wednesday Adams being forced to sign up for a boarding school for monsters. The plot is essentially a watered down monster harem anime meets Scooby Doo. A mystery is set up and it's explored with some average quality writing.
There are a handful of spot on gags that genuinely made me smile, they are the exception rather than the norm, but they were still good enough to be memorable. Detracting from the well done jokes are a few pretty annoying identity politics references that are out of place enough to stick out oddly. Keep politics out of entertainment please.
So far, I would have probably given the show a mediocre 4 stars due to very uneven writing. However, Jenna Ortega absolutely, positively, amazingly grabs the screen. She portrays her character excellently, delivers the humor, and happens to be a very beautiful person. She is everything good about this show and grabs the screen so well that she makes an otherwise mediocre Netflix show worth watching.
Writing, plot, pacing: 4/10 Jenna Ortega 10/10 Overall score: 6/10. | 6 |
Subsets and Splits