Review
stringlengths 6
10.3k
| Rating
int64 1
10
|
|---|---|
Chris Hemsworth and David Harbour did a great job. Characters aren't deep, and the potential story was wasted. Typical 90s movie, pistols had about 50 rounds in them. | 6 |
Let me say first off that I love Sam Mendes. I think he makes great movies...just not good war movies. I admire the talent it takes to make single shots, but it takes away from the art of film editing that creates emotion for a film. This is not a documentary and there is no need to make it feel like one. This movie sacrificed a lot of emotion for cinematography and it shouldn't have. There was no need for over the top scenes just to say we shot this continuously. I wanted to like this film, but it fell short of great war movies and I am left with a void. I really feel like this is the nail in the coffin for great war movies and I am really sad. | 1 |
Okay, I walked out on this one after 45m because I didn't want to lose another hour of my life on this awful movie. Absolutely nothing was convincing. Over the top CG, over-romanticized story, cheezy music, and very, very predictable. A sort of rip-off of The Good Dinosaur but then with a snowflake instead of a dino. But if you're <20 or have kids you might like it. | 3 |
Junk garbage. Not even worth to watch. Useless waste of time and money | 1 |
I had such big expectations for this movie. The trailer made it look very interesting. And, I love thrillers. I love Hugh Jackman and Maria Bello. In fact, all the actors did a very good job. However, this seemed to me no more than a Criminal Minds episode stretched to over two hours. The storyline was all over the place. The end result made sense, but took too long to get there, leaving trails never completely followed, or throwing things in that were never explained (like Jackman's not drinking for 9 1/2 years). And the end... well, unless they're doing a sequel, the end just left me thinking "that's it?". I'd prefer to watch Mystic River again than this. | 5 |
One of the best psycho thriller in Indian film history. That's the way we can define Ratsasan. 2 hours 50 minutes is a long running time for any movie. But we don't feel like it was that long. We will be up of the seats almost all the time. Don't miss it in theatres. | 6 |
Playing out the real life story of how Henry Ford the 2nd vowed to get revenge on Ferrari after a failed takeover bid that left him feeling humiliated, so decides to crush the Italian team at the infamous 24 hours of Le Mans endurance race.
Note : In the UK, the film title is 'Le Mans '66.
This story has been told by Amazon Prime's 'The grand Tour' too, and they had the good sense to keep it short to around fifteen minutes and included more technical information that this movie lacked, which would have helped to build a more rounded picture, this picture is aimed at appealing to motor racing fans in general, technical information is part and parcel of being a fan, it is not solely about the drivers, this film feels dumb down a little too much for it's own good.
The film, good presentation and accurate feel, Matt Damon plays the part of a man forced to give up racing due to ill health and focus on something else related quite well, Christian Bale is excellent as rough around the edges racer Ken Miles, it is nice to see Jon Bernthal as something other than a brutal thug that he is often cast as, Caitriona Balfe provides an excellent supporting role.
However, the film is too long at two and a half hours, a good twenty minutes could have been cut from this without removing from the core story, the relationship between Carroll Shelby and Ken Miles is the core focus at the expense of the more important finer details, such as the film's main protagonist Ferrari and his team of drivers, and instead pays attention to the boring politic's of Ford's executives, namely Leo Beebe trying to win the race his way when Carroll actually knows what needs to be done.
Overall the film is good, but it is something better enjoyed at home rather than a movie theatre, I don't regret going to see it, but I was not blown away by it either. | 7 |
Not for an instant can I recommend going to this movie. It has a few hilarious moments and for that it gets a non-zero rating, but it is really too much to stomach 3 (three!) hours of dumb jackasses behaving like wild reckless dumb jackasses, like the world only exists to serve and reward them. And time and time again, confronted with the truth that some actions eventually have their harsh consequences, they fail to react rationally and don't ever get out when things get hot until their actions take them to the critical point of no return where they can't keep escaping the inevitable and everything falls apart. The story seems to me just as an excuse to depict all that stupidity. I don't know if many people will bear it, I really didn't. It was a relief to see the movie end. | 3 |
I spent the worst twelve bucks of my entire life buying the ticket to watch this movie. I had to get out of the theater because I couldn't handle such amount of trash... Sorry for the Marvel lovers, but this movie sucks, from beginning to end. I bought the ticket taking as reference the 8.7 average the IMDb meter published. Completely disappointing. From now on I'll take more care when trusting that meter, or actually is not IMDb problem, but it's the perfect example of how humans can be dumb enough to love such an insult to the story telling job. Or is a movie made just for the Marvel geeks?? But really, I think its just business. For those who seek profound stories, this is not the one, at all. You'll regret for sure if you watch the movie. A considerable huge amount of the film is war, explosions, sound-effects. In not a complete enemy of cinema effects when they are used for good, like Avatar, but, this time is empty from bottom to top. I guess it's just the way of making business and earn a lot of money. It's ironic, after watching the movie (part of it) I started to believe that humans were made to be ruled and submitted, even when we deny it. And loving this movie is the example. | 3 |
American Fiction is remarkable film-remarkable in its daring satirical humor, its abundant pathos in its portrayal of a family, and its takedown of the American publishing industry. Based on the novel Erasure by Percival Everett, which I downloaded to my Kindle after I got home from the movie, it stars Jeffrey Wright as Thelonious (Monk) Ellison, a professor and critically acclaimed novelist who cannot sell his latest book. In frustration at publishing's preference for "ghetto" books, he dashes off a pandering, exploitative novel under the pseudonym Stagg R. Leigh. The book becomes a huge bestseller and award contender, which complicates his life.
While I will reveal no spoilers, I can speak to the accuracy of the film's presentation of what it means to be a writer. As a professor emeritus and novelist, I did, of course, identify with Monk's frustrations at the direction of his career, the loneliness inherent in being a writer, his talks with his agent, and, having served on so many of them, his time on an awards committee. Moreover, as part of a large family and having had a father die of Alzheimer's, I also identified with the family drama and his efforts to address his mother's dementia. Supporting performances by Tracee Ellis Ross, Sterling K. Brown, Issa Rae, Erika Alexander, and Leslie Uggams are all outstanding.
What the film did NOT do-apart from a mention of declining readership-is explain how our culture has come to this ridiculous point. Fortunately, I believe I have a bit of insight into that. Last weekend's Wait! Wait! Don't Tell Me mentioned a study that noted the average person read two books a year-the SAME information I learned at a teacher's conference in 1976. Back then, U. S. publishing turned out about 60,000 books per year, and the average book sold 1,000 copies or fewer. Today, the U. S. publishes half a million to a million books a year, with the Big Five publishers turning out 20% of the titles but earning 60-plus% of the revenue for controlling 80% of the market. With perhaps 300 hundred titles making it to the New York Times bestseller list and 4,000 covered by Publisher's Weekly, thousands upon thousands of books-good, bad, and ugly-are simply overlooked-even titles inside the majors. (I have written before of a writer I know whose mystery novel was published by St. Martin's the same year they published Silence of the Lambs. No mystery where that advertising money went.) The end result of all this is that the average book now sells 300 copies or fewer. Lots of smaller presses go out of business each year, and lots of writers with bigger houses are let go because their ever-greedy publishers want to increase the number of bestsellers in their stable.
The US had 218 million people in 1976 and now has about 340 million. Blame TV, video games, social media, or Google searches that people think equal advanced degrees in medicine, science, law, psychology, and every other field of complex knowledge-but we're still reading an average of two books a year. Even as book banners attack libraries and schools and try to legislate away books they don't like, even as our profound inability to understand history and attempts to erase it make us likelier to repeat its mistakes and overlook its truths, even as evidence means less and less to our national debates. The questions we must ask are WHY and how does selective subliteracy (willful ignorance) impact our lives?
Like The Producers, The King of Comedy, Putney Swope, Being There, and Dr. Strangelove, American Fiction hold up a social mirror too many are unwilling to gaze into. See this film and look hard. | 10 |
After viewing The Dark Knight, I can only say that I was a little disappointed. Look, the film was enjoyable and had some great moments but for me, did not meet my expectations. I would hardly consider this film to be in the top 10 greatest movies of all time or the top 100 for that fact.In saying this however, Heath Ledger's performance was fantastic and should be considered one of th greatest villains ever. I thoroughly enjoyed the direction by Chris Nolan and sincerely enjoy the darker batman but for me the script was a little sloppy with many holes and at a 152 minute running time i thought the film was never going to end. Although, on a whole, Nolan's story was a great one to be told and the film should be considered as one of the greatest comic book adaptations of all time. | 6 |
Then a truck goes goes goes.. then a motorcycle goes goes.. a helicopter flies flies flies ... Nothing anymore. If you want to not waste your time, dont watch it. | 3 |
I could have actually cried watching this. Dr. Strange is one of my favourite Marvel movies but this was just plain awful. 1 hour in and I was debating leaving. Marvel are losing their touch, and ever since Endgame, it just hasn't felt the same, apart from NWH. Sam Raimi messed up big time. | 4 |
The action in this movie is fantastic. At one point my jaw was dropped for like 6 minutes straight. Entertaining and intense. My only downsides are that the best action scene was early in the movie, and even though they do a good job of making you care, it also hurts the movie when they are mowing down "bad guys," many of who are just doing their job.
(2 viewings, 5/4/2020, 6/15/2023) | 7 |
The first season is one of the best show I've seen. It got all the perfect formula for a great TV shows. Great soundtrack, great dialogue, great casting, great action scene, and most importantly great storyline. All the characters have some meaning and goals to achieve that make us rooting for the good guys, and also still emphasize with the bad guys. But oh man Season 2 is so wrong in many level. The story seems forced, and it feels like all the character running around with no purpose. Homelander still of of control, and still have an anger issue (no character development). The other 'The Seven' seems powerless all the time. And the worst part is, Butcher who used to be a respectfull and smart leader, in season 2 he's become a stupid, annoying, Mr. Know it all, cocky, hard-headed, and heartless. He keep on risking the life of other people just to get his revenge. I really just hate everything about season 2, but still watching it just for the sake of seeing how they going to take down Homelander. | 7 |
Just seen it again with my whole family. We all enjoyed the great action comedy from this masterpiece. | 10 |
I hovered for a while over 5/10, but then this isn't an average film...it's below-average. There's not much to recommend it other than McConaughey's decent performance.
Here's a few things that's wrong with this picture:
the daughter is, to put it bluntly, a stuck-up bitch to her Dad: surely the most undeserving daughter in the entire universe of a reunion with a long-lost father. At least that's how she was portrayed.
the premise is pure shlock daftness: it's a silly idea dreamt up as any old excuse for the journey. And I say this as a hard sci-fi fan (or rather, hard sci-fi taught me that the premise in a story was important).
It's not a 1/10 or 2/10, for those are reserved for the absolute worst film I'd consider rating (something like Pacific Rim or Sphere). But 5/10 is genuinely too kind, considering all the things wrong with it.
For some perspective: I largely agree with the high scores of all the other films in the IMDb Top 20, and Nolan's last two Batmans are worth a 7/10 (Inception's an 8). Interstellar is just one of those films where I don't for the life of me understand the praise.
Recommended for emotional girls with daddy issues. | 3 |
I wanted to hate the movie. Without thinking, I said to myself immediately upon hearing the premise, "Ripoff from 'A Quiet Place.'" Not only was that factually incorrect, as the book was written before "A Quiet Place," but the movement of the story line was also different. There were some similarities though, and the similarities were the shortcomings of both. Both had glaring inconsistencies that others have pointed out, and impossibilities that had to be ignored. However, neither movie was ruined by these problems. It is a horror fantasy movie and to enjoy it you have to suspend belief quite a bit. Many good horror/fantasy movies require this. If you are capable of doing that, then you can enjoy the movie. I liked it. | 7 |
This movie is one of the best marvel movies made because of the badass action scenes | 10 |
Wasted acting talent thanks to awful direction, script, and editing. This show is incredibly cheesy and not in a cute way. I love anti-hero stories such as Deadpool. I enjoy satire like Team America: World Police. But this production is just not enjoyable after giving 2 episodes a try. I really wanted to like it because of recommendations and because the plot seems promising. But this production was very poorly executed. I'm unclear why the masses on IMDB are rating this series a 9/10. But then again, there was a time when Suicide Squad was highly praised by an audience with incredibly low expectations.
If you enjoyed the 2016 Suicide Squad film, and/or The Umbrella Academy series on Netflix, this may be your cup of tea. | 9 |
Queen is a 2014 Indian comedy-drama film by Viacom 18 Motion Pictures and Phantom Films. Directed by Vikas Bahl, the film stars Kangana Ranaut, Lisa Haydon and Rajkummar Rao in lead roles.
Rani (Kangana Ranaut) is a 24-year-old Punjabi girl living in Rajouri Garden, Delhi. She is from a very conservative family; her brother escorts her everywhere for her safety. Two days before her marriage, her fiancé Vijay (Rajkummar Rao) meets with her in a local café to tell her he no longer wants to marry her, claiming he has changed, and she would not match his lifestyle anymore. Shocked at the development, Rani shuts herself in her room for a day.
She decides to take control of her life and plans to go alone on her pre-booked honeymoon to visit her favourite place, Paris - which she'd never seen before - and Vijay's favourite place, Amsterdam. After initially hesitating, her parents agree, thinking that a vacation might cheer her up and Rani departs.The movie this point onwards is totally awesome and super hilarious!!!!!! | 9 |
THE COOLEST AND THE BEST MOVIE EVER I REALLY WANT TO WATCH IT FOR THE 3rd TIME NOW | 10 |
I watched the movie because the internet hyped John Wick so much. I expected something like a "Constantine" or "Speed"-like skript, but was very disappointed. The story is flat and quite random, the dialogues mostly unnecessary and the acting pretty cheap. These actors can do much better. Only hiring slightly prestigious people doesn't make a good movie. | 2 |
Mind numbing script. Vacuous acting. Incredibly frustrating scenes to watch. And then there's the next level insane social engineering the writers are trying desperately to stuff down your throat. All in all this was a shirt-tearingly bad expansion upon the 1998 film that holds such a nostalgic place in my heart. I wish the very worst upon everyone involved in the creation of this series. | 1 |
It's winter of 1981, statistically the most violent year in New York City's history. Based on that time period, the film, A Most Violent Year, centres on the lives of Abel (Isaac) and Anna Morales (Chastain) as they try to expand their business and capitalise on opportunities. Yet, through the rampant violence, decay and corruption of that year, they slowly become involved as it threatens to destroy all they have built.
Rape, stealing and murder are frequent broadcasts over the overly- large car radios. Which, to the excessive-downfall of Abel - who is trying to achieve the American Dream through legitimate means - is forced into situations that are not so legal, as his oil empire is under threat by harrowing competitors. That, plus the ambitious district attorney (David Oyelowo) is sniffing around with hopes of bringing him to jail.
It's tense. But writer, director, J. C Chandor's true genius however, is that he establishes a contrasts between an anti-gangster character in an overly-gangster environment. It explores the expected thuggish behaviours, yet with minimal gunfire, car-chases and explosions. Instead of the loud violence, A Most Violent Year focuses on silent territorial wars and atmospheric dealings, which slowly drag Abel into the law enforcement radar.
Through the dark underworld of maddening violence, Oscar Isaac's humble-seeming business mogul is not presented as either a hero, or an anti-hero - just a man who is trying to protect what he has. But, whilst Isaac is not physically intimidating – his class and approach to the situations make him much bigger than his enemies. It strongly echoes tones of Michael Corleone in both theme and expressionless monologue; likewise, his distance from crime is tested as his moral compass is slips.
Courtesy of Alex Ebert, the film's orchestral score even sounds like something suited for the Corleone family. Visually, it does too, as renowned cinematographer, Bradford Young, captures the iconic palette of mono-tones, dim-lit rooms and 80's city vistas.
Jessica Chastain continues her already strong acting streak, as she plays Abel's wife. A pragmatic woman, who displays a Macbeth-esqe hold over him: controlling and manipulating his ideals into illegally inclined methods of success. It's like Bonnie and Clyde, but without the violence.
Like Scorsese does, Chandor manages to craft a gritty juxtaposition between crime and survival during an earlier set period. It's like The Godfather, French Connection and various other mafia ventures - smart over loud - and an instant classic. | 9 |
Love the show but the fake laughs in the background are annoying but I get why it's there. | 8 |
If I hadn't watched both versions of The Killing and The Bridge before, I would have given it a 8. But I feel that Mare of Easttown took more than inspiration from those works: a dark, depressing theme, family issues surrounding each and every one of the characters... . I mean, even the main characters looked similar to The Killing's. In summary, unoriginal nordic noir - but in the US. Which made it unrealistic and unnecessarily dark. And sometimes boring, like if parts of the script and the plot were AI-generated. However, cast and image are good, it manages to keep you hooked, and it has some unexpected, fun moments. Give it a chance if you have the time! | 6 |
'HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 1': Four Stars (Out of Five)
I'm not a big 'HARRY POTTER' fan, I've never read any of the books and although I've seen all the movies I've never been that involved in any of them. Although I'm a huge fan of creative and imaginative sci-fi and fantasy the world of 'Harry Potter' has never been that fascinating or interesting to me. With that said I do admire and respect the films for being able to capture the essence of the books (I'm told) and so effectively deliver what the fans want to see. Despite a rough start with the first two films (the poorest received by fans and critics alike) the films have gotten better and more mature, for the most part, with each installment (despite a mild setback with 2007's 'HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX', the next worst received of the series). It is only fitting that as the characters mature the movies do as well and this installment is by far the darkest and most mature yet; I'd imagine it's far too frightening for most young children.
The film is once again directed by David Yates, who has directed the last three films as well as the upcoming final chapter. The only other director in the series to direct more than one installment was Chris Columbus, who directed the first two films (and many thought butchered the job). It's once again written by Steve Kloves (adapted from J.K. Rowling's book of course) who's written every single film adaptation in the series except for 'ORDER OF THE PHOENIX', which was written by Michael Goldenberg (and is where the series faltered of course). Daniel Radcliffe (who is now 21), Emma Watson (20) and Rupert Grint (22) all reprise their roles of Harry, Hermione and Ron. The film is adapted from the first half of the seventh and last book of the series.
The film continues the story of Harry, Ron and Hermione's continuing journey to thwart the plans of the evil Lord Voldemort (once again played by Ralph Fiennes) and save the 'Wizarding World'. Voldermort now has control of the 'Ministry of Magic and Hogwarts' and as the movie opens the 'Order of the Phoenix' meets to move Harry from Pivet Drive to the Burrow by flying him there to avoid the Ministry's detection. They also use a special potion in order to create Harry lookalikes to confuse any 'Death Eaters' that might attack mid-flight. After surviving an immediate attack they make it to the burrow with some casualties. Once there they begin preparing for a wedding during which they are again attacked by Death Eaters. Harry, Ron and Hermione escape to central London to continue the late Dumbledore's mission of finding the Horcruxes and destroying them in order to defeat Voldermort. The problem is that once they find one they have no idea how to destroy it. Things get dismal and convoluted and the story stretches on (and it's only half over).
I found my mind drifting, losing interest and becoming confused on what was going on several times during the movie (as I do with all the films) but I was always visually captivated with what was being depicted in front of me. The cinematography, by Eduardo Serra, is breathtaking and Yate's directing has only gotten better and more interesting with each film. The way he handles the subtlest of character driven scenes is fascinating, as well as his adept ability to orchestrate a complex action scene. The score by Alexandre Desplat is involving but minimally used to great effect. Although I had a hard time focusing at times and felt the story dragged on too long I did admire how well executed it is and could tell if I was a fan of the material I would have been captivated. The filmmaker's obviously treat their fans very seriously and don't talk down to them at all. I like how much more mature the films have gotten with time and truly feel that they're no longer kids' films. I'm still not a big fan of the series but I can always admire a well made movie and this (like most before it) is one.
Watch our review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEG4WJ28XNA | 8 |
The only remarkable thing about Francis Ford Coppola's "The Godfather, Part II" is the insistent manner in which it recalls how much better his original film was. Among other things, one remembers "The Godfather's" tremendous narrative drive and the dominating presence of Marlon Brando in the title role, which, though not large, unified the film and transformed a super-gangster movie into a unique family chronicle.
"Part II," also written by Mr. Coppola and Mario Puzo, is not a sequel in any engaging way. It's not really much of anything that can be easily defined.
It's a second movie made largely out of the bits and pieces of Mr. Puzo's novel that didn't fit into the first. It's a Frankenstein's monster stitched together from leftover parts. It talks. It moves in fits and starts but it has no mind of its own. Occasionally it repeats a point made in "The Godfather" (organized crime is just another kind of American business, say) but its insights are fairly lame at this point.
"The Godfather, Part II," which opened yesterday at five theaters, is not very far along before one realizes that it hasn't anything more to say. Everything of any interest was thoroughly covered in the original film, but like many people who have nothing to say, "Part II" won't shut up.
Not the least of its problems is its fractured form. "Part II" moves continually back and forth in time between two distinct narratives. It's the story of the young Vito Corleone (who grew up to be played by Marlon Brando in the first movie) seen first around the turn of the century in Sicily and then in 1917 in New York, where he's played by Robert De Niro, and it's the story of Vito's son, Michael, played again by Al Pacino, the new Mafia don who sets out to control Las Vegas in the late nineteen-fifties.
One story doesn't necessarily illuminate the other, it's just additional data, like footnotes. I can't readily imagine what Mr. Coppola and Mr. Puzo were trying to do, except to turn their first film into a long parenthesis that would fit between the halves of the new movie.
Even if "Part II" were a lot more cohesive, revealing and exciting than it is, it probably would have run the risk of appearing to be the self- parody it now seems.
Looking very expensive but spiritually desperate, "Part II" has the air of a very long, very elaborate revue sketch. Nothing is sacred. The photography by Gordon Willis, so effective originally, is now comically fancy—the exteriors are too bright and glow while the interiors are so dark you wonder if these Mafia chiefs can't afford to buy bigger light bulbs.
Nino Rota's old score keeps thumping away like a heavenly juke box. The performers, especially those repeating their original roles, seem locked into waxy rigid attitudes. Mr. Pacino, so fine the first time out, goes through the film looking glum, sighing wearily as he orders the execution of an old associate or a brother, winding up very lonely and powerful, which is just about the way he wound up before. Mr. De Niro, one of our best young actors, is interesting as the young Vito until, toward the end of his section of the film, he starts giving a nightclub imitation of Mr. Brando's elderly Vito.
There are a couple of notable exceptions. Lee Strasberg, the head of the Actors Studio, makes an extraordinarily effective screen debut as Hyman Roth, the powerful Jewish mobster (reportedly modeled on Meyer Lansky) with whom Michael attempts to take over the Havana rackets under the Battista regime. Mr. Strasberg's Roth is a fascinating mixture of lust, ruthlessness and chicken soup. Michael V. Gazzo, the playwright ("A Hatful of Rain"), is also superb as a Corleone captain who crosses the Family. Another more or less non pro, G. D. Spradlin (a former politician, according to publicity sources) is absolutely right as a crooked, very WASPish United States Senator from Nevada.
The plot defies any rational synopsis, but it allows Mr. Coppola, in his role as director, to rework lots of scenes that were done far better the first time: family reunions, shoot-outs, ambushes and occasional dumb exchanges between Don Michael Corleone and his square, long-suffering wife, Kay (Diane Keaton). "Oh, Michael," says the slow-to-take-offense Kay when Michael is about to sew up the Vegas rackets, "seven years ago you told me you'd be legitimate in five years." | 10 |
Just Got Watching This Movie It's Ok And A Bit Boring Action Was Fun Tho | 2 |
House of the Dragon is the canonical prequel to the world's favourite fantasy television series, Game of Thrones, itself an adaptation of 'A Song of Ice and Fire' from George RR Martin and further showing that there's plenty of room for Westeros to grow on the small screen inside and out of the Stark, Baratheon and Lannister Families.
Sure this series is a slower burner than Game of Thrones' best stories, but it's not deadbeat boring or monotonous; instead House of the Dragon has a more singular focus on the Targaryen Family some 170+ years before Daenerys changed the fate of The Seven Kingdoms forever. And this shift to singular family stuff is a far cry from the world-sprawling and 'character-jumping' seen in Game of Thrones, but it still works because we're seeing more of Westeros' unspoken history play out on the screen.
House of the Dragon has stuff that plays RIGHT into viewers' expectations yet there's also stuff that's far-fetched from their expectations too. And though it's a prequel, there's not a SINGLE familiar face in sight and keeps the story safe from 'prequelitis' where you KNOW one of the characters is gonna be okay in the end. Everyone's drawn from new blood here, and we're gonna see how it ties to the Game of Thrones show before the show is over.
Overall, though the show isn't medium-shattering entertainment (yet) like Game of Thrones turned out to be, House of the Dragon is a nice return to a world we were clearly not over with. We're back in the Westeros playbook; and we're gonna see more stuff that's diving deeper into the world we grew to love in the first place.
House of the Dragon may please some; it may frustrate some; but it's an earnest Game of Thrones continuation giving us assurances that Season 8 was not the end of the story by a long shot.
This relatively brand new show is a hit. Maybe not for EVERYONE, but for those who were aching for more Westeros, it's a welcome addition to our beloved world. 4/5 stars. | 8 |
This film delves straight into the restrictive hellish world of two incompatable individuals which leads to psychosis of sorts and it stays there for almost two hours without any respite. After 45 minutes of this I felt numb, then annoyed, detached and finally bored. Would have been great if film was one hour shorter or if I left after one hour. There was no development in its bleakness. Didn t even feel empathic for the character trying to see and experience the light and get out of his psychosis without success. Not a film without its merits though. Would have been better on stage instead on film | 3 |
I'm surprised that at the time of writing this review, this is so highly rated (7.2 / 10). I have given a generous 4 / 10. I thought the acting was bad, characters lacked depth, I don't know why they gave Daniel Craig such an elaborate accent, his usual posh accent would have been fine?
Even the way the film is shot was not really great in terms of angles etc, except for a couple of nice aesthetics in terms of buildings (assuming special effects for the glass onion?)
Storyline seemed weak. And the beginning to the movie (opening sequences) were just sort of... confusing.
The whole movie felt a bit cheap and trying to be cool / funny (but failing). Disappointing! | 4 |
Awesome show . Henry C is cast so perfectly cast as the lead character. The production is high and direction is awesome ! Such an exciting show probably better than GoT . This is the best show in tv now ! Long live the Witcher !
***Update started to become boring and lost interest due to story failing to become more as episodes went on **** perhaps the source material is juvenile as well ? | 6 |
Interstellar is a mixed bag, one that makes my emotions flip-flop more than a campaigning politician. On the positive side, the scifi technology, sound design, and score are all initially arresting, with the balletic space visuals and effects greying the line between reality and movie-magic. It's undeniably gorgeous and (at times) speechlessly engrossing
so why I am struggling? Maybe it's because my love for the positives is only outmatched by my disdain for the negatives: the ponderous dialogue, the Shyamalan-like "what-a-twist!" moments, the bulky length, the dishonest ending. Nolan shot for the moon, got distracted by the stars, and missed his target. Interstellar follows a small band of renegade explorers (led by a nicely grounded performance by McConaughey) who, through a wormhole in space, travel to the furthest parts of the universe to find a new planet for humanity to inhabit. The plot is a science/space enthusiast's dream that combines the terror of Kubrick's 2001
and the awe Spielberg's Close Encounters
, only Interstellar is more contrived or melodramatic than either. It's a fascinating study of time and the lengths we go for those we love, but the ponderous, self-aware and weepy nature of the heavily thematic discourse softens the impact, most apparently in the unbearably doe-eyed Hathaway. Every Nolan film is an event, and each is worth grappling with. They are filled with big ideas and big visuals in big worlds. If he could self-edit better, Interstellar could easily be a 5 star film that goes down in the annals of scifi movies. Unfortunately, much of the 169 minutes is too gloriously flawed to be fully recommendable. | 5 |
Lion King 2019 adaptation of original 1994 Lion King.
the visuals of this movie are mindblowing kudos to creators of the movie they've done an amazing job, everything thing looks too realistic Grass, Sky, Animals, Insects, WOW!! everything looks amazing. the voice cast of this movie is amazing too James Earl Jones as Mufasa nailed it, Seth Rogen, as Pumbaa is amazing other great things in this movie is just like 1994 Lion King.
The story is amazing just like 1994 Lion King, characters awesome as in 1994 Lion King, Timon & Pumbaa funny as always like they were in 1994.
This movie is a Copy paste of 1994 Lion King. This movie has no soul of its own.
There are very few things that are new in the movie, the new things are either removed or shortened from the movie 1994 Lion King. Like the song "Can you feel the love tonight" takes place in full noon, so the new title of the song "Can you feel the love this afternoon" LOL. For me, the most disappointing thing in the movie is that is exactly same as the 1994 classic animated movie. the movie is the same but with a realistic look.
This movie should not have been done. the original movie was perfect. if someone takes this story and altered it we'll be like "OMG!! You killed the classic lion king".
Another issue I have with this movie is that it is live-action. in live-action these characters(Animals) are unable to show any emotions like their animated predecessor. Same issue I had with Aladdin. The fight scene between Simba and scar looks like two lions fighting each other, there are no emotions of the face of Simba shouts NO!! when he sees his dad(Mufasa) falling off the cliff, it looks like a club opening his mouth. Talking about characters, a lot is taken away especially with Rafiki, watch both 1994 lion king and this movie you'll get it. they have removed so much of his humour. if you people are going for a cut to cut remake why remove that. I know you wanted to do something new but now I'm complaining. This movie should never have been made. | 4 |
Hannah character is completely over compensated thru out the whole second season. Her character put herself in positions that led to her demise. It's a sob story at this point | 5 |
This movie, directed by Sam Raimi, has everything to be one of the best super-hero movie of all time. From the villain to the teen drama's themes, everything was perfect. | 10 |
I'm just disgusted. A film with a lot of potential was spoiled by a horribly bad script. The screenwriter didn't know if she was writing a comedy, horror or action film. My opinion is that there were plenty of mistakes that don't match the comic book premise. A rushed story that makes Eddie look like a real loser and an incompetent idiot. They make Cletus Kasada all knowing and Carnage a hight tech IT connoisseur who can hack everything :D . The movie had many variations of how to do it but they took it from the wrong end. The short story with no logic was just icing on the cake. The cameo at the end partly saves it. | 6 |
It was good. Not great. Would have been WAAAAY better with an R ratting. It's CARNAGE! Stupid love on Sony going PG13. Please wait to see it on a streaming service to teach them a lesson. | 6 |
Charlie will show you what is love.. What is loyality..
Don't miss it such an emotional movie ❤🍿 feel it theaters.
CHARLiE❤
The movie was captured perfectly. Excellent performance from rakshith shetty.
Its sure 777 Charlie will give you a superbbb experience. The movie also gives the message that gid will always hold you even when you lost everyone who loves youu. God will always keeps something special for you at your worst to rise you up. | 10 |
Love the cast and especially selna gomez really add some great colors to the show. | 10 |
Despite its notable production quality, Gen V's relentless pursuit of shock tactics ultimately detracts from its potential.
While the intricate storytelling and character development show promise, the overwhelming emphasis on excessive gore and violence creates a jarring experience that may alienate even the most devoted fans of the franchise.
The frequent and purposeless portrayal of full frontal male nudity not only fails to contribute to the narrative but also raises questions about the artistic direction of the series.
It seems as though the creators prioritized sensationalism over substance, leaving viewers longing for the depth and nuance that characterized the earlier installments.
One can't help but feel that Gen V missed the opportunity to explore more meaningful themes, opting instead for a superficial and unsettling approach that overshadowed its potential brilliance.
It's a regrettable deviation from the franchise's legacy, leaving a bitter aftertaste that lingers long after the final credits roll. | 2 |
This show is lame. It feels like Xena and Hercules. The script is awful. The CGI is garbage. The makeup effects look like they're straight out of the original Star Wars in Mos Eisley Cantina. So disappointed. | 4 |
Im a huge Loki fan this was barely watchable. Literally not worth watching at all. If you have a Disney Plus subscription the Falcon and the Winter Soldier is good but Loki is trash. | 5 |
I watched this film when I was a kid, then as a teenager, then twice as an adult. I watch a lot of classic films, foreign and domestic (US), and I am very open minded in my movie selection. Apart from the music score and somber and tragic mood in the film, I find tp be it very unappealing. The cinematography is wonderful, no doubt, but the story telling, script, and acting as mediocre. Marlon Brando's acting has always been overrated, I always heard Marlon Brando, this, Marlon Brando that, I saw 5 of his films and I never watched others. HE's got to be one of the worst actors that ever set foot on a set. Al Pacino acts like he is running on a 2 volt battery in this movie, and they're supposed to be Italians right? Mafia or otherwise Italians do not behave as they do in this movie, and this causes the film to lose credibility. Al Pacino is an amazing actor, my favorite, but in this movie he is mediocre. The Godfather is a great story but the film fails to glue me to the TV. Huge cast, wonderful music and cinematography, what a waste of talent. | 2 |
I hate disney remakes with a growing passion due to the fact they have no right to exist as, if there is already a perfect version, why recreate it so many years later. They are meant to be made to create a new insight into these classic stories and convey a modern 'reimagined' take on them. In reality however, they act as nothing but a money making scheme that is destroying all creativity and originality that disney once had. I also think its terrible how many people want to watch these remakes just because they are blinded by nostalgia. At the end of the day no one will be showing future generations the newer versions, they will always show them the originals as they are supior everyway.
This new 'live action' lion king however, a film that completely lacks originality and creativity in every category, is definitely the worst of the worst. The original lion king is debated as one of the best animated movies of all time and this film tried to cash into how monumental the original was. For obvious reasons, this backfired completely as there is no effort put into this film. So much so that they even casted people who were in the original which just makes the film literally a carbon copy, the only difference being all the magic that was once there has been sucked out of it. The voice acting is bland, the music is mediocre and even the ground braking effects aren't anything special, as the effects on the animals doesn't allow any emotion to be expressed during a sad or happy moment.
Overall this film is a lazy money making film that has no right to exist. If you are thinking about watching it, go watch the original, you won't regret it! | 3 |
In the era of film shredding, films such as Christopher Nolan's Interstellar seem to be something out of the ordinary. It seems like fiction, which is a lot on the screens, and the actors are recognizable, and the plot is simplest, but no, Nolan knows how to present the story in such a way that neither fans nor opponents of the director can do without thinking about it. Interstellar frightens with its timing - almost 3 hours. About 40-50 years ago, three-hour films, such as "The Godfather" or "Lawrence of Arabia", were the norm, but in the XXI century the changed pace of life of people affected the fact that it became difficult for viewers to incubate three hours in cinema, so the timing began to be reduced, and moviegoers were already waiting for the release of director's versions. Indeed, after the release of the third part of The Lord of the Rings and Dogville in 2003, 180-minute films disappeared from the screens. But the appearance of the Hobbit trilogy, the Nymphomaniac dilogy, the films Cloud Atlas, Django Liberated, Adele's Life, Hard to Be God, The Wolf of Wall Street and finally Interstellar changed the situation.
The film amazed me primarily with the musical component. Hans Zimmer is a genius. His music gives the paintings additional charm. At Interstellar, she excites, fascinates and does not let go. The acting team is great: Matthew McConaughey, who suddenly turned into a really serious actor after playing Ron Woodroof; Anne Huttaway, also the Oscar winner, looks very organic and emotional in the film; representatives of the older generation of actors Michael Kane, Ellen Burstin and John Lithgow - immediately make you remember their old, well-known roles; wonderful Jessica Chastain, although not on the screen for a short time here, makes a great impression; Matt Damon is not immediately recognized: it's hard to believe that this is no longer the young guy from Will Hunting's Smart.
The most interesting thing is whether Interstellar will repeat the success of Gravity at the Oscars. After all, in this regard, he has much more artistic merits. Definitely, movies should be watched and drawn independently. It is also unambiguous that the film will surely scold what the light is worth, because we live in an era of saturated viewer, who will no longer be surprised or pleased with anything. | 6 |
Awesome movie . It left a mark and trust me movie has a great storyline and acting . Naram naram and garam garam | 10 |
A beautiful story with Spielberg opening up about his life, family relationships and finding his calling. It's a beautiful on how divorce can occur. Steven Spielberg opens up his family history and invites us in to see how marital relationships are built up or brought down.
Paul Dano does a beautiful job as does the young Stephen Spielberg. Beautifying even tough times in life.
Am inspiring break through witnbiis uter
It's a vulnerable testament of how a famous person can share their lives. It takes such courage and provides enlightenment. Yes it is about his calling in film-- but so much more. | 7 |
It has been ten years since Spielberg last went full blockbuster (Indiana Jones 4) - his effort in the last decade predominantly spent on Oscar-bait historical dramas - so it's a delight to see him back in gleeful popcorn mode. Set in Columbus, Ohio circa 2045, this pop-culture adventure follows the pure-of-heart Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan) as he searches for the ultimate digital Easter Egg within the OASIS, a virtual world that has all but replaced the real one. Adapted from Ernest Cline's cult-classic novel of the same name, the script is a labyrinth of references to movies and video games that progresses at such a fast pace there's barely a chance to realise just how banal the follow-the-clues plot actually is. There are so many winks and nods it's impossible to catch them all on a first viewing, but the standout by miles is a lengthy sequence that pays homage to Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. It's completely unexpected, but remarkably funny in a heartfelt way. The opening set piece is an exhilarating car race with crazy injects (T-Rex! King Kong!), however the action slowly decreases in excitement until a climactic battle that is disappointingly uninventive, save for the fact that we see Disney's Iron Giant in combat. The visualisation of the OASIS is a tad off-putting too, the in-movie virtual world consisting of almost-photorealistic characters who occasionally suffer from the uncanny valley effect. Some may argue this is intentional, but it's distracting nevertheless. This isn't close to reaching top-tier blockbuster-Spielberg, and at 140 minutes is waaaay too long, but Ready Player One is a joyful spot-the-reference romp that offers up enough to put a smile on your face. | 6 |
I saw the first Fantastic Beast film prior to this one, and while it had its fair share of problems, I really did enjoy most of the film. It's a fun action and character flick, manages to sell some very good character development with a good deal of fun and tense action.
This movie however somehow manages to set up what is going to be a very disappointing end to a trilogy. While the first Fantastic Beasts film managed to sell a very convincing three act structure led by a clear A and B plot, Beasts 2 has so many plots occurring at the same time it's hard to follow them.
To make matters worse, Johnny Depp as Grindelwald is not given a chance to shine. He gives a good performance, but the script just isn't there, for any character. Especially Dumbledore.
This just doesn't feel like the Albus Dumbledore I know from the books or films. Even as a thirty to fifty year old man.
There's fan service and plot holes galore, made dozens of times worse by the poor character writing, pacing, and plot. These don't feel like the same characters from the last film, and worst of all, most big reveals or plot beats come across as either retcons, nonsensical, or at times worst.
In simpler terms, this film can't even get by on the skin of its teeth like the last film.
I actually wanted nothing more than a film depicting the first Global Wizarding War and Grindelwald's reign of terror. The problem is, everything is so messy and rushed, that they don't have enough time to flesh out anything.
And again, anything that is developed is too rushed and or clumsy and nonsensical to be considered solid.
The film's fatal flaw is that this series probably wasn't planned as a trilogy except without pushing from marketing and the studio. This didn't need to be a trilogy, but they combined two very different aspects of the Harry Potter universe into this rushed mess of a film to make more money. And what we got is just this odd disappointment.
At this point, with Johnny Depp leaving the franchise, there's nothing left but a very predictable and boring third film in this ever dwindling Harry Potter movie franchise.
In my opinion, if JKR, Warner Brother's and the Wizarding World corporates want to save the movie franchise they need to make films the fans actually want to see in a coherent way. Like of course, a Marauders film that can be an alternate universe of the book's original events.
Or even a Marauder's AU miniseries.
This is of course entering fanfiction/AU territory, but at this point with how incongruent with canon they've gotten it wouldn't be a step too far. | 6 |
I love quirky movies. Movies that don't fit into normal molds. The plot seemed interesting and was definitely something unexpected. The beginning of this movie seemed like it might go that way...and it did, but not in a way that we expected or enjoyed. There is so much going on here that the plot gets overshadowed with tricks that beg "look here" and "look there". Instead, we kept looking at our watches bored and waiting for something else to happen. Sadly, it just doesn't come together as cohesively as we had hoped. At the end of the movie, we all looked at each other and asked "what was that?" | 4 |
It's always a shame when people think "more realistic" means "better" when it comes to animation.
The original "Lion King" wasn't made as a handdrawn, cartoony movie, because they simply didn't have the technology to make it look more realistic. Of course, they didn't have the tech to make it look like todays CGI movies, but they certainly could have drawn the characters to look more like actual lions.
But they didn't. Because why would you? Despite all the animals in the leading roles, we are still dealing with characters, with emotions and personalities, which real animals can't really express in the same way. Cartoony animals can. And in the original movie, they do. And the emotionial resonance that movie had sticks with so many people up until today. And can even be felt by people, watching it today for the first time.
None of this is true for this remake.
It recreates large parts of the movie shot by shot, the dialogues are often lifted straight from the original... but it doesn't have any of the charm, the emotion or the LIFE the original still has.
The entire concept behind this remake is so misguided. It's like remaking a Looney Toons cartoon with foto realistic animals. If you're trying you are clearly missing something.
Obviously the CGI is spectacular. It really is. It's a technical marvel, this movie! And I can't imagine how many people and hours it took, to put this together!
But what's the point, when, at the end of the day, the story telling is worse than in the movie it used as template? And make no mistake, the storytelling IS worse. Aside from the fact that the characters are incapable of showing emotions and lack ANY personality (my god, what have they done to Scar, one of the most charismatic villains in Disney canon?) because of that insistance on making it look "realistic", even the script and details in the presentation are worse. What works about the story of this movie is the stuff that was already good in the original. And every change they made is for the worse. The humor is a lot more cringe, the voice acting at times is really bad (couldn't they have hired a voice actor for strong, majestic Mufasa that didn't sound THIS old and tired?).
Great, they got John Oliver as Zazu. Because he looks a bit like an odd bird, is British and that's funny. So let's just replace Zazu's character with John-Oliver Comedy. Because he's not here to enrich the world, story or the character, he's here so we can slap his name on a poster and get internet-credit-points.
Awesome, we have Beyonce as Nala! Awesome! Of course because of the attempts at "realism", her character literally can't be told apart from the rest of the female lions (to the degree that they had to add random voice lines that CALL HER Nala, because otherwise nobody would know that it's her when they see her). And her performance doesn't add anything to the character. But WE HAVE BEYONCE, slap it on the poster, she's not there for the story or the character, she's there for the marketing.
We have JD McCrary as Simba!
He can sing and he's famous on the internet with the kids!
He can't really voice act, but that doesn't matter. Nobody will care about this Simba, they'll just fill in the gaps the lack of personality leaves with their memories of the Simba from the original.
This has to be the most corporate, empty, committee designed movie I have experienced in a while, and I do consider it an issue that it didn't only make a lot of money, but there are legitimatelly people who consider it an "upgrade" or "the modern version" of this story.
It's not. The original is the "modern version", because the original is genuinly timeless.
This version... No child growing up today will remember this movie in the way the original gets remembered today. People won't come back to this movie in a decade, in the way they come back to the original even today.
Because this movie will age. Heck, 3 years later, it already looks outdated in some places. That's the nature of a tech demo. Once the original flash of the moment when that tech was cutting edge has gone, people will lose interest.
What will stick are characters and story. And for THAT, you'll always be better served with going back to the 1994 masterpiece. | 4 |
Just finished first season. First and briefly it seemed like a Broadchurch copycat. Then, as others have observed, it became a The Killing copycat. The acting was pretty good overall, but it's just not remotely original material. How many shows do we need that revolve around a cop with a chip on their shoulder and a tendency to go rogue? | 6 |
Very much wanted this movie to be a step up from the, dare I say, "average" first film. However, the first few minutes in and those hopes began to vanish, which would ultimately lead to disappointment. It's a shame because Hardy fits the role of Venom quite good, but the misdirection and tacky storyline of the film make it hard to perceive any positive aspects. That being said, the visual effects kept the movie somewhat watchable as well as there being a surprising end credit scene that may have promise in the future. | 5 |
Uncut Gems is relentlessly hectic. The entire film is a sketchy gem dealer and gambler's life lurching forward as its frayed ends implode on each other. Along the way there's a lot of shouting and noise, with the sound design intentionally winding up the feeling of anxiety you get as you watch it.
What I thought was the most intriguing thing about the movie is that it appears to be a comedy underneath the veneer of a thriller movie. There is absurdity embedded into every aspect of the movie.
But at the end of the day, it's not very funny or suspenseful, or interesting. It's just unpleasant. The dialog and acting are too lumbering for me to think that anything achieved here is by design. Anything clever about the movie seems like an accidental byproduct of a joke stretched way too thin. I would certainly never watch this again. | 2 |
Performance and story telling at it's best. Vicky Kaushal amazed everyone with his impressive act and Everyone else also justifies their roles. Must watch movie | 10 |
This was one of the films that consolidated Tarantino's career and made him one of the "superstar" directors who, whenever he releases a film, whether good or bad, attracts a legion to the cinema. I was never a fan of his, and I don't think I will be. He made some films that I liked and others that I hated. I wouldn't call it regular, a "safe bet", but we can't deny it, it's original, true to his style and doesn't seem concerned about pleasing anyone.
The film follows more than one plot: we have a couple of violent bandits who try to rob a cafeteria, we have a boxer at the end of his career who has to flee after winning a fight he had agreed he would lose, we have a couple of murderers in the pay of a mobster who are tasked with recovering a stolen suitcase, and we also have the capricious girlfriend of that same mobster, whose boredom forces her darling to assign one of his assassins to babysit for her. What unites them all? In addition to the fact that they naturally intersect, they are all part of the same violent, brutal and marginal universe.
For many, this film is one of the best of the 90's. I would never consider it as such, that is, for me, an exaggeration. It's reasonably good, it's gained cult status, it has fans, but it's not a masterpiece, not for me. It's not a boring film, it doesn't tire us out and the various sub-plots are intertwined very well, with skill and elegance. There's a lot of violence, heavy slang and drugs, and that can be really hard at times, I felt that too. However, this heavier language, drugs and violence end up being a natural part of the underworld of crime and marginality where the characters move, so it's something we can count on right from the start. And there are no sympathetic characters who can arouse some empathy, so it doesn't matter to us whether they live or die in the most unpleasant ways (and some of them suffer a lot).
These are all qualities, and will be even more valued by those who are more familiar with the "pulp" literary subgenre. I'm not, it's not part of my culture, and I even had to go look it up on the Internet to understand what it was, and what its characteristics were. Despite that, there are a few things about this film that I really didn't like or felt over the top. One of them is the dialogues. There are scenes with a lot of dialogues, dialogues without any interest, which can dwell on boring topics, just because. One of them, right at the beginning of the film, is about foot massages, just to give a small example. There are many scenes that seem overly drawn out due to these endless dialogues. I also think the film has too many images of bare feet. Tarantino gained fame as a fetishist, but he always said he wasn't... watching this film makes it hard to believe him. And one of the characters, who is a murderer, makes a very long quote from the Bible... it's the kind of "literature" that I think an underworld murderer probably wouldn't know by heart.
The actors are very good, we have several notable names: John Travolta is excellent in the role he was given, with that black suit and his hair soaked in oil. Samuel L. Jackson is not far behind, and Uma Thurman is fantastic. I would say that, at least, Thurman and Travolta achieve performances at the best level of their respective careers in this film. Bruce Willis isn't bad, but he's just not that interesting. I enjoyed seeing my countrywoman Maria de Medeiros in her only major international role, I'm sorry she couldn't go further, but that's life. Tarantino also appears in the film, and it would have been much better if he hadn't. He's a ham as an actor.
Technically, the film has many qualities, starting with the excellent cinematography, with vivid colors and good lighting. There are excellent action scenes, for all tastes, and the soundtrack makes good use of several musical themes that we know very well. | 6 |
What i messed the actual plot of the story & Margie is the irritating face of my whole watching movie history. Awful trash. | 1 |
What a load of sentimental nonsense, I mean really! How can we celebrate the unremarkable life of such a tragic simpleton? I've heard one misguided fool remark that this was a " truly great film & that's why it won so many awards ". Well, if they presented awards for time wasting, mediocre, uninspired, brainless drivel then Forrest Gump would be the undisputed champion of the celluloid world! Everything about this equals cinematic dogs mess, from Robert Zemeckis sloppy, gormless direction to Alan Silvestri's soulless,largely grating musical score, not to mention Hanks hollow & irritating portrayal of a drooling,chocolate-offering,life advice-giving mental case. I, Big Ol'Alex Davies, found this film to be an insult to my superior intelligence & even my boyfriend, who has broader taste than I, thought of it as nothing more than sappy cat vomit. | 1 |
Looks like a extended version of unacademy advertisement. | 1 |
Wish I could give Barbie 11 stars! I haven't had this much fun at the movies in a very long time! In fact, I've already seen it FOUR times and if I can find another friend who hasn't seen it yet, I'll go again!
There is music and dancing and laughter and even a couple tears. The dialogue is often surprising. And yes, it packs a beautiful message, too. This movie has it all! Margot Robbie is the perfect "stereotypical Barbie" and Ryan Gosling is absolutely hilarious as Ken. But really the entire cast is terrific. I especially loved the inclusion of weird Barbie and Allen.
Some seem to think it's anti-men. No way! It is anti-patriarchy, but that's not the same thing. If you haven't seen it, go now! If you have seen it, go again! | 10 |
One punch man is one of my favorite
When I first watched it really was different to what I am used to. Hes so overpower but its done well. Like it's still interesting no matter what. | 9 |
The early life and career of Vito Corleone in 1920s New York City is portrayed, while his son, Michael, expands and tightens his grip on the family crime syndicate. | 9 |
Obviously More than the expectations...
Action, high tension & drama together till the last second.
Soundtracks are amazing!!! | 10 |
A great movie and TV series remade with something from each but, alas badly!
Drone, drone drone.. A seriously tedious; "we're going to make this take 10 episodes come what may.." effort. That has some pretty spectacular SFX but has so many flaws they almost cancel the good bits out.
The acting isn't bad, but it really isn't top notch. Probably due to scripts that seem to make use of almost every single line ever used in any Sci-Fi ever! The cloned components are 'in your face' so badly that you wonder why one young girl character wasn't also called Newt in this show!
I gave it five stars because it is okay, mediocre and very rarely entertaining.
Synopsis: borderline bore fest but okay if you didn't renew your Netflix account just for this then watchable. | 5 |
Does this review contain any spoiler? None at all. You can't spoil something that's this bad. | 4 |
This might be the best marvel movie. The acting is top notch. I love the hand to hand action scenes. The story is perfect. How can make such a good movie. The best stand alone movie in my opinion. I have rewatched this at least 8 times. | 10 |
Does not make any sense even from a timeline doesn't explain how 2 avengers ended up in a ditch. | 4 |
The Witcher is a fantastic drama series. It literally gives a sense to magic. You can't use it anywhere like Harry Potter world. The acting and storyline is splendid. There are some issues like character development, meanings of certain things are not explained for which we have to use Google for better understanding which was fine for me. They may be explained in upcoming seasons. Also there are 3 timelines running together and with a little effort you can relate and catch up everytime. Some people tend to catch on these little things and spoil the fun of series. Overall I loved it, because it makes you think, relate and the action, emotion scenes are beautiful. | 9 |
I've been a IMDB member for nearly 9 years. This is my first review. I'm not good at them. Anyway, i'll describe my experience, as a WARNING!
(Mild "spoilers" ahead)
Two episodes in, the show seemed great. Felt like great atmosphere, great mystery, very promising. There were a couple of red flags at times (questionable acting, cheap plot devices, unlikable main character) but overall i was (generously) optimistic and felt like giving it 9 stars.
Then comes this over the top character named Holly, completely unraveling the mystery in the next two episodes. And what is revealed is incredibly disappointing (i haven't read the book). It feels like a completely new show and you ask yourself, "where could this story go from here?", ignoring the most obvious answer - to the most generic ending you've already predicted.
And right from the next episode, the story gets dragged to unbearable lengths. Everything "important" happens in the last few minutes of each episode. The sheer stupidity on the screen makes you feel like an idiot for still watching this. Each episode gets few levels worse than the previous one. By episode 6, i thought about giving it 4 or even 3 stars, which is my equivalent for "disappointing" and "very disappointing".
Next four were a real pain. Minute after minute, nothing but a frustration. At episode 10 i could barely hold myself from breaking my monitor, being mad at myself for not quitting sooner, but mostly because of what was happening on the screen....
I've never felt so agitated about any form of entertainment before. I usually roll my eyes and walk away with no need to even comment about it whatsoever, at worst. Not this time, obviously. I still can't believe i'm actually writing this.
TO THE POINT: Of course, (not) liking a show is as subjective as it can be. But if by episode 4 you start being really hesitant about watching the next one, grab that feeling and run, no matter how meaningless is the next activity on your menu. That being said, "The Outsider" gets 1 star (and possible lifelong resentment) from me. | 1 |
Typical Tarantino movie with all his quirks. Leonardo Dicaprio did a fantastic acting job! The overall plot was very slow moving and disappointing! | 5 |
Just watched Lion King reboot. Friendly advice: don't make the same mistake. Great CGI, but that's about it. No emotions in the acting at all. Even James Earl Jones blended in the completely abysmal performance of almost all involved actors (later in the text you will see which actor earned his salary for this film). There is exactly one scene that made me laugh wholeheartedly and that was a complete breath of fresh air (which is ironic, because it involves Pumbaa). Everything else is as if you took the original, threw it in the washing machine, ran several cycles, and then took it out with all the colors washed out. Pale, anemic, unconvincing... To sum up, if you want a good prince, call Matthew Broderick, not Donald Glover. If you want a good Mufasa, call James Earl Jones, but not when he's 88 years old and can barely speak. If you want a good English butler, call Rowan Atkinson, although I must admit that John Oliver did make a fair effort here. And finally, if you want a perfect bad guy, do not sidestep Jeremy Irons. If he was a good enough bad guy for a Die Hard movie, he is more than qualified to be a villainous prince. | 4 |
Take the tired old "evil billionaire" trope that's been done a thousand times before, throw in references to things like Covid that already haven't aged well, pile on shrill overacting, and finish it all off with the most inane, childish ending conceivable. This waste of time is what you end up with. I enjoyed the first "Knives Out" so much, and was so disappointed in this mess.
There are some funny lines here and there. I was hopeful in the middle that there might be some cleverness ahead, but alas, it was not to be. Again, that ending; not a whiff of intelligence anywhere. It's like the screenwriters just gave up and let their kids finish the script. And that's probably an insult to the kids. | 3 |
The acting in this mini series was great, but this show does not follow the book very well. Characters are added, big changes, stories are made up, and every episode had many unnecessary sections. Overall it wasn't bad, and I'm glad I watched it. However, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who has read the book as I have. | 6 |
Not sure what i saw. I mean if someone has yo explain a movie to you then it's not a good movie or maybe I'm stupid? The two actors however were wonderful. Patinson was a nice surprise. So my rate is only for them. The movie didn't make any sense. Sorry | 4 |
I don't really know what the intention was of the filmmakers. Nor am I going to join the chorus of those calling it satire because it wasn't funny. As for self-disclosure of my own biases, count me among those who don't think WWII was a laugh riot. The establishing first thirty minutes of the movie are fine but after that it quickly turns very boring, the narrative meanders and the film quickly runs out of steam. Given the horrendous historical period in which the film is set, the middle part of the movie doesn't make any meaningful statement or give any purpose to the antics we are watching. Cute and childish seemed to be the order of the day with public lynching, sadism, racism, and unlimited human suffering thrown in as mere set decoration. The abrupt tonal changes from cute to fantasy to manic to tragic made for a jarring and flat experience. These mood shifts were always accompanied by appropriate music signalling to the audience which emotion they were now supposed to dial in. I hate that kind of emotional manipulation from a director. Here it is clearly done to help the director tell their story because the film is failing to deliver on any coherent emotional or narrative level. To end the film with a quote from Rilke - "no feeling is final" - is a poor, unearned grasp at significance after almost two hours of mediocre film making. I have no idea why this film garnered the attention and writing awards that it did. | 3 |
I like a good distraction from the daily. I've watch 2 episodes as of today, and I find it fun which is should be because you know... entertainment.
Isn't wife and I agree the nerds don't like it because the writers have injected problems that real people have. Unhappy marriage, sibling rivalry etc.
The nerds probably don't like it because it's not a bunch of beautiful people having lots of space sex.
Take any series or movie for what it's meaant to be. Entertainment. | 8 |
Loki went from being the most intelligent and cunning villain in the MCU to just another bumbling idiot.
The ending was very disappointing. The timekeeper was too normal and there was nothing menacing or interesting about him. It also didn't make sense for the last of someone to spawn new versions of himself after he's dead. | 4 |
First of all, I like it. So much that I will watch the first season more than once. At the same time, I can totally relate to someone who would find this series completely unappealing.
It is a lot to take in. Especially if you expect Game of Thrones. Really, ignore every review which compares Game of Thrones to this series. This is it's own thing, in every sense of the word.
There's much more fantasy, but it's kinda dark. Or is it? Wait, now it's funny... So it's a comedy, right? Do I have to take things seriously after all? Are there stakes? Do I care about characters? Wait, is this person even a main character or not? I can imagine that, for someone who doesn't know the source material, all of this might be kind of irritating. The rules of the Witcher universe are kind of ... different.
I just like it because I was a fan before and many things are absolutely how I imagined them. But I have to admit, even though I knew the story, I found it hard to pick up all the moral subtleties the source material is known for, especially in the first episodes among all the vocabulary and rules that are presented.
The only thing I can say is - I stuck with it, and three episodes later, it all clicked. And I will absolutely watch it again. | 9 |
....but they are so touching.
if you want to see an interesting romance flick this is it. i thought from the wacky comedy the ending would suck. But the ending is serious and very romantic.
Starts off with a guy getting into constant trouble over this girl (like something about mary but MUCH funnier). i haven't laughed at zany comedy like that in awhile. Time passes quickly and you will notice it soon becomes romantic setting.
The mood changes to more serious, but the movie is shot so beautifully that it is still refreshing. the ending will be touching and so sweet i promise. this is definitely a film to take your girlfriend too see and it won't be boring. bottom line, its sooo funny but has a romantic twist that appealed greatly to me | 10 |
Season 4 is unwatchable. Actually, no--it's torturous to endure (especially as one may recall the sheer brilliance of seasons 1-2 and partially, season 3). The show has now escalated into a sordid combination of confusion, blandness, and over-sentimentality.
The magnitude of intelligence that made Sherlock so intriguing has now all but disappeared, and the witty repartee between the brothers Holmes has been replaced with these over-the-top statements that the characters seem to utter for shock value alone.
On another note, I really cannot handle the repeated "save John Watson... save him" DVD hogwash that the show's writers/producers seem to think will touch the hearts of its audience somehow. And while we're at it, Amanda Abbington playing the role of a recently- retired assassin-for-hire? That's about as believable as a Nigerian lottery win. Also, I know that British TV tends to be much more forgiving in terms of beauty standards, but I wince every time she appears on the screen.
This used to be my favorite show on television and now I can't even bear to finish the last episode. | 6 |
The agenda as usual, keep trying to push it, keep rejecting it. | 1 |
With most movies I dislike I can see why others might like them. This is a movie that I honest to god can't see why anybody likes it. It's dumb, the characters are bland, the story is in consistent, and to put it bluntly I was board for the entire film. I was tapping my foot waiting for it to just end. Maybe I just don't like this movie for subjective reasons but none the less this movie just feels like it put everything that was kinda cool in other superhero movies into a blender and hit mix.
4/10 | 4 |
This movie disappoints. The best part was the ending, however one must suffer through until it comes. | 3 |
In the pantheon of horror cinema, few movies have struck a nerve as resoundingly as the standout of 2023, Talk to Me. Undeniably the most chilling horror experience of the year, it astounds on every conceivable level, from the intricate weave of its plot, to the exceptional casting, to the engrossing production value, every element exudes a remarkable immersive quality.
Talk to Me is a disconcerting narrative revolving around a band of teenagers who seek a profound experience beyond the mundane, one reached by communicating with the spirits of the departed. A unique device, a ceramic hand, serves as a conduit to the other side, permitting the one who possesses it to interact with the spectral apparitions. The marvel here is that the creators of this piece of art are YouTubers Danny and Michael Philippou. Their amateur status is spectacularly belied by the professionalism that underpins their work, drawing favorable comparisons to veteran directors in the industry.
The cast is where Talk to Me truly shines. Sophie Wilde is a revelation, effortlessly portraying a spectrum of emotions - grief, depression, and urgency - in a breathtaking performance that is undoubtedly the standout of the film. However, the commendable performances of Zoe Terakas and Miranda Otto cannot be understated, each contributing significantly to the film's overall emotional texture.
The directors, the Philippou brothers, deserve special mention. Despite their roots in the more casual YouTube platform, they have masterfully navigated the intricacies of the film medium, thus blurring the boundaries between professional and amateur creators. Their feat serves as a potent reminder that the realm of cinema is open to all who possess the passion and tenacity to bring their vision to life.
Talk to Me is a testament to the democratization of the film industry, a sterling example of what can be accomplished when creativity, resourcefulness, and dedication coalesce. It's an encouraging signal to aspiring filmmakers everywhere: you too can craft a masterpiece, regardless of your background. | 9 |
Bodyguard had a great start to entice viewers and a great story that came full circle in the end. There were some great performances, especially from Madden, that help elevate the show. | 7 |
I wanted to like this movie i had a hope that Adam Sandler finaly make a good movie but he failed again. I don't know what makes this movie good and why all the good critics. Bad direction bad choice of music and the script isn't make any difference from other mediocre movies. Very noisy movie and Adam's acting isn't too good for getting any positive reviews. | 5 |
Uncut gems more like uncut farts like a bean sock you think it will be good but you put your toes in and its all nasty like a Stinky inky but no pinky | 5 |
Okay first off, I would just like to state that I heard mixed reviews going into watching this movie. Wasn't sure what to except, my expectations were very low I didn't care much for the original. I saw this and was amazed i'm going to give it a 7 out of 10 they could have done some things better about the movie. They almost always can but hey for what it was it was great. Marvel Comics have never made a movie that was amazing in my opinion they are all fun popcorn movies and this one is probably one of the best/better marvel movies ever. go see this movie download it/go to the theater what ever you do. But this movie is really great and you should watch it sometime soon. | 7 |
First off, it is a nice movie. But the deviation from the book is so massive that it's no longer Ready Player One but a different story set in the same universe where the main characters have the same names by pure coincidence.
While some changes were certainly necessary for a movie adaptation, the scope and type of changes in the movie are just insanely bad. Changing the main characters and story to such an extent is not only unnecessary but laughably stupid.
In a frame set by the book the challenge design makes no sense and the story progression outside the OASIS is completely counter to anything that fits the world built by Ernest Cline.
Overall, it can be very much recommended for people who have no interest in the book but as someone who has enjoyed the original this was just yet another in a long series of severely disappointing adaptations. | 4 |
I love Ryan Remolds, I really do. And, I like the rest of the cast. The few star cameos were a nice touch as well. But, the reality is, those appearances were a necessary distraction.
Hollywood is clearly out of original ideas. This movie is nothing more than another mash-up of previous movies. Many of the movies have already been mentioned in other comment posts here on imdb, at least most of those movies were original ideas. Ready Player One, The Truman Show, The Matrix, etc. Etc. Sad to see Hollywood's current so called "writing talent" is lost, and out of original ideas. My guess is Ryan Reynolds knows that to be true, and why he purchased a small cell phone company as an exit strategy, a way for added income.
I am a positive thinker, but, I am also a realist. When you see Hollywood resorting to producing nothing original anymore, that is a clear sign creativity in this generation lacking.
We are now seeing nothing but re-hashing of old movies, and mashups of previous original flicks from big budget companies. That is not a good sign. | 4 |
Movie was fine. A bit overrated. I don't think anyone had a great performance. The show greatly improved the story and was much much better. | 7 |
Psychological horror is one of the toughest to pull off, you can easily be doing stupidity in the name of attemting this genre. But the writing and screenplay of this film never lets it backfire. The plot is interesting, the occassional disturbing scenes work towards establishing the horror. Its not a jumpscare film, mind you, its a lot mature than that. The performances by the cast, especially by sophie wilde is one of the strongest points of this film. The screenplay is able to cinfuse us thriugh the intercut of reality and illusion and hallucinatuons. The use of dream imagery is wonderful in this film. The cinematography, specially the two long shot scenes at the terminal ends is too good a piece. My only gripe being the lack of emotional connect to and for the characters. | 9 |
All episodes of the first four seasons were something to remember and they all had some kind of message. The last season must be a joke, it cannot taken seriously. No message, no deep layer, nothing to think. Just a thin story with a happy end. It's more like a Disney movie. | 2 |
My wife insisted that we watch this, and we just finished the first episode. Already, I can't stand it, and there's no way I'm going to watch another one. My younger son played chess for several years, so I have nothing against chess. But this is so excruciatingly BORING, not to mention depressing. If it was actually a true story, it might be necessary o suffering thru stuff like this, but it's pure fiction, so there's no excuse. | 1 |
I expected this film to be good, but I didn't expect it to be better than the first one ....but it was.
This film is great. I absolutlty loved it. I would recommend this film to any one at any age. It's just pure fun with a great story, & some really great special effects thrown in with it.
this franchise in my opinion has now asserted itself as the premier film franchise in the comic book/superhero genre. I really think that all future comic book/superhero films are going to have to look back on Spiderman 1 & 2 as the new standard setters to beat in that genre.
I give it 10 out 10 stars | 10 |
Utterly disappointed. This star-studded cast promised so much but delivered so very little. The dialogs were so flat and it was as though read off a teleprompter. The movie came across like a documentary and I thought the filming was terrible. Besides Matt Damon, I thought the rest of the acting crew did a bad job. Kate Winslet's made-up American accent was absolutely transparent and I personally found it quite annoying. There were moments where I thought something interesting was going to unfold but I was repeatedly met with dismay. They failed to magnify the symptoms of the disease . Just a little flu and seizure was definitely not enough to keep viewers on the edge of their seats. I was going to surrender half way through the movie if it wasn't for my dad watching it with me on Christmas Eve. Nothing else to say really at this point other than don't watch it unless of course , you're looking to doze off. | 3 |
I'm a big fan of the Marvel Cinematic Universe so I had to watch this one and let me tell you I was glued to the screen all the time. I can't wait for the Hell Kitchen Devil to fight Kingpin in the MCU. | 9 |
Subsets and Splits