Review
stringlengths 6
10.3k
| Rating
int64 1
10
|
|---|---|
I've been watching Stranger Things since it premiered in 2016. Been excited for this new season since the last season, Season 3. This new season is (so far) great. It's definitely a bigger improvement since the last season, mainly due to the budget increase. I love the new characters, like Eddie and Argyle. Like how much darker this season is, and I love the huge Nightmare on Elm Street influence on this season. The only problem I have with this new season is how the use the soundtrack. By that I mean that, a song will play and the scene takes longer than it should be to move onto the next sequence or scene. It's not at all the soundtrack that's the problem (I do love most of the soundtrack), but it's just the long scenes that don't need to be there. Overall/So Far, a great season. Excited to see how it'll conclude.
| 8 |
One of the dumbest movies I've ever seen. The whole movie is a bad acid trip. Nothing makes any sense. The only difference is there's no chance of a relapse 30 years later.
| 2 |
Easy to fall sleep. Doesn't connect properly with Harry Potter story. Nothing like it.
| 1 |
Yes I loved the original but that isn't why I don't like this movie.. As both a stand alone and a recreation, it's just a huge disappointment! There's no emotion in any of the dialogue and it's just kinda boring..
As a recreation, it pretty recreates every frame exactly as it was, which I think is a let down.. One of the great things about Aladdin and even Beauty & the Beast is that they added to the story.. This didn't do that.. It was the same lines, but just sounded like they were sitting around the table doing the first read through :(
| 3 |
Young Sammy Fabelman (Steven Spielberg) develops his initial fascination with film after seeing his first film ... Cecil B. DeMille's "The Greatest Show on Earth". It makes you wonder what his career would have been like if he had fallen in love with a film that has more to offer than a train crash.
I really enjoyed this film, but I confess that the deep love for it out there perplexes me. It's a deeply personal film, but not a very deep one. It's quite possible that I was expecting something somewhat different from this film, but it told me a story about young Spielberg discovering his talent at film while dealing with emotional turmoil in his family, but I didn't really feel any of it so much as admire it from a distance.
That's not to say that there isn't a lot to like about it. I think Michelle Williams and Paul Dano give really extraordinary performances, investing their characters with more depth than what's on the page. Judd Hirsch and David Lynch has wonderful cameo roles. It's a really beautifully crafted film, and it's nice to see Spielberg step into what feels like fundamentally new territory.
I just wish the film felt infused with the kind of love of film it purports to be about.
| 8 |
Another remake of a remake. Ugh! Thought Glitter was better than this. People have undoubtedly overrated this movie based on their Lady Gaga obsession but she's definitely not Barbara. And remaking a film is one of the easiest things to direct when you just bite an actual directors style. I sincerely hope that movie going audience's skip this remake in order to send Hollywood a message to STOP ALL REMAKES.
| 5 |
It would be a good series, if there weren't really explicit sex scenes and nudity throughout the whole series.
| 4 |
Special effects do not redeem bad acting. Nothing memorable or impressionable. Just your now a days ordinary special effects full of a bad film.
| 2 |
Unengaging and disappointing. It is a truism that a lawyer who defends themselves in court has a fool for a client. A similar thing can be said about a director who makes a film about himself. I found it silly, clumsy and not at all insightful into what made one of the greatest film directors ever. The first third comes off like an episode of 1950s Leave it to Beaver, or the Dick Van Dyke Show in that it is cartoonish.
It seems that the major family event is marital issues. Yawn. Then the kid gets picked on in school. Yawn. And these are supposed to give us insight into what shaped this man? They don't. The family and school dramas are very low level and passe.
The high school grad with the big bully break down scene is just absurd in how unrealistic it is.
There certainly are stand out performances by Hirsh and. Williams, but even these are not enough to hold this lumpy mess together. The film comes off as lazy and clumsy covered in 'who cares?' sauce.
| 4 |
Dr. Smith, really a great character, she is transmitting a lot of messages (ambitious, self driving, only she is important and for this she makes all possible and impossible things and so on...) The Robinsons are really a great family, the power of family cannot beat nothing and they are growing together.
Each member of the Robinsons is special, just look and understand.
The Robot, every technology has good things and bad things....
| 9 |
This show is boring uninspired and the actors don't seem to care or be invested in the project. This show has done nothing but miss the mark and I've found myself falling asleep while it is on. My wife said the show is crap compared to the game. There is no tension, nothing to care about and when it seems like something is going to happen it is over just as soon as it began. Boring snoozefest. Real waste of money and no talent to be seen whatsoever. My wife and I went be returning to finish the series. This show could have been great but the wasted/cut out some of the best parts in the game to opt for boring slow paced dribble while at the same time speeding up the story for some reason. All I all if I could give it a 0 rating I would but 1 star will have to do.
| 1 |
I didn't like the first one either - I tried because everyone around me seemed to love it, but I didn't. This time around, however, I watched the first half thinking how much more enjoyable the franchise was in this second outing... it's a great cast and once I chose to ignore the inexplicable wardrobe given to Daniel Craig, for a minute I was almost won over. The plot was far more intriguing and I loved the layers of past tensions being slowly revealed to the audience in front of a literal Glass Onion.
But Then: the overall tone of the denouement transitions from Miss Marple to Mad Max in about 30 seconds. I had no idea what was happening at the end. I decided that I wasn't supposed to... perhaps it was the only way out of that intricately layered plot?
| 5 |
I really like the way this series is staying true to the original show but changing it up enough to be its own thing.I think it was a smart decision by the directors to choose to show homage to the original show while twisting the show to be more modern and fit well with today's science fiction. The show is still just as fun to watch as the original! I'm giving it a 7/10 due to some cliche elements in the story and occasional poor acting but otherwise is still a great show!
| 7 |
From the way this movie was marketed, I felt, as a lifelong collector, super excited! The beginning got off to a bit of a slow, yet visually beautiful, start. I enjoyed the colorful nods to the dolls I grew up with yet began struggling with the plot about 35% through.
I felt like I was being forced into a plot that I was NOT prepared for and before long was wanting to mentally check out. I was looking forward to Barbie being an escape from reality, not being forced to face the real world!
The Barbie Life In The Dreamhouse cartoons, the cartoon Barbie movies, and the Touch of Magic series were far superior to this!
| 5 |
I was not expecting The Punisher to be that good of a show. It is incredible! Must see this after Daredevil season 2.
I remember in a news article when the first season was being promoted that some viewers might not like the show when they will watch it because of the choices Frank will make in the story. But that was one the rare moments the prediction was wrong for the best.
Every creative decision in the show was so good and opportunities were well-taken.
The show successfully delivers Frank's struggles, both physical and psychological.
It's such a shame this show was cancelled along with the other Marvel Television properties.
| 8 |
wow make the wife the right good and bad gal . Don't feel bad for the guy, that is not his daughter in the sense one thinks. Guys are passive related patter and prototypes in case of a boy, but woman is sole agent. cause to be. She makes babies and supplies life force and all elements. males in nature breed then leave or protect. single mom is natural. He must be married to her to be part of her daughter creations life.
Again , we have a movie where the criminal is the hero. This is not redemption, but the act of robbery is depicted as helpful. He tries to return something he stole and got arrested. So the act of stopping a thief is depicted as problematic.
What wonderful technology? This was done in "honey I shrunk the kids" style. The technology is taken for granted and unexplained. Then there a series of low i.Q stunts to make this look cool. Were the rat and sheep symbolic? he he a metal guy in the sink! Alagory for human, in this case guy to artificial gain control without being responsible ,self capable or honorable.
| 3 |
What on earth were they thinking hiring Sam Raimi for this?? His Spiderman films were (arguably) okay for the time but nothing he's done since has been remotely impressive.. There were a few redeeming scenes in the film, but these were absolutely few and far between. The 'suspense' was completely artificial and didn't belong in an MCU film, there were -so- many outdated filmmaking practices (zooming into people's faces for reaction shots, crossfades between multiple shots at the same time etc) that were absolutely immersion breaking and honestly laughable.
As a huge huge Dr Strange fan, this film was the biggest let down I've had throughout the entire franchise. I can honestly say this was the worst film I've seen at a cinema in a good decade. So, so many strange choices, poor VFX, bad makeup, MASSIVE plot holes (trapping Wanda behind a steel door as if it would stop her for some reason??). For a character that can literally manipulate matter at will, why throughout the entire film was she just throwing destructive balls of magic?? For a film with literally infinite possibilities, why was it just comprised of a handful of characters chasing each other around the whole time? Why didn't the multiverse collapse in on itself or something actually interesting happen? So disappointing.
Honestly, absolute garbage and I was genuinely tempted to ask for a refund for the first time ever in a cinema. Why wasn't this directed by Scott Derrickson? I feel he wouldn't have butchered it..
| 2 |
As I said, here we go again..
Don't need to explain much about the title..if you don't know now you never will.
Standard Potter for die hard fans I suppose but as a regular movie goer i have a few reservations.
One is the lead..In my opinion he brings nothing to the role..yes..hes OK and somewhat carries it off but he brings nothing to a 1 dimensional roll..
Two is it never ever felt at all like a like a Potter movie..never had that slightly fresh and naive feel..felt too polished..and that brings me on to the next point..
For the point above it seems to me it has been " Americanised" ! For me Potter worked due to its English background..I don't think the American audience will really get Potter. Nothing wrong there though..it has a lot of money behind it and has been written and produced for the American audience ..it has a feeling of an episode in a long line..reminded me a bit like Suicide Squad in many ways. Too much money spent on this .
A great British tradition hi-jacked again by the big money men..would have liked a bit more daftness . Saw it in 3D but that brought nothing..as with Redmayne. I am probably the minority but there you go,,and thats my opinion.
Gave it a 5 ..no more no less!!
| 5 |
Please don't waste your time. Every episode the cast ALMOST dies 10 times. Its annoying. The bad acting isent helping either.
| 1 |
Steve Rogers (Captain America) now lives in Washington D.C. and still continues S.H.I.E.L.D. He meets and teases Sam Wilson (Falcon) on a morning jog, Rogers is called to help save a S.H.I.E.L.D. vessel from Algerian pirates.He sees agent Natasha Romanoff (Black widow) extracting data from the ship's computers, something Rogers was not briefed on.
At S.H.I.E.L.D. headquarters, Nick Fury introduces Rogers to Project Insight; three Helicarriers linked to spy satellites and designed to preemptively eliminate threats.
The movie is full of action deceit and betrayal.Captain America did it this time,Marvel will never disappoint you.
| 9 |
disagreeing with most reviews i've read so far i thought the movie was flat. It just seem to never find it's footing. i found myself bored at times and had no problem getting up to get more popcorn in the middle of the movie. Catwoman was awesome. i really wish there was more of her in the movie. bane was not quite as awesome. he just didn't give me that omg what is he going to do feeling that i got with heath. I also dislike that they reused plot items from previous installments, it would have been better without the connection. The middle of the movie is like a long montage that could have been given some theme music and condensed to about 10 min. dkr had an overall bad flow which brushed over things that could have been flushed out more and dwelled on things that could have done with out.
The movie is worth a watch but don't expect to be blown away like with the dark knight.
| 6 |
I admit I'm not a comic book (or comic book movie) fan. I prefer more realism or something resembling reality so maybe I'm not the best person to review this but since there are other folks like me out there, I want to warn them.
First of all nothing is believable in the film and the casting is horrible. It is full of eye rolling silliness and over-acting. Even Christian Bale, an incredible actor, is dreadful in this. Truly cringe worthy. I can't focus on anything but that ridiculous voice he did for the character. It's like an SNL skit. What was he thinking? And why did the director allow this to continue?
Second, Maggie Gyllenhaal is so poorly cast it's distracting from the movie. I'm not going to say she's a bad actress, she's not, just poorly cast as a love interest for Batman. And juggling two dudes? I'm sorry, she's cute, but she just does not have enough going on for all that.
And third, I know this is an unpopular opinion but while Heath Ledger was great as the Joker (he was always great), it was hardly his greatest role. It's almost sad to me that this is what seems to define his career rather than Brokeback Mountain or Monster's Ball. I guess it's just a reflection of the popular culture of today and how over the top super heroes and villains are appreciated more than realistic character studies. Heath was a fantastic actor, so is Christian Bale, but these roles certainly do not showcase their actual talent. I blame that on the director not the actors. The director should have yelled CUT as soon as Bale spoke and halted production until it was fixed. Heath did the best job humanly possibly with the script and character he had, no doubt. But I personally never believed this character and I never felt scared or anything. I blame it on the directing. But then again, I don't get the comic book thing. But the overall role and film can't be compared to what Joaquin Phoenix did in Joker. Sorry. I know Heath has passed on and he was one of my favorite actors....but truth is truth.
The Dark Knight is probably amazing to younger people who like fantasy storybook kinda stuff but it's hardly the kind of movie to fulfill a middle aged adult. The film actually annoyed me so bad I had to fast forward through parts. I just don't get the raves to be honest.
| 5 |
I liked this a lot, You'll root for the protagonist, even if he's not perfect. The acting is great, especially Jeffrey Wright, Sterling K Brown, and Tracee Ellis Ross. Wright and Brown deserve to be Oscar contenders. Writer/director Cord Jefferson gives us a movie that is smart, but not cerebral, funny but not silly. Not grandiose like some of this year's other presumed Oscar contenders, it is often simply a look at a family with all the joys and disfunctions we all have in our own families. I saw Mr. Jefferson on a morning talk show. I knew then that I had to see it. I'm very glad I did. You'll like it.
| 8 |
What if the American Dream was only money? What if the dollar bill, no longer based on gold, was the only measure of everything, and a grand illusion? Has one become too jaded after watching such blockbusters on end? Well, here we are. Watch my eyes, watch my eyes, don't look around my eyes!
Should we first go through character exposition? Please meet an illusionist (Jesse Eisenberg), a mentalist (Woody Harrelson), a spoon bending sleight (Dave Franco) and an escape artist doing (or not) an Houdini routine with piranhas (Isla Fisher). Is that enough of a random crew for you? Good, let's proceed.
Teaming up through tarots (no, really!) our "Four Horsemen" (of what?) are confronted with a Jigsaw-like setup which, let's say it once and for all, is impossible to achieve without a hefty dose of CGI. Any magic which will follows will be equally impossible to achieve without a green wall. Consider yourself warned – and bored in equal measure.
One year later, they are onstage in Las Vegas, for a grand illusion performance that has nothing to do with their conjugated talents apart from throwing card decks to the audience and explaining where a bunny goes when it vanishes. The show is a decoy for an elaborate heist to rob the Crédit Républicain de Paris (again?) to rapturous applause. Morgan Freeman is in the audience, playing The Eye in the Sky with his trademark bonhomie.
Sir Michael Caine is there too, of course. Ah, Michael Caine, him of the endless list of cardboard characters requiring a British accent. So can we establish that Caine is evil and Freeman good in this movie narrative? Thank you.
Siphoning money through a conveniently placed air duct, the heist relies on CGI and Jose Garcia's innocent-abroad French idiomatics, from La vache to Oh merde. Interpol Agent Dray (Mélanie Laurent) flies in from Europe and is pitched against FBI's Agent Rhodes (Marc Ruffalo, awful as usual). The Four Horsemen are interrogated, leading to more impossible tricks which will be explained by surveillance cameras played in slow motion.
Excusez-moi, the French heist being debunked by Morgan Freeman by way of a trapdoor, should we move on? Caine says to Freeman he has little eyes; the plot hinges on who does/did not believe in magic during a money transfer scene shamelessly appealing to Katrina hurricane's victims before dragging forever on a protracted gag. Agent Rhodes reads with his fingers and Agent Dray knows everything as per the plot to progress.
Suddenly the Four Horsemen become fugitives and someone imperviously asks "Now get me an airplane", which one guesses is part of the perks of featuring in such big budget endeavours. Come on, how many times were you able to shout that, then get one?
There is a Fifth Horseman masterminding the whole thing. There is a not bad car chase, lifted from other movies from the most part, but one has no idea what it is doing there. One Horseman appears to be down, not that it affects in any way the somnolent viewer. There is also a red herring or two.
A safe full of balloon animals pops open, a scene glossily but ineptly made, and one's heart goes to the prop crew. Now, what could possibly be more insulting than a Katrina's ripoff? Well, a 911 light show of course!
No one barely educated in such big budget thrill rides will have any hard time guessing who's the Fifth Horseman: the only reason why being "Because we say so". Money IS magic. Everyone is dumb. The true marker of fame is Times Square. Oh la la.
A sequel is due in a couple of mouths. Same magical time, same magical place, folks!
| 4 |
As the seventh installment in the famous Harry Potter series, The Deathly Hallows: Part 1 is a two and a half hour escape from reality. The wizarding trio that fans have grown to love sets out to tackle their greatest challenge yet. As a fast-paced, jam-packed adventure with perfect character chemistry, incredible special effects, and a whirlwind plot line, you will be sucked into the magical wizarding world to follow Harry (Radcliffe), Hermione (Watson), and Ron (Grint) on their journey.
At the beginning of the film, the sacrifices that Harry's friends are willing to make for him are demonstrated. A group of friends, mentors, and professors meet Harry at his house to transport him to a safe house. As soon as they leave, they are met by Death Eaters and engage in a battle. Many of those who helped transport Harry were either killed or seriously injured. Harry remembers this and repays them later by fighting Lord Voldemort, risking his life to destroy the Horcruxes, and putting himself in front of his friends during other battles. The willingness of characters to sacrifice for each other displays the chemistry between them.
The bond between Harry, Hermione, and Ron is the strongest, although there is jealousy and romance at times. Harry and Hermione are very close—but only as friends. Ron thinks otherwise and develops feelings of jealousy and anger. These feelings cause him to leave the group for a short amount of time. However, Ron is drawn back to the group by his friendship with Harry and love for Hermione. The character dynamics and chemistry of this film—the sacrifices, friendship, romance, and envy—make it one that all audiences can relate to on a personal level.
The film is relatable on a personal level as well as realistic on a digital level. The special effects of The Deathly Hallows: Part 1 make it believable. Whether it be the characters flying through London on broomsticks to destroying a locket with a sword creating a cloud of shadowy figures to an old woman transforming into a giant serpent, the special effects make the film seamless and realistic. They make the impossible seem possible. They turn the scary scenes terrifying, the dramatic scenes intense, and the suspenseful scenes into nail-biting, sitting-on-the-edge-of-your-seat thrillers.
The special effects would have no purpose if it weren't for the incredible scenes they were needed for. The entire two hours and 26 minutes is packed with attention-capturing scenes. Some scenes stimulate your mind as others tug at your heartstrings. Needless to say, there is never a dull moment in this film. The opening scene leads into a suspenseful fight guaranteed to raise your pulse. Immediately following this scene is a humbling interaction between brothers where it is uncertain if one will live to see the next day. Although there are a few moments in the middle of the movie that create a lull with Harry, Hermione, and Ron deciding their next move on their journey, it creates a great contrast to the following action scene. When reflecting on the film, no moments of true boredom come to mind.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 combines character chemistry, special effects, and an eventful plot line into a masterpiece of a film. You get it all—romance, jealousy, fights, magic, and more. For anyone who has read the books or takes a liking to action and suspense, this film is for you. Younger children may want to watch it with an adult simply because certain dark characters may be seen as frightening, not because of language or graphic/sexual content. All viewers will enjoy at least one aspect of this film, making it a temporary escape from reality and into the magical wizarding world of Harry Potter.
| 9 |
Innovative?Maybe!I would rather say it is different,unusual,but in my opinion that doesn't mean good.It was made for the young people who live their lives virtually.Microsoft,Apple and Co. did pay a lot for this openly advertiser of their products.In my opinion,obviously. Sorry for my poor english.
| 3 |
Here's one film the hype of which I simply don't get. The special effects aren't that good, and the martial arts are junior grade HK stuff. Keanu is terrible as usual and Carrie-Anne Moss isn't much better. The premise itself has some promise, but we spend too much time in The Matrix, where the rules seem to apply only when the Wachowski Brothers want them too. Example: why do our heroes have to be transported through a particular phone wire? Why can't they use their ubiquitous cell phones? Could it be to set up some chase scenes? Why, in fact, does The Matrix include all these old fashioned wired phones, when the bad guys know well and good that the good guys use them as a means of transportation?
Judging from the Reality that Fishburne and company live in, I'll take The Matrix any day over the metaphysical bollocks that apparently passes for real life.
| 4 |
This will always remain as one of the strongest films in the MCU. The political aspects of this film are handled very well and it brings the universe into new/uncharted territory.
| 9 |
The jokes are not just unfunny, they are taking way too long to be delivered and they are delivered badly on top. The story itself isn't that impressive and the special effects aren't great either. The only thing that is done well is Photography but it's not enough, and a small selection of characters are acted well but that's it.
| 1 |
Actually, my card in the opening was the Queen of something. It was red - Hearts, I think. Honest(!) And yet, it wasn't SUPPOSED to be the Queen of Hearts; it was supposed to be something else, something more obvious and yet at the same time just as random. "Now You See Me" is like that - cheeky without necessarily being obnoxious, playful without being disagreeable. You know what you saw, sort of, and your head tells you one thing while some other part of your body cries out something else. It's a good opening - one that commands your attention as the character literally speaks into the camera, but ultimately one which opens a film unable to command as much awe as it thinks it is able to. Like any slight-of-hand trick, it is more style than substance.
Much has, of course, been written about how cinema itself is essentially a magic trick; an illusion created by projected light and a series of still images moving rapidly in order to create the impression of motion. We know what we watch is often not real, though sometimes it can be, and on other occasions it is difficult to entirely discern. "Now You See Me" is a strange, warped celebration of this fact - a little fatuous, but it uses the bare-bones of the joyous idea of trickery to propel it, and it is good fun while it lasts.
The film tells the story of four New Yorkers, bound by the ability to feign illusion to varying extents, being brought together by an unseen character in order to conduct a series of daring public shows. Danny (Jesse Eisenberg) and Henley (Isla Fisher) are your standard stage-magicians, while Merritt (Woody Harrelson) and Jack (James Franco) more resemble con-artists, with Harrelson in particular specialising in the conspicuous art of mentalism. One day, out of nowhere, they each receive suspicious tarot cards which inform them to frequent a local address (a Youtube analysis by Plebtier questions as to whether or not anyone would actually go), only to find it mysteriously unoccupied but for a small presentation which binds them for the rest of the film.
Within one year, the group, nicknamed The Four Horsemen, are in Vegas conducting what looks like the robbery of a bank on the other side of the world via the bending of space and time. Here, the crew pick a Parisian man out from the crowd; send him into his bank's vault and then seemingly suck millions of currency out, over the ocean, and into the arena - betraying science in the process. And yet it must have happened, because we saw it happen, don't we?
The actions of the Horsemen attract the attention of Mark Ruffalo, who plays an FBI agent by the name of Rhodes, and who, along with a French Interpol agent, seeks to find out just what the Hell is going on. His introduction sees him storm, typical for the archetype, down a corridor in a police station; enter an office; fire off his dialogue and get on with things. Later on, he will sit dishevelled at a bar and consume alcohol in very small glasses. Cliché or diversion? The Horsemen in custody, no one can actually prove anything in spite of the show - are you REALLY going to charge someone for defying physics? Propping the film up is their manager Tressler (Michael Caine), who keeps them under his wing. Morgan Freeman, on the other hand, plays Thaddeus Bradley - an ex-magician who profits from revealing the secrets behind other magicians' tricks and who serves as a sort of direct communiqué to the audience when they are most scratching their heads.
The film repeats what it does during its opening stunt on a further two occasions, the last of which ties in with the film's climax, creating something which is at once quite stupid but strangely watchable. The film is stuck in a strange no man's land between what is believable in the real world and what we consider movie escapism - if we accept that aliens can come down to Earth and turn into automobiles in one film, why can't a handcuffed magician transfer the keys to his cuffs into a coke can AND break free in the process? Because it's impossible, that's why.
It is a curious thing the film has essentially drawn influence from the first "Ace Ventura" for its plot, though more curious is that we are asked to believe a Frenchman could've been so persuaded to go to Vegas in the first place; that this motley group might be able to perform armoured van heists; rig explosive getaways and that Caine would be stupid enough to go back to New Orleans if he had history there. Again, we turn to the analysis of Plebtier - when a character steals a black sedan during an escape, it seems as if he does so by chance, yet the film would have you think it was part of a wider, carefully constructed plan involving a crash on a bridge.
By the time the film ends, what have we actually seen? The idea, though far from watertight, is quite good fun - it is too convoluted, though is a good crack up to the point it stops and I was, to its credit, still into it by the time the final act was rounded off. There is a whole ream of questions one could ask related to FBI background checks; the presence of GPS bugs in cell phones; how you organise all this without even meeting your insider; why Danny and Henley would even turn to high-scale crime in the first place, and I don't think all of it adds up, though I did enjoy the journey to realising that not all of it adds up...
| 6 |
The biggest disappointment straight off the bat is that despite being rated R, this film at best can be described as PG , not even PG 13. There were maybe perhaps two scenes with split second of onscreen blood. The rest of the film plays out like a generic Goosebumps episode from the 90s. Actually, some of those episodes I watched as a kid had a more structured narrative to them, along with effective scares.
This movie could have easily been so much more than the bland tepid two hour jump scare montage. You have just one big house as the setting with many props dangling around. A good script writer , whose only aim would have been to scare the audience, could have easily designed an elaborate system of conflicts for the main characters to resolve one after the other in order to get to a goal. He could have easily even sacrificed a character to make the final resolution seem more significant. Yes, these methods are cliched but they would have been more effective in making a barebones horror film plot than the mess I saw splattered all over the screen. The characters don't have any arc. Only one of them somewhat has it but it comes off as the laziest way to conclude that arc.
In the scares department, you had random ghouls providing the jump scares. No introduction or character development was made for them. Guess they are all just sequel/spinoff bait in this muddled horror cinematic universe.
The only time I sort of felt engaged with the story was whenever the Lorraine couple featured in their brief cameos. Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson have excellent chemistry as husband and wife and really makes you yearn to partake in that lovely experience. But basically everything else caused me disappointment. So don't but into these bafflingly high reviews made by the possessed and save yourself that ticket money. I hear Midsomner is coming out soon and that's apparently already a hit with the critics as a fine horror movie.
| 5 |
The biggest problem with reading the book before watching the series is knowing the story and having a clear view of the story and the characters beforehand.
Being a fan of Kings books and characters, I'm well versed with the way he portrays the characters.
I had really high hopes for the tv series as the reviews and the overall review score was pretty high.
After watching the first 2 episodes I felt pretty convinced the show would continue to deliver on Kings wonderful story, but no!
After 5 episodes and a whole lot of bad language on my part it was enough!
So many things are of and poorly portrayed, I know it's a interpretation of the book but man, so poorly portrayed characters and bad dialogue, the overall direction is just awful to see!
This could have been the best interpretation of a King story but it's a total mess!
A clear warning to everyone who have read the book. Don't watch this, just read another S. King book instead.
Bateman is wonderful, but that's it!!
| 2 |
This was the weakest of the three seasons. Too much comedy, plus the imbecile and unrealistic Russian thread. Instead of a smart storyline and new ideas they tried to fill the plot with comedy and an alian-type monster.
| 6 |
It was great. Got to go see it the opening Wednesday night, and it was really great. Better than I hoped it would be. It's nice to be able to go see an action adventure movie and not have it spoiled by the typical tired and obligatory sex, vulgarity, and graphic violence. It's especially nice having a movie of this type that's a fun action film and knowing I could take a child to see it and not have to worry about them seeing and hearing things that aren't appropriate for them to see. I wouldn't take a kid under 7 or 8 to see it though since they definitely have no concept of reality vs. fiction, depending on the individual child of course. It was a great movie, can't wait to get the DVD and see the next one and the ones after that when they come out!
| 10 |
Twenty excellent movies could have been made about Dunkirk in WWII. This movie, however, is not excellent; it's not even very good. Two major reasons why:
(1) For the important roles of British soldiers, men who in reality fought their way out of France, sacrificing many in combat and enduring tremendous privation, injury, terror, and hardship, the director chose to focus on soldiers who think only of their own survival--certainly there were some men like that in WWII, but it is simply a waste of wonderful and compelling raw material to produce this movie out of all the possible scenarios the director could have chosen.
(2) This movie skimped terribly on sets. It was embarrassing to watch a few hundred men on the beach, one or two Royal Navy ships in the water, two British planes in the air, and a handful of civilian boats. This movie does not give an accurate picture of the beaches or the mole.
This movie simply does not do justice to the hell on earth that was Dunkirk. I have to wonder why they bothered. I had looked forward to this movie and was very disappointed.
| 6 |
The plot is not convincing at all, very poor, I don't know who approved this poor plot.
There's some good fights and that's all.
And Wanda is tooooo OP.
And the trailer if full of lies.
| 4 |
I like Chris Hemsworth and enjoyed the John Wick series and so sat down to watch this with excited anticipation.
The story started off interesting enough before descending into a series of never ending stunts and action that although impressive slowly starts to actually numb you to what you are seeing.
There is a small attempt at building some character but it came off as pretty shallow before we bounced right back into another chunk of action where characters are taking an inordinate amount of punishment and limping/staggering onto the next scene.
Despite all the crashing and banging on screen it actually started to get boring and caused my mind to wander off into thoughts about whether too much action is a bad thing.
Ultimately it was an okay impersonation of John Wick but was lacking in heart and soul. I think the Russo brothers are trading on their work for Marvel and have probably let the success of Endgame go to their heads in making them believe that they can only pick 'winners' from here on out.
Overall, the film has some good action but I was disappointed with it and it does feel like children running around a playground shouting 'you're dead' and 'you didn't take your shots'.
| 4 |
I'm a big fan of the Marvel's World. The show is really good, it reminded me of good old TV shows, I feel like a kid again watching it. But there's a few things that need change or with time I will get used to, i don't know...LOL per example the girl who plays Skye (Chloe Bennet) doesn't know how to act, her acting skills are very weak,and unbelievable; makes her character very annoying and you get that feeling when you want to change the channel. Also the two scientists Fitz and Simmons... when they get into arguing I don't understand a word of what they're saying! (and I have not anything against British or British accents) The pros, I really loved that Culson is back and I'm dying to know what really happened with him, (in the Avenger's Movie) Is he a droid? what is the mystery? I really want to know. Another character that I love so far is May is such a dark mysterious character, I want to know more about her past in Shield.
| 6 |
I can't understand how people give this such good reviews. Henry Cavill and the witcher character aside this show lacks any real quality. Poor script, very poor dialogue and the production value at time seems cheap and very similar to that of a tourist departments amateur reenactment of historical events.
I see it has been approved for a second season so hopefully they can sort some of these issues out as the witcher character itself is excellent.
| 5 |
This film is truly awful. When I saw this was directed by Michael Bay as the credits rolled, I laughed. Awful music, tons of innocent death, firework explosions everywhere, and its trolling. I absolutely would not recommend this film.
| 3 |
The show is amazing, Selena, Steve and Martin are the trio we never knew we needed! Btw I have to say that Selena Gomez acting is just out of this world!! I'm obsessed with OMITB and can't wait to see ep 4.
| 10 |
My Sister invited me over to watch this movie, since I hadn't seen it, I figured why not, what a mistake that was. I bet the people who paid to see this in theaters around the world wish they had their money back.
Lets hope this is the last Logan anything they ever make. I was gonna give it two stars, but when I saw the dog put his head in a bag and walk out the room backwards, I figured, even he didn't like it.
The movie had no direction, its all over the place, and Logan thinks drinking himself to death will solve all his problems, that has been used to death in movies, it's old and for me I get tired of seeing the main character in a movie try to drink all the booze on the set.
Its a slow dull movie, even the fight scenes are uninspiring,but I'll play the dutiful brother and sit here and watch this piece of trash with my sister and her family, maybe that's why they leave the room from time to time.
Hugh Jackman really need to STOP MAKING MOVIES! Marvel need to fire whoever wrote this screen play or the scripts, when the director come back from his six month lunch, maybe he'll get this movie back on track. It's HORRIBLE. If anyone reads this, save yourself some time, it really sucks.
| 1 |
Like this movie but comedy scene missing in the movie required thrills also.
| 6 |
Saw it in 3d otherwise it would have been terrible. Too many superheros for my liking.
| 4 |
Is ok, not as good as the games nor the book but it is fun to watch! Half of the cast looks perfect the other half not so much! Fight are great, CGI could have been better (considering the budget). At times feels rushed like they didn't have time to make it the way they wanted! Also Yennefer is unnecessary walking around topples it feels stupid! Honestly The show deserves the bad critics reviews, but it is good enough for the fans. Netflix if you want the success of GOT you should change the showrunner! Lauren Hissrich almost fu**ed it up I think casting Henry Cavill is the only thing that saved It. If something does not change It won't wast long.
| 6 |
Billy Batson (Asher Angel) - yay for alliteration! - is a troubled foster kid, who's been bouncing from home to home due to his inability to let go of the past and fit in. And then a wizard kidnaps him into his lair and pumps him full of superhero steroids with his lightning staff. What? It's basically what happens. And then a One-Eyed Willy full of sin chases after him to get him to touch his staff in order to suck the power out of him. Again, basically what happens.
Jokes aside, Shazam! was one of the first big steps from DC to move their cinematic universe away from the grimdark approach of Nolan and Snyder, and into a more lighthearted, adventure-oriented realm, akin to Marvel. But because DC seemingly can't do anything without going overboard, it's a pure comedy. A childish comedy full of toilet humour and inappropriate jokes akin to American Pie. Well, not quite as bad as that, but heading in the right direction.
Still, the film does feature underage drinking, a strip club, pre-teens discovering their hormones, schoolyard bullies straight from the 80s (seriously, these dudes are at least a decade older than the kids they are bullying; how many times can you repeat a class) and other quality content like that.
And apparently it was a big hit. Likewise, my hope for mankind has once again taken a big hit.
Shazam! is an okay movie, especially because it's clearly intending to be a childish comedy. And for what it is trying to be, it's fine. Easily above average. But forgive me for having a different taste in humour. I dare even say, a more refined taste.
| 4 |
Had I seen this movie prior to buying the DVD I would have never bought the DVD. I ended up and turned the dvd off about a half hour into it. It was all joke joke joke n not very funny at all. I was expecting the usual action with good story plot to it as the other Thor movies and Marvel series. Very disgusted.
| 2 |
(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon.)
Fargo is the kind of movie that appeals to people who have seen a lot of movies because everything is surprising and unexpected. The cop's a woman (Frances McDormand). Pregnant. The perps are psychos of course, but there are three of them and each is a different breed of psycho. William H. Macy is a car salesman who dreams up a scheme to cheat his rich father in law out of a million dollars by getting some degenerates to kidnap his wife. He's a white collar sociopath who always lies whenever his lips are moving unless there is some very good reason to tell the truth. One of the degenerates is a big silent guy (Peter Stormare) who kills people as one squishes bugs. The other (Steve Buscemi) is an ugly little bantam who lies and cheats and kills and steals and whines until finally somebody puts him out of his misery.
This is Fargo, North Dakota, where people are country and it's cold and not very sophisticated. The movie makes gentle fun of the locals while guiding us to identify with them. McDormand eats a whole lot of Hardee's and Arby's and greasy dishes from the cafeteria piled high on her plate. She's eating for two. She loves her husband and he loves her. They lie in bed at night and watch TV. She's the police chief. She meets an old admirer in the big city. He's Asian. She is just curious. He is desperate. She has a self-effacing, aw-sucks, I'm not too bright (but I really am) style reminiscent of Tyne Daly in TV's "Cagey and Lacy" from some years back. Her husband Norm is a big guy who cooks for her and is an artist who paints wildlife. One of his duck paintings becomes a postage stamp. They all say "Yaw" a lot.
The forlorn cold and desolate landscape of North Dakota is a Americana locale not used cinematically since I don't know when-Clint Eastwood's High Plains Drifter (1973), I guess. The script and direction are tidy without being too flashy. Everything is designed to surprise or bemuse the audience. Even the accents. There is the requisite quota of bright red blood; plenty of bullets puncture flesh and split bone. There's some gutter sex and a few shocking sights (one of the perps stuffs the other into a wood chip machine). All in all it's a slick, carefully crafted thriller with an artistic veneer, nicely photographed. It's clear that Coen and Coen have watched the movies of Atom Egoyan, Gus Van Sant, David Lynch, Oliver Stone, etc., and here pay them the sincere compliment of imitation with variation-or is it the other way around?
| 8 |
I would never have guessed this was written and directed by the same team as the first fantastic beasts. Chaotic, choppy, filler movie that was not worth the full price. Wait for Netflix or redbox
| 3 |
James Cameron, has he lost his inspiration? I believe he did! I respect most of his previous works "Terminator 1 & 2", "The Abyss" even "True Lies" is wonderful. He used to be such an avant-gardist...
But I must say that I was nearly offended when I saw "Avatar". He said on an interview (TF1 French Television) that it took them 3 years to create this movies and its world... Well it is a plagiarism, let me explain:
1. The scenario is basically the one from "Pocahontas".
2. The Shipsare exactly as in the video game "Halo".
3. The Names are from a french comic book "Sillage".
4. The Fauna and Flora are more than inspired by Miyazaki's work...
5. And the robots are exactly the same as in the Matrix!
There is no surprise element in the movie what's so ever if you've seen "Pocahontas". And most of all there is no consistency in the world, animals destroys their environment, humans dress the same way as now in the future etc.
The positive point is that the 3D and the visual effects are wonderful. And I guess for most of the people this must be the main criteria for a good movie...
| 3 |
I've seen Fargo probably 40 times, and you know how many times it took me to realize that this film is the mosy utterly perfect film of all time? ONE. Period. After the first time I saw it, I fell in love with it. Completely, head over heels in love. I have become a commonlaw husband to it, and I think I treat my copy of the film better than I will ever treat any woman (if you are a prospective significant other out there, I'm sorry.) This is the film I aspire to someday become fused within, to live with Marge and Norm "Son of a Gun"derson, or the Lundegaards. This is the movie that made me think of movies as a higher art. THE higher art, I should say. There is never a dull moment in this film, and if you watch it with someone who likes to make talkie during the silences, please kick them in the head, every milli-second of silence is vital. This quiet, every milli-second, is crafted to perfection, and is worth any line of dialogue. Although I must say, the dialogue ain't bad. So, to sum it up, again, Fargo is the most beautiful movie, aesthetically and otherwise, I can imagine.
| 10 |
Very nicely filmed, the closest thing to a dream-like nightmarish atmosphere since "Spirited Away". I highly recommend it.
| 9 |
Suspense? Thrill? Edge-of-your-seat-movie? After seeing these words in the reviews, I couldn't wait to see the movie.... and for me it was just boring, absolutely no suspense at all. Yes, the acting was good, but I hated the father's and the policeman's character as well, so I had nothing out of the good acting. :) Although there were some stunning looking scenes, the whole movie was dark and depressing, and I was surprised when I saw Roger Deakins as the director of photography. I just love his work and would give him not one but a couple of Oscars, but not for this one, it's not so impressive. Before the end it got slightly better, and I had no problem with how it ended, so because of that and because of Roger Deakins it became a 6 instead of a 5 for me.
| 6 |
Season 1 sucks but if you want you can skip it and still be good I guess..its really bad s1 But you can try and cringe through it and once you get to s2 it's better S3 i think was the most fun my gf and I loved it and had a good time..but s2 was really good too and I might just be remembering s3 better since just watched it
| 8 |
There are probably similar shows but there are also hundreds of shows one can watch, on regular tv and all these platforms like Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney+. But when I gave this serie a try, I was pleasantly suprised as I can't remember to watch a similar serie like this as I could really relate to one of the main characters of the shows, an amateur detective trying to solve a murder crime. Therefore, I love the serie. I just hope it won't last too long as 9 out of 10 series, quality drops after the 3rd or 4th season.
| 7 |
Casting was a disaster it seems, not confident to go with new actors, not bold enough to put money down for great known actors. It's a mixed bag, along with the delivery of lines and the scenes in general come across very flat and uninteresting.
Of course a big part of that is the script which is frankly disappointing, given all the time and learning from the complete unmitigated disaster of the last 2 seasons of 'Game of Thrones', it seems the HBO are part of the problem here and it wasn't just David Benioff and D. B. Weiss who were the issue with the script writing department and plot planning in the previous show.
In this case the desperation was obvious by the title cards, and the marketing stuff, that keep reminding the viewer that this show is ~150 years prior to Daenerys Targaryen. Not prior to the events of GoT., but prior to Dany. Specifically Dany. The character that they screwed up the most in the entire show. So let's go through this for a second, in GoT the Dany plotline was poorly handled, leading to a terrible ending and a waste of a character that annoyed most of the fans (especially the Dany fans).
Why is house of the dragon linked to GoT, and why Dany in particular? I thought it was obvious that people don't want to be reminded of that disaster any more, along with the disappointment of the waste of the other characters such as John (aka an actual true Targarian and heir and king).
But it gets worse. For some reason the show blows its load in the first minute by having a dragon fly around the place with a rider on it. Zoom in and play some of Dany's music from the previous show. Like seriously? Playing Dany's theme tune from another show... in this show, which has nothing to do with her or GoT. Frankly it was not only stupid but insulting to the audience.
I realise now they (HBO) still think they did a good job on the final season of GoT, and that they think the Daenerys character was well written. Mind you, it wasn't even the 'evil' Dany music they reused here, it was the benevolent one. The one they always did to uplift you and tell you how good and great she was. Hah. I get that this story is about a bunch of Targs who are going to fight and kill each other to be King/Queen, so did HBO get that? I don't think they understand what they are even doing here.
So back to the first episode, it is incredibly dull. Lots of boardroom talk, boilerplate speeches and dialogue. No character development, no characters that are relatable or likable. A palette of dull multi-colored faces that have no connection or coherence for the time period or the material at hand. Great for the actors, but with terrible application.
A waste of money to make, they should have remade the final season of GoT into 3+ more seasons and not chosen a poor spin off.
4/10 a boring soap opera for people who really don't like fantasy, and a far cry from season 1 to 4 of 'Game of Thrones'; but not as offensive as the later ones.
| 4 |
Much like the rest of the viewers who watched the amazing first season, the only reason I was drawn in was because of the whole real-time aspect of the show. I was thinking before I began watching it that even if the show did suck itself, at least there'd be some sort of twist. But it was far from being terrible. By the end of the first season in the spring of last year, I was hooked. The finale blew me away and I realized just how great of a show it was. Keifer Sutherland is Jack Bauer, without a doubt. He brought that character off of the pages and made it one we could sympathize with, yet chastise when he did something wrong. And the brilliance behind the show is the fact that it can take any unpredictable turn it wants to, and they can make it work. Even with this third season only a month into it, it's hard to figure out where things are going. They get you going on one problem the presidency and CTU has to face, then they throw a completly shocking new one at you.
However, the show seems to be heading down the predictable path now. I'm not going to be solidifying my feelings on this yet, because it can go anywhere, but with the popularity of it growing, and the producers recieving more money, they seem to be dropping creativity for more action and explosions, which is a sin in my eyes. The first season to me seemed like an excellent movie that was original and well done, but this third season seems to be aiming more at promoting Ford (honestly, there's a Ford in every shot. I know they're providing a lot of money, but it bugs me how the producers try to get one in every shot) and getting more money than making it as gritty and original as the first season.
First Season: A+ (10/10) Second Season: B (8/10) Third Season (So Far): C+ (7/10) They're keeping me interested, but not glued to my television set every Tuesday night.
I only watch two shows every week religiously, and "24" is one of them. If they can't keep it up, I just may only watch one a week.
| 7 |
A revenge saga that makes us yearn for more.
This was released on June 22nd and its sequel was out on Aug 8th, in the meanwhile I had a tough time to sit back and wait, coz the end climax made me wait and see what is going to happen next. its taken forward by the protagonist Sardar Khan and we move forward with him. This film is for sure an epic just coz the scale is too grand to weave a script. It spans across 60 decades from 1941 to 2004. It starts at 2004 in beginning and ends in mid 1990's and there are many references o show us the age. If radio was heard or Trishul being seen in cinemas or to Kyu Ki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu This is authentic and great many kudos to Rajeew Ravi the cinematographer and the production design of Wasiq Khan who brought alive the 1970's the 80's and yes even the 40's. Just an aberration here Trishul was released in 1979 while it was shown to be as 1989.
Music was raw and pleasant and even philosophical like song of Ik Bagal Main, to a silly yet hilarious song like I am Hunter, Sneha Khanwalkar adds a voice to the already interestig script. The audiography is good and so is the voice of Piyush Mishra as he says the back story behind what was happening on screen.
But the most interesting of all is the script itself that is driven by Sardar Khan played by Manoj Bajpai and by Ramadhir Singh played by Tigamanshu Dhulia, its their rivalry and how they deal with this. So instead of killing simply each other, they decide to tell and take
"Keh Ke loonga Uski"
The dialogues are witty and the violence is gruesome. All in all, its a gory depiction of a true incidents told entertainigly. Kudos to Anurag Kashyap the pioneer of great Indian Cinema for making it in this way.
There is a scene in which Sardar Khan tries to open the door by smashing with his legs and hands and screaing while his aide simply opens the bolt and says "Yeh aise khulta hai" such moments are what made this revenge drama witty and hirlaious. It's sarcastic one may say as it makes a mockery too of few things, yet it's not cynical but intelligent.
Manoj Bajpai might well win many Best Actor awards or at least be nominated to many. Anurag Kashyap for sure is the best director yet again and I hope he wins the elusive best director award at least this time.
A 4/5 for movie that is made like an epic. There are many characters still there is a connect that keeps us glued even in a repeat watch.
| 8 |
I enjoyed it, people moaning about confusing cut scenes and the films a mess. Its Ryan Reynolds chirping off his one liners during gun fights and car chases. You may think its Deadpool without the mask, but I like Deadpool, so this film was a winner.
Watch it and don't be over critical, it really is a film you can watch, not overthink and just enjoy.
| 7 |
You gotta hand it to the production for maintaining such awesome and diverse art direction in this show.
Problem is, it's style over substance, and turns from something original and awkward into a pretty ordinary Avenger special effects endeavor. The writing gets lazy and sloppy as it turns into what we all have seen many, many times.
That said, it's not BAD either, if you're into this type of content.
| 6 |
It was a typical teen romance drama. It had it's good moments, but there were very few. For the most part the movie just contained sappy and awkward moments. It felt like the movie was trying to make you cry instead of having it happen naturally.
The characters were very weak and mostly stayed with the same motives and barely changed as people. Since their characters never really changed it made the story predictable. Just see how their characters act and feel and you can see all the clichés and how the story will proceed.
The acting wasn't that great either. I have seen both of these actors in other movies where they were much more believable. Shailene Woodley was great in White Bird in a Blizzard and The Spectacular Now. Ansel Elgort wasn't the best actor along Shailene Woodley either, she overshadowed him, which didn't make for good chemistry.
To me the only redeeming part was the soundtrack, which was mostly indie music which fit the mood most of the time.
The Fault in Our Stars is a generic teen romance movie. Nothing new comes out of this movie. The little redeeming qualities made me give it a better score than it deserves.
| 6 |
I found this to be a bit of a slog. I thought hiddleston was bad in some scenes, completely unconvincing in his line readings. Same goes for one of the other leads. Wilson was the best thing in it by a long stretch.
It all started quite well and dissolved into nonsense. I really struggled to finish it.
My kids wouldn't watch it and as an adult I'm afraid I hated it, so not sure whose rating this so highly but it's not for me
Glad others like it though.
| 5 |
The movie itself isn't too bad. It's worth watching if you want something different from what you're used to watching. The story-line is good, it really makes you pay attention on little things, but it's also too simple.Acting was amazing, but I didn't like the directing. Maybe it was just directed in a unique way that not everyone will find its true value, but for me it was boring. In my personal opinion, this movie is kinda overrated.
| 6 |
As a big fan of the first movie, my emotions were mixed for this movie. Not just because of the LONG conversations between the characters of the movie, but.....the point of the plot was...let's say...near the climax of the movie. I mean, you REALLY have to pay attention to the movie to understand the plot. At that, you probably wouldn't. Some parts made me want to just..go to bed!!! I dosed off a while, and when one of the action scenes popped up, my head stood straight, and my eyes were open like a wolf that spotted an elk. The humor was excellent though. I laughed like six times at some parts. And the action....oh the action was the best.
So, if you want to spend 7 bucks on a movie ticket, go ahead! 6/10
| 6 |
I really like how this movie shows both sides, bad sides(emotional), and good sides(Not so emotional). It shows the story in a perfect way in my opinion. The actors did a real good job on how they acted and talked, made the film feel like you witnessed it, gives you a good description on how it was back in the day.
| 8 |
Crazy action sequences with cool soundtrack. The car escape scene through the art gallery while "O Fortuna" was playing in the background was pretty amazing.
| 6 |
Oceans 11 meets Illusionist. More of a heist movie then a Illusionist movie but it will keep you entertained throughout. The 3rd and final act did not live up to the exceptions that the characters wanted you to think.
| 6 |
Immaculately written, superbly cast. Cinematography and editing are on point. One of my top ten favorite movies.
R-rated so not fodder for the little ones.
| 9 |
Getting tired of the Marvel style formula, enough's enough. They were trying way too hard on this movie. He spends so much time establishing some powerful skills but barely uses them. First movie in awhile that's put me to sleep midway through.
| 3 |
It's a gangster film, in a time when gangster films have been done to death. In order to create one that is truly good and stands out from the rest, you must start off with a good initial idea. This film lacks that idea, and creates an extremely generic, clichéd crime film that more than certainly over stays it's welcome. This movie took me two days to watch, and throughout I was wondering if it was possible to get any more boring. 320 minutes of hacking off limbs, weird music scores in the middle of a scene and nonintellectual dialogue just ruin what could have been an epic if they could have pulled off such a runtime.
Ultimately Gangs Of Wasseypur fails on a grand scale. Nothing in this film is remotely interesting, the film takes too long to end (hence it takes too long for anything meaningful to happen) and the direction, acting and script almost make it the worst I've seen. I would give it an 'F', but I don't think it is deserving of that.
| 1 |
We are ready to penalize entire nations for mis-using carbon energy but here the producers took some of the best actors on the planet and dropped them into a two and a half hour sludge-fest. Even copying one of the earlier (successful) films on the same arc would have been an IMPROVEMENT.
| 5 |
The film is extremely restless! Every 10 minutes there is constant yelling and hitting and there is often wild, wild talking, which makes you really nervous and often didn't want to continue watching the film!
| 3 |
I write after watching the movie 777 Charlie and also because I have been a pet parent for more than 11 years. Its very important to make such attempts through our movies to build more compassion towards not only dogs but all animals at large. This planet belongs as much to other creatures and animals as it does to us,humans. I really want to appreciate and thank the makers for the positive and hope filled ending of the film. It takes a very big heart and courage to show love for creatures especially after a heart breaking loss. Hopes are alive that such people exist around us in real life,now and forever.
| 9 |
Its been almost a decade where big studios have been producing some superhero heavy hitters. The Boys is not a superhero movie. Its more a allegory to what would really happen if superheroes existed.
I came to the show being a bit weirded out and angry with actor choices ( I read the comic prior and I feel like the comics themes have not aged well some actor choices were a bit odd)
While the comic shows a much more gore oriented story with shock being shown with grueasome deaths, disturbing fetishes and A LOT OF LGBT unfriendly stuff the shows does a good job with wrestling with this controversy.
If you are looking for a show that will laugh in the face of goody MR.two shoes that we are so used to see on screen and comic books then this one is for you. If you clutch pearls at someone saying the word c***t then it should be a skip for you.
| 8 |
Please steady cam would be a great gift. No connection between takes. Bad language without any reason..
| 1 |
Fargo is the Coen brothers' version of a series of true crimes, mixed together to make one of the most compelling thrillers to hit the big screen in years.
Why it is called Fargo is beyond me. Fargo is only where the antagonists meet for the first time, everything else happens in Brainerd pretty much. Maybe it is the point of origin perhaps? Or maybe "how FAR they will GO?" ... That was bad, yes I know.
Anyway, what we have here is a compelling film about a simple plan gone horribly wrong. The story revolves around Jerry Lundegaard (William H. Macy) an execute sales manager at his rich father-in-law, Wade Gustafson (Harve Presnell)'s car dealership. Lundegaard is financially in trouble and calls upon Shep Proudfoot (Steve Reevis) to get together some guys to help kidnap Mrs. Lundegaard (Kristin Rudrud). When a deal with Wade's accountant, Stan Grossman (Larry Brandenburg) falls through, Lundegaard hires 2 thugs: Carl Showalter (Steve Buscemi) and Gaear Grimsrud (Peter Stormare) to kidnap his wife so that Wade will pay the ransom to get her back, and then afterward, Lundegaard will split the ransom with the thugs. Trooper Marge Gunderson (Frances McDormand) is hot on their trail throughout the film despite being 7 months pregnant.
The music score was top-notch (although I hate using that word). It set the mood for many scenes and did so while being very simple and not overly flashy.
Fargo is a fun movie and will stick with you long after watching.
9/10.
| 9 |
Why makers wanted to show only this? Why it should always have a sad and terrible ending which we can can't even bear. This show literally makes us feel so bad being a human as it always concentrates on the darkest side of human with inhumane scenes. Seriously disappointing and depressing series till date but though the concept and idea execution is exceptional. But still what is the purpose of a story telling when you are deciding that it's gone go so bad that nothing is going to save you and this is how it ends. Any story should give us a sense of hope not just crap of society with a disturbing ending.
| 7 |
But season 3 is a real masterpiece so fun to watch for the first time really.
| 8 |
Ignore the -ve comments. If you are a true Michael Bay fan and if you like the way he creates his movies then this is a must watch. There are lot of jaw dropping moments in this movie. Love the way how he creates these kinda shots. Hotness craziness funny stylish and last but not the least ActionPacked. I did not find Ryan Reynolds suiting to the character...could have been better. Story line aint so worthy but the way how they created was simply awesome. If u watch it just for timepass then im sure ull love it
| 6 |
Over acting, dialogues that are trying to be funny but are embarrassing at best and a guy that all through the movie waves his hands like he has a stroke.
Bad, very bad movie.
| 3 |
Poorly written with a canned laugh track . Extremely boring , unwilling to watch anymore after the first episode . Shame on disney for this horrible show.
| 1 |
Watch about half this film, like I did, and you'll see that it's all pretty typical superhero fare. But it is not engaging enough to be a 2.5hr movie. For me it just felt like repetition of the last 10yrs of fantasy action.
Gal is stunning, so I'm happy I saw the first half of it. But everything else about the movie is pretty lame. Good things about this movie.. hmm.. Gal Gadot... and......
Anyways, total retread of things past. I guess superhero movies went out with a bang in 2008. Ah the Dark Knight. It's 2017 and we'd better wake up. I feel like the 10 star reviews are by children, and adults out of some kind of dystopia where Trump is president
| 5 |
My Rating : 8/10
I couldn't wait for Season 2 to release and after viewing it thought to myself, why have the makers completely ruined all the fun and adrenaline that made Season 1 such an iconic piece of web-series.
Dark, edgy and controversial - 'Sacred Games' is a great show overall and the best part is the performances from it's lead stars Nawaz and Saif Ali Khan.
A Must-Watch indeed. Hope there is a Season 3 and it better be good.
| 8 |
Poor love story and poor songs, especially in a light of another musical released almost the same time. Commercial awards like Oscar do not change my opinion. Sorry.
| 5 |
There's a reason why Christopher Nolan is one of today's foremost directors - he manages to fuse genuinely awe-inspiring spectacle with an emotional core. Take Interstellar: a flawed masterpiece, probably too flawed to be a masterpiece - but Nolan leaves the viewer in a maelstrom of emotions. Dunkirk, while masterfully sewn together, surprisingly lacks an emotional punch.
Let's begin with the brilliant part: the spectacle. The film is relentlessly paced, immersing the viewer in the chaos of war for its entire duration. This is visual film-making at its best, combining the marshalling of vast crowds of people and real sets which characterised the great war films of old, with the close-up, fast-paced excitement at which Nolan has always excelled. Particularly notable is the use of sound - the music is very minimal, the soundscape instead filled with shrieking engines, groaning ships, and starling cracks of bullets which shock the audience every bit as much as the characters. The effect is to create an omnipresent sense of threat - though Nolan never shows the face of a German soldier, instead turning the situation into a pulse-pounding race against time. Sticklers for historical realism will, as usual, find plenty of little things to nitpick - as well as the occasional glaringly improbable detail, such as super-effective bombers and ships sinking unbelievably quickly. But in terms of the general feel, I appreciate that Nolan has not served up a bombastic myth: we see soldiers acting cynically to save their own lives, a sense of quiet duty rather than patriotic fanaticism on the part of the rescuers, and a general feeling on the beaches that ranges from gloom to utter despair, rather than perfect stoicism or unremitting hope.
To immerse oneself in this extraordinary historical episode, look no further than this film. But of course, every historical film needs to zoom in and follow particular narratives about individual characters. The problem is that the characters in Dunkirk are all entirely undeveloped - and of course, this is not a mistake by Nolan, rather than attempt to put the focus on the episode as a whole, showing the plight of the entire army. The individual narratives we follow are merely microcosms of the different aspects of the battle. A movie without stories, or without characters whose paths we are invested in following, will always struggle to resonate with an audience, and makes the whole event feel more like some brilliantly-produced virtual tour of Dunkirk than a piece of visual storytelling.
I suspect every individual viewer will differ in the extent to which they agree with my conclusion that the movie does not connect, and does not grip its audience beyond with anything other than its sheer spectacle. I would recommend this film to any interested viewer - I do not regret my viewing at all, and I am sure that many readers of this review will enjoy the film even more than I did. But - although I'm a history buff (PhD) who's always delighted to see a historical episode so brilliantly recreated - I do feel that Nolan has missed a chance to really weave a human drama into this grand spectacle, and create a classic.
| 7 |
30 minutes into the movie I poked my eardrums out with a fork. The movie sounded better after that.
| 1 |
Normally when a movie is hyped up big time you can pretty much guarantee it's gonna be rubbish.
Honestly this is literally just what the world needed. But do you know what? If you didn't like it then fine! Maybe it was just what I needed!
I'm not a cheesy fan in films but this did it so right. Honestly I was laughing so hard then nearly crying the next. It was a rollercoaster of a ride that I didn't know I needed in my life. I came out there thinking it was brilliant what I didn't expect was me driving home trying to stop myself from crying. I know it sounds dramatic but if you got it, you know.
Ryan gosling I knew he was a great actor but my god he took up a whole other comedic value and wasn't embarrassed in doing so! He was pure perfection in the role of Ken.
Obvs Margot Robbie. No words needed.
I loved the script. I loved the direction, I loved all the actors involved.
Honestly just pure barbie perfection. Chefs kiss.
Let me go off and drink wine and now go cry.
| 9 |
I liked this movie, but I can't surely say it was perfect. The camera movement took all my attention, and everything I was living while watching the movie suddenly dissolved with the black screen.
| 7 |
While I enjoyed this movie very much at first, in the end it was a bit disappointing. Like in a detective novel, the plot is hugely important in this film. And while the acting and camera-work are really outstanding IMHO, the plot just isn't up to par; when 2/3's of the movie was over the plot was completely clear to me and the final 1/3 of the movie played out exactly as I figured it would. In my opinion the producers of this film underestimated the intelligence of their audience, thereby making this film less interesting than it could have been. Nevertheless, this film really IS worth your while, because of the originality and irony of the story.
| 7 |
She fooled me once with her debut, "The Virgin Suicides", but Sofia Coppola has brought me to the end of my tether with regards to this highly overrated tripe of a movie, "Lost In Translation". Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice..... well, you get the idea.
I was reading about how one of the negative critiques of this film stemmed from the frustration that Sofia showcased a very poor portrayal of Japanese folk. I tend to agree with this assessment. In this film, what we are asked to believe is that Sofia, who was born with a silver spoon in her mouth and is the spawn of perhaps the single-most overrated director in the history of cinema, can somehow relate to the human condition in a meaningful way and then translate that onto the screen.
She can't.
Quite simply, it was..... lost in translation. There is no emotional burdening, no character depth, and very sparsely trite dialogue to carry on the film. Only the Coppolas can succeed at turning a 90 minute movie into a test of patience and endurance. I'm done with them. There are MCH better directors out there who can actually write a coherent story.
| 1 |
Ente Isla, the medieval land of major- league magic and corrupt churches, is being destroyed, one village at a time, by the depraved Demon King Jacob and his almost-as-evil underlings. One fateful night, the heroine Emilia Justina and co. invades the Demon Kings' castle, annihilating the many evildoers in the way. When the good guys finally come face-to-face with the all-mighty villain himself, the Demon King retreats to modern-day Earth with his most loyal henchman, where they adopt different names (the Demon King is now Sadou Maou while the henchman becomes Shiro Ashiya and our notoriously vicious villain morphs into
a mere McDonalds (I mean, "McRonalds") employee. Welcome to The Devil is a Part-Timer, where the unexpected is expected and where expectations too high will be crushed.
We find our protagonists in the city of Sasazuka, Japan, a business- oriented megalopolitan with beautiful scenery straight from a painting and a spectacularly subpar soundtrack inserted in the atmosphere. At first glance, Sadou Maou is the typical non-chalant slacker but he is also a loyal, hard-working employee at McRonalds and is generally a kind, good-natured person (Yep, Sadou's personality took a complete 180 after his Demon King days but the series feels no need to explain that. It's not like character development matters, right?). Shiro Ashiya is an even greater victim of the Sadou Effect than Sadou himself, a genuinely caring and loyal person (especially to Sadou) who serves as this series' comic relief and is pretty much useless in a fight (When does this guy ever throw a punch?). Now, you're probably thinking "Wow, The Devil is a Part- Timer doesn't sound all that great." Well, your opinion of this comedy/slice-of-life series is about to plummet even further.
As our protagonists (very, very quickly) adjust to life on Earth, other characters are thrown into the already-shaky plot. First and foremost is customer support worker Emi Yusa who is also Emilia Justina (shocker, right?), a red-headed tsundere with a supremely short temper, an obsession with routinely stalking Sadou, an annoyingly self-righteous attitude ("I'm the Hero!" screams Emi in more episodes than one, and my all-time least favorite character (Eren Yeager (Attack on Titan) and Kagome (Inuyasha) are now 2nd and 3rd respectively). Then, there's Chiho, an average girl working at McRonalds who's really in love with Sadou, a rather one-dimensional character that garnered attention from other characters due in part to her massive jugs. "A female supporting character needs to be an object of fan-service (as well as a boob job) in order to be noticed", the series seems to say. Later in the series, other characters just appear out-of-the-blue, like slacker computer whiz Hanzo (a former General under the Demon King who everyone in Sadou's group treats like dirt), stereotypical quiet girl Suzuno (her dubbed voice is painful to hear), and Emi's friend Emeralda Etuva (her purpose in the series is
I don't know). With the cast of The Devil is a Part-Timer (who embody one anime cliché after another), the show tries way too hard to be funny. Sometimes it works (like in episode 9, where Ashiya explains the series' synopsis with a metaphor to one of Emi's very few friends) and sometimes it doesn't.
When The Devil is a Part-Timer is tired of being a comedy (Comedies are supposed to be CONSISTENTLY funny) and is plain bored of calling itself a rom-com (I'll get to that later), it nosedives into probably the most over-used genre in all of anime: action. The fight scenes are easily the most beautifully animated sequences in the series but that's the only compliment I can give to it. The action in this series doesn't occur often and, when it does, it's mostly balls of energy from hands, Superman-esque eye beams, and aerial attacks that take place. Needless to say, action isn't really this anime's forte but the third-to-last episode and second-to-last episode were all about action. At this point, The Devil is a Part- Timer, which was once a light-hearted comedy with few serious moments, transformed into a dark drama with tragic pasts and screaming matches. During this massive mood shift, Chiho exclaims "Where is all this coming from?!", a question for which I have no answer. In the last of the two aforementioned episodes, a villain who was inserted into the series in episode 9 declares, "Satan's current power level makes you able to defeat him. If you didn't know this anime is trying to be a generic Dragon Ball Z replica, now you do. At one point in this stretch, Emi absorbs a severe blow from the aforementioned villain and crashes into a pile of boxes. This is one of those scenes where it's implied that you're supposed to sympathize with the character's pain but I felt nothing while watching this moment, mostly because there was nothing to Emi, to any of the show's characters, which told me I should care.
The last episode was a stand-alone story about dreams, scams, and a villain in love. It didn't meet the overarching goals of the series (for Sadou to choose Chiho, Suzuno, or Emi as his lover and, more importantly, for Sadou to return to Ente Isla and reign once more as Demon King), and was ultimately a half-baked conclusion to a mediocre series. No review of The Devil is a Part-Timer would be complete, however, without mentioning the opening, a forgettable theme song worthy of the skip button with head-scratching sequences. One sequence, for example, has Chiho appear with a traditional miko dress and a bow (When does this happen in the series?) before she softly lands an arrow in the middle of the target as hearts, stars, and sparkles surround the arrow. Even the theme song sucks. If I could summarize my opinion of The Devil is a Part-Timer in one sentence, it would be this: Thank God it's only 13 episodes.
| 5 |
The most depressing, stupid and mindless film i have ever seen!
| 1 |
The Falcon and the Winter Soldier (2021) is a series my wife and I watched on Disney+ a couple months after it came out. The storyline follows The Falcon as a reluctant hero that doesn't want to pick-up where Captain America left-off as a super hero. The Winter Soldier tries to encourage him but as The Falcon delays a new villain with ideas of his own emerges.
This series was created by Malcolm Spellman (Empire) and stars Anthony Mackie (The Hurt Locker), Sebastian Stan (Black Swan), Erin Kellyman (The Green Knight), Daniel Brühl (Alienist) and Emily VanCamp (Revenge).
The storyline for this is entertaining, action packed and worth following. Brühl's character was unpredictable, well written and very well delivered. I didn't love the way Mackie's character was written, but it fit within the plot and Mackie and Stan's chemistry was great making their performances worthwhile. There's some great cameos in this and they do a good job of intermittently injecting other parts of the Marvel universe into this movie. The conclusion to this is excellent and makes the series worth getting through.
Overall this was a good, not great, series that is worth watching whether you're a die hard Marvel fan or not. I would score this a 7/10 and strongly recommend it.
| 7 |
Jojo has to enjoy the life every normal kid does. However, he needs to control the options. With the tales of war looming, such is not a good time to control options. Jojo is expected to sing the song of the day. Loyalty to the Fuhrer means everything. His word is upside down. Creativity in the script introduces a bright spot into Jojo's life. He followed this light. By the time he reaches it, he begun to know that loyalty without love is fire without flame. Waititi (T) directs like he acts. Wherever you have Wilson (R) you have fun. Jojo Rabbit is the motion for our emotions.
| 7 |
Its the first ever series which i seen....so....nothing to say........
| 8 |
The concept is good but the directorial choices made the film extremely difficult to watch, with the sound constantly overblown between music and dialogue, making it difficult to maintain focus. This is not a good option for those who have a more introverted nature.
| 3 |
Barbie is a visually stunning achievement that has excelled at the box office while dividing audiences. On the one hand, Barbie amazes with extravagant practical sets and exceptional performances, but on the other hand, the story and directing feel chaotic and erratic. The target audience seems to be moms who played with Barbies and would bring their daughters to the film. Therefore, some film's themes feel more grown up than expected for a movie about a child's toy. Despite probably not being the primary target demographic, I enjoyed the film, especially Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling's performance. They elevated the story and script to the successful giant the movie has become. The casting of Kate McKinnon and Will Ferrell was perfect for the roles they portrayed. The sets and production design were some of the most impressive I have ever seen in a film! The story was unfocused and unpredictable but also fun and lighthearted. While I wouldn't say Barbie was perfect, and its themes a little too complex for a movie about a toy, its production design and unique story stood out in an era of remakes and sequels.
| 7 |
What a noisy film! Last century's Shaft almost a classical, and this one is garbage. I only watched 15 minutes then decided turn it off.
| 3 |
This movie provides one of the scenarios where the credits look better than the movie. When I first saw the trailer, I began to look forward to seeing Sherlock Holmes. I enjoyed the quick-witted dialogue interspersed with seemingly random flairs of action.
If only the movie had been this good. Granted, I didn't hate it either, and I saw after seeing the two best movies of 2009, Avatar and The Road, so my expectations were a little bit higher as well. However, these expectations aren't insurmountable, as long as q movie is successful in what it aims to do. Sherlock Holmes does not accomplish this. At least, not completely.
The best bits of dialogue were already shown in the trailer. Throughout the movie, Robert Downey spoke in a monotonous mumble, that I, as well as the other movie-going sleuths, often had to decipher for ourselves. That's not to say Downey Jr. Was bad. On the contrary, the bittersweet relationship between Holmes and Watson was the most engaging part of the script.
The plot began interestingly enough, but it was bogged down by the plodding sameness of the scenery, and the obvious sequel set-up. By the end, I found myself wondering why Guy Ritchie had chosen to devote so much time into preparing a sequel that he forgot to pay attention to the script that was in front of him.
Without Downey and Law, this movie would have been a total waste of money. As it is, save your money for a movie more worth your time (Avatar, anyone?), and go see Sherlock in a second-run theater, or better yet, as a rental from Blockbuster.
| 3 |
The performances are excellent. The film itself is vapid, empty and, worst of all, boring and slow. Sometimes directors become so popular and powerful there's no one around them willing to say "This is not fresh or interesting."
| 2 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.