Review
stringlengths 6
10.3k
| Rating
int64 1
10
|
|---|---|
I was one of the few who did not like the first movie too much, where its bad acting and 'great' story of adolescence was wasted on me. With the big hype for the second movie, I expected more - better acting, better story, and basically a better movie.
Well, I will say that I enjoyed this movie a lot more than the first one but that's only because they decided to add so many cheesy one-liners, overly dramatic scenes, too-well scripted scenes, and fan-service. Basically, most of my laughter and enjoyment was derived from points that I think the filmmakers didn't plan for. The acting was subpar on the part of James Franco, who I like, but I will say that was because of direction and his character. Tobey and Kirsten do a lot better this time around, and the other supporting characters really do shine.
Story-wise, it was better. I was surprised a few times that they decided to go a certain way already and my prediction for the villain of the third movie that I gathered since the first seems to be pretty much set (with possibilities of more). The plot and characters were a lot more developed, spending time to accentuate those that needed it. However, there were many times scenes were used that were just irrelevant or longer than needed, its pacing was off, and the change between scenes was odd making me stop and wonder why.
So, basically compared to the first, it is better, but I say not by much. I don't think this was as well-polished as X2 and definitely had flaws. I'm not quite sure why they are making out Spiderman to be Superman because Spiderman should not be that strong and it makes him out to be invincible, which was never the case.
| 6 |
I'm really surprised at you, Neil Gaiman. I thought you and Terry Pratchett were friends. Why then, would you put your name to this drivel?
I mean, the book is great. I must have read it twice if not three times in my life and like many of yours and Mr. P's books (god rest his soul) I've loved them all.
And it has a great cast. Nothing wrong with Sheen vs Tennant as lead actors so why do I feel they are dialling this performance in with an analogue phone?
It's so panto and camp, I'm actually cringeing, watching it.
It's very faithful to the book and therein lies the problem. It's TOO faithfull.
You simply can't reproduce everything that's in the book, onto the small screen (or a large one, in my case) it just doesn't work.
I think Gaiman, et al spent so much time trying to cram everything in, that he failed to make it interesting. Or current. Or relevant. Or pacy.
Someone said it's reminiscent of the Hitchiker's series, and I'd agree. The Hitchiker's of the Eighties. Fine in its time, dated and draggy now. Like Red Dwarf. Watch with nostalgia glasses on, it's a winner.
Sorry Neil, I love your writing, but I think you should have counted your blessings with Lucifer.
| 2 |
Good movieee.. need more seasons.. Good cinematography.
| 9 |
Overhyped, overrated.
The first half of the movie is boring and dull.
Even the scared aren't scary enough.
Disgusting sexual suggestion.
The main character is annoying and has no depth.
The story itself is poor, and the way it unravel is even worse. A lot of loose ends, relies on jumpscares rather than psychological horror which what the story supposed to provide.
The first half of the movie is like watching a bad teenagers drama with endless parties, and pointless conversations.
I regret every minute and cent lost to this movie.
True disappointment especially that the 7.5 rating gave me a lot of expectations.
| 3 |
First off who gave you people the power to change the whole original story? Women in the leading role will never last. Why does hollywood have this now where women are in the leading spotlight? In certain places yeah women can but not when it a ship of any kind. I doubt if it goes more then 3 season
| 2 |
A very odd movie that ironically itself is full of its own propoganda. A pretty bold move to try and make a happy go lucky movie set around one of the darkest periods in recent history. I personally am not offended by the subject manner, however what I did find somewhat predictable and at most points, cringe ridden, was the frequent strong woman tropes and dumbing down of the nazi party. Hence the title of the review. I believe a movie like this can be done well but this movie felt off and misdirected at many points. The comedy thriughtout most the film falls flat. Comedy is in a dire state at themoment so this is no exception. Something that put myself and friends off also were the very poor accents. I understand what they are trying to achieve with hitlers character but the god awful look and accent is too poor to get by. However this is something that will not apply to everyone that watches.
The movie comes off as written by an over-zealous person who despises nazis (rightly so of course) and this hatred although understandable bleeds over a little too much into the movie to the point I feel they are just writing out their fantasies of what they wish would have happened in these situationa.
| 3 |
For what it lacks in story telling it makes up for in brutal fast paced brawls, car chases and gun fights. The only thing stopping me rating this higher is the fact I spent half the time turning it up then then down again. From hemsworth deep voice that you can barely hear then to guns shots that are really loud.
| 7 |
The movie should be called Blue Balls in Tokio instead of lost in translation.
| 5 |
I saw this movie when it was first released and I still don't understand how so many people love this movie. Travolta is nothing special, Bruce Willis was a stiff, and the whole concept of this movie seemed ridiculous to me. Sam Jackson was great as playing a typical Sam Jackson Role. I think everyone was on a Tarantino rush because he wore those kangol hats. Who Cares!!? Reservoir Dogs wasn't good either. Maybe I'm just anti tarantino but in no way is this one of the greatest films of all time or even the 1990's.
| 3 |
The story is engaging and provides what is probably a much-closer-to-reality view of what war in Iraq was like than typical action movies. Even the gunfire and explosions are different (and presumably real) enough from traditional movies that they somehow feel real - and like many aspects of the movie quickly deliver that "oh....so that's what it must really be like....wow" moment.
Unfortunately, the director over-used the Blair-Witch / Bourne "Let's shake the camera a lot through the whole movie" technique to where I was constantly distracted and pulled away from the more intense emotional drama of what really can go on in war. I almost shut the movie off half-way through because it was so bad. If they released a non-shaky version of the movie I'd give it 7 or 8 stars, but as edited, I wouldn't recommend it and would barely give it 3 stars.
| 3 |
Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) grew up among thieves and steals an Orb coveted by all especially by Ronan, the Destroyer (Lee Pace) who will use it to rule the Galaxy. Quill gathers a team known as The Guardians of the Galaxy to fight Ronan and save the day.
The Guardians: Gamora (Zoe Saldana), Drax the Destroyer (Dave Bautista), Rocket (the Racoon and voice of Bradley Cooper), and Groot (voice of Vin Diesel), and, of course, Peter Qulll.
There is so much CGI in here with battles, battles, battles that I fell asleep for 20-minutes 2-times and woke up and missed nothing. This is like a pin ball machine gone berserk with 5-ball bearings going all over the place (I take it you didn't like it?). Yes, a CGI Tekkie's dream, I suppose.
The CGI and the Editing should win some awards. They were very good. It's just that they went on for waaaaaaaayyyy too looooooooong, The dialogues at times, when I was awake, bordered on juvenile utterances. It was like the movie was made for 7-year olds.
Notables: John C. Reilly, Benicio Del Toro, Glenn Close, Josh Brolin, Stan Lee
And there's going to be another one? I'll pass. (2/10)
Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: No.
| 2 |
Overhyped hot garbage don't waste your time go find a show that's worth watching.
| 1 |
The Good Fantastic acting. Great dialog. Good storyline. The characters verbal intercourse is what sarcastic / cynical people think but polite people would never say. The Bad This is a dystopic Mayberry with the darkest worst sides of every Andy Griffith character. (Andy, Barney, Crabby old lady, Otis the Drunk as a midget, Opie as a angry teenager . . . It is offensive and insulting the way Hollywood portrays middle America. It was an attempt to be another "Fargo" Hollywood portrays middle America as dumb, white, redneck, racist gubbers. And this movie ended without closure. It is was obvious that this movie wasn't filmed in Missouri (that is minor compared to the other negative aspects.
| 3 |
What the first season lacked in depth it made up for in world-building and character charm. The second season lacks all three, unfortunately.
Somehow "The Witcher" manages to be cliche and baffling at the same time, with a strange combination of fantasy jargon to impart how Big and Important and Terrifying the stakes are, without actually articulating why we should care. This is a problem throughout: narrative shorthand. I feel like the writers assume the audience will do their job for them, like we will accept the threat without delivery of stakes, will we swallow the increasingly-wobbly political plotline without getting any actual details or fallout of it, and we will accept that some characters are in love despite not actually ever appearing to be.
I wanted to like the second season: the first was fun if a little lacklustre in the story department, but the ramping up of tension with no solid end point and too many plot lines to sustain itself left me exhausted and frustrated. It needn't be clever, it just needs to stop trying to be if it can't follow through. I don't care about the war, I don't believe that the world is on the brink of collapse, and I don't feel any emotion at character deaths because the show has too many of them with not enough development for it to feel weighty.
I would also add that there is nowhere near enough Jaskier in Season 2, which was admittedly a lot of my reasoning for liking Season 1. It really suffers without the lighter tone he brings, and instead you get scene after scene of The Perfect Special Princess Who Was Promised attempting to bond with her Witcher Dad who has gone from being cold, complicated and filled with self-loathing to a doting father figure who pines after a woman he knew for about three days without any explanation. I think more of the Bard might have balanced out the fact that Yennifer, Ciri and Geralt are rather wooden stock characters struggling against the cliche dialogue to have meaningful interactions with each other.
The fantasy elements are generally alright. It is visually beautiful, as always with Netflix, and the performers do the best they can with what they've got, but even the spectacle feels a little hollow. I was very disappointed with Season 2. I think they need a reshuffle in the writers' room.
| 2 |
This movie made me feel confused all the time. I understood all the philosophical strands, but this was just badly executed. I've just felt annoyed and wishing the movie would end soon enough.
| 2 |
Spiderman 2: interesting,well-written action and romance film. Thank goodness the characters have tired to progress from the first movie, and a struggling Peter Parker is always fun to watch. Parker actually seems like most university students, trying to balance study, work and his own sense of self. His love for Mary Jane is eluciated as something deep and palpatable, and the scenes with Maguire and Dunst connect that sense of desire and love through the screen. The action, as always satisfies mostly because the bad guy, Dr Octavious is actually scary. There are times when we have no idea how Spidey will get out of this one, and even the elements of Dr Ock's get-up evoke many animal and philosophical tones. The actors are given a nice range, and the supporting players stand out strongly. This film is littered with small touches that give the film a backbone, and it proves that even the biggest, grandest blockbusters should incorporate some adult themes into the story. The audience aren't all kids - they can handle it.
| 8 |
Do I really need to make compliment on this masterpiece or everyone knows how great, lovely and funny they are? I just cannot picture a life without seeing them, please never stop producing new seasons, people need you.
| 7 |
I am somewhat of a WWII history buff, and this movie does not convey the absolute mayhem of evacuating 300,000 men using about 700 ships and small boats, under heavy German fire, with 18 squadrons of British flyers and god only knows how many German planes. It just doesn't. If you've seen the D-day footage, this should have been like D-Day in reverse. Total war, total confusion, total panic.
| 6 |
This was such an awful movie. The characters were all extremely annoying, especially the Jamie character. I'm surprised at how many reviewers liked Leslie Mann's performance. She was a spoiled rich annoying unhappy lady!!!!! She has a perfect house, a husband who loves her, and gorgeous kids....what the f*** is her problem!!!! I found her character to be unbelievably annoying....how she kicked her husband out of bed so he can feed the kids. He works all the time to support her spoiled ass, and he has home duty too...shopping and feeding the babies!!!! Oh and at the end of the movie when he offered to quit his job and work at Kinkos, of course, she wasn't too happy about that, because then she couldn't live in that gorgeous house.
| 1 |
My rating for season 1 is 9 Season 2 and 3 are so much filler.
Season 4 does not even need to be there at all!
I gave only 5 stars overall because I average all the seasons.
| 5 |
I went to see Inception in the theater, and for the second time in my life experienced the feeling of desperately wanting to get up and walk out so as to salvage at least part of the evening. Had I been sitting on the aisle I certainly would have. As it was, there was no choice but to sit through the whole excruciating thing, hoping beyond hope that it would end and put me out of my misery.
I know others have rated the movie highly, and I respect their opinions. At the end of the screening I went to, many of the folks leaving seemed to have really enjoyed it. Personally, though, I think it was just awful, for three reasons: the stakes, the villains, and the writing.
Comparison with The Matrix series is inevitable, because here - like in The Matrix- we have action taking place in the "real" world and a "dream" world. Inception takes the Matrix-like concept and adds to it with multiple dream worlds, and dream worlds within dream worlds. That idea has the potential to be interesting, so due credit there. The first problem, though, is that the stakes in Inception are too low. In The Matrix, success in the dream world means saving all of humanity from enslavement. OK, that's a goal I can get invested in. Here, success in the dream world means two things: a) the Leo DiCaprio character gets to see his kids, and b) one big energy corporation gets an advantage in the market over another big energy corporation. Ho hum. (Now, don't get me wrong - it's possible to make a movie where the audience gets invested in a father-child relationship, and an emotional journey comes to have high stakes. To do that, though, the movie has to work to develop the emotional elements of the characters and the story, which Inception doesn't do. There's so much sci-fi gimmickry, action, and special effects that there's no room left to develop a human story worth caring about.)
Well, if it's not a success as a deep character study, at least it can be a good sci-fi action thriller, right? Well, there's more hope here, but still it didn't work for me. Here the problem is the villains. There aren't any. Yes, Our Heroes do a lot of fighting, but it's against random faceless gunmen who pop up and get shot down like in a video game. Again, compare to The Matrix: the scenes with Agent Smith talking to Morpheus, and later to Neo, give us a bad guy we can really root against, which makes the good guy more fun to root for. Or in Die Hard, when Hans Gruber kills the smarmy guy without qualm, it makes Hans more evil and makes it more cathartic when he loses at the end. There isn't even a betrayal twist where one of our favorite characters turns out to be the bad guy. Of course, the conflict here is not man-vs-man or man- vs-nature, it is man-vs-himself; but as already noted above, that takes attention to character that wasn't paid here.
| 6 |
Episode 4 in the jewelry store... I haven't laughed that hard.. lots of funny banter and if you live Natasha you'll love this ! Episode 4 in the jewelry store... I haven't laughed that hard.. lots of funny banter and if you live Natasha you'll love this ! Episode 4 in the jewelry store... I haven't laughed that hard.. lots of Episode 4 in the jewelry store... I haven't laughed that hard.. lots of funny banter and if you live Natasha you'll love this ! Funny banter and if you live Natasha you'll love this ! Episode 4 in the jewelry store... I haven't laughed that hard.. lots of funny banter and if you live Natasha you'll love this !
| 8 |
Venom (2018) was a hugely conflicting film between fans and critics; many people really enjoyed it and many disliked the film, fortunately I am one of those who really liked it, so I was excited to watch the sequel, especially knowing that Carnage (one of the most beloved Marvel villains to ever be written) was in it.
First of all, I really enjoyed Eddie and Venom's dynamic in this film, which is great as it was one of my favourite things about the original; so those of you who may not have enjoyed Venom (2018) but liked the dynamic between the two characters, you may be satisfied with the sequel too. I also thought that the film displayed Tom Hardy's acting much more in this film. I wasn't originally hugely amazed by his performance and accent in the original but this film sold me on him more, which is great as I am incredibly fond of Hardy in his other roles such as Max in Fury Road (2015) and Alfie Solomons in Peaky Blinders (2013-), and also as a person in general. And I think that the CGI has improved since the first; I never had a huge problem with it in the first film, other than a few shots being off, but I couldn't find anything wrong with it in this movie. Woody Harrelson also is of course great as Cletus Kassidy, he is one of the funniest and coolest actors about today. One thing I'd like to add is that it's very consciously silly at times, more than the first I'd say. So if you didn't mind the goofiness of the original, then you won't have a problem with this one. But it won't be for everyone.
However, my main complaint is that I thought it was way too short. I didn't think it was enough to fully dive deep into finding a connection with the characters of Carnage and Shriek. Like I previously mentioned, Harrelson performs greatly and so does Naomie Harris for that matter (who plays Shriek), but the film is too short to appreciate them enough. I wouldn't go as far as saying that Carnage was underwhelming; I thoroughly enjoyed some action scenes involving him, but we didn't get enough time with him to appreciate him enough. I wasn't expecting the next Thanos, but I did want more.
My final thing, is the mid credit scene. You MUST stay for it, definitely one of the coolest mid credit scenes we've ever seen in a comic book movie. It will for sure get you excited for future appearances of Venom.
Overall, Venom: Let There Be Carnage is good comic-book movie worth seeing especially if you enjoy the first film and Marvel in general. You can definitely tell Andy Serkis is involved with this one, as it's very goofy at times and silly, but it can be quite dark and creepy at times. Just the main thing holding it back from being better from the first is the short runtime. But I very much enjoyed my time in the cinema watching this one.
| 7 |
About all the critics that I have I never didn't understand what was the sense of Margot character. I think this is the first film of Tarantino that make no sense. It look like Tarantino wrote this under Dorito's effects. Brad come on you're better Thant that how do you accept interpreting this character as also DiCaprio. I think maybe this was a personal favor of Margot and Discaprio to Quentin and Brad. And this were nominated to the Oscars......
| 6 |
One of the worst Marvel movies, the movie was very bad, the villain of the movie was one of the worst villains, the action scenes were not up to par, the character of Tony Stark was bad in this movie,
| 3 |
... I continued watching the series. It started to get very complex, but this complexity was very high quality. Interesting relationships and results emerged and made this series surprising and exciting. Interaction from unexpected places. If anyone is interested, they should definitely watch it.
| 8 |
I don't care what anyone says about season 3, because for me it doesn't matter at all. This show is as the title says a goddamn masterpiece and I'm sure season 4 will be amazing.
| 9 |
A random supernatural mishmash wannabe bodice-ripper.
| 4 |
Its a waste of time. Another typical Marvel story. I am so bored of watching. Everything is expectable. The main character is a mediocre actor. I also didnt like the special effects, everything is negative for me.
| 3 |
777charlie such beautiful bonding story of charlie and dharma... such movies are rare its actually masterpiece must watch for all pet lover and haters(will make love more). Movie has got very good global message.. 1st half is filled with complete comedy and emotions and slowly Interval picks 2nd half is complete of tears climax is just too emotional ... Nice reference to Mahabharata "A Tale of Dharmaraj in Kalyug"
| 10 |
Thanks a lot anurag basu for making such wonderful film. I was sick and tired of watching over aged above 50 actor. Really loved the way story is narrated how all characters have impact on eachother life. You will feel glimpse of burfi which was also amazing movie. Its a paisa vasool movie
| 9 |
Overall direction including storyline ...acting skills n all is fabulous ..superb....specially Storyline it has covered all social factors or problems which we face in our daily life...
| 10 |
After a great first season, a second .. not so good one already, this was the disappointment of the year. Teenage love stories, childish dialogues, poor acting and all possible boring and simply impossible situations. Even or maybe especially Russians cannot be that blind, stupid and fitted with these make-believe clichés. The sherif has mentally fallen back to "Kindergarten" level. Too much teenager "bla blas". Stopped watching after painful 1,5 episodes
| 1 |
I just finished this show and binge watched it over 2 days. I couldn't stop watching. The acting, music, and production were so well done. It really brought me back to high school days (I'm in my late 20's now). I could totally relate to Hannah, as I think many American teenage girls (and boys) can too. Yes, she was a "drama queen" as many people have said, but many teenagers are. I think the negative reviewers are forgetting what it was really like to be a teen or they had a positive high school experience and didn't have to go through some of the terrible things a lot of people have gone through. Mental health plays a huge role too. Hannah was definitely dealing with depression and possibly other mental health problems. I was depressed in high school and had severe social anxiety. It consumed my whole life and as a result I contemplated suicide. I didn't go through even close to the terrible things Hannah had to. This show is her point of view and that needs to be remembered when watching. It's also the point of view of a teenage girl who can't yet fathom that life can get better and it's worth living. I don't think this show is trying to be a PSA, it's telling the sad and tragic story of Hannah Baker and hundreds of other American teens. I'm glad the popularity of this show is getting people thinking and talking about the issues teens have to deal with and I hope somehow it can help.
| 9 |
Critics must be paid off to hype this piece of garbage Impossible to follow, no characterization, no acting, no plot Nothing but shooting and noise Completely unrealistic Comcast , I want my rental fee back,,, you re complicit
| 1 |
Nagraj did it yet again. The most important part is this movie teaches you something, unlike other Bollywood movies. Great film. Must watch.⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
| 10 |
This could've been a short much like A Quiet Place. People being stupid for no dang reason at all.
| 3 |
It's GOT all over again with the latest season being a let down. Another epic show bites the dust Where to begin with? *All the characters start behaving so strangely (maybe thats why the name Stranger Things) opposite to their character development in past 2 seasons * Unnecessary Comedy in dead serious situations. * The whole Russian plot is so lame and stupid (except for alexi though loved him ). * This season felt so artificial and unnatural. I mean you could dig first two seasons but this one was just ahhhh.... Didn't even feel like watching the season finale. *Unnecessary lame sound tracks.
| 3 |
Sorry, but in my experience, seen one mobster movie, seen 'em all. Same actors. Same stories. Nothing new to see here.
| 5 |
A sports biographical drama,
Movie is *based on the life of former sports coach Vijay Barse.*
Barse trained underprivileged kids to play football in Nagpur. He's also the founder of NGO Slum Soccer.
Impactful film with an important message.
It is beyond just a sports drama.
It's a powerful representation of *social discrimination in modern India,*
The film has excellent cinematography, good dialogues and outstanding performances..., Bachchan is amazing,..!!
After a long time, a film that is 178 minutes long, but so well-made and fantastic.
| 8 |
Gangs of Wasseypur starts off with a bunch of guys raiding a house tearing into pieces in the year 2004. It then flashbacks to 1941, and then, 3 hours later, ends in 1990, with a "To be continued". By this time, my head was hurting like crazy, and half the theater had walked out. Now take an intelligent guess on how good the film was.
I know of people who've loved the movie, but it definitely isn't the one for me, and am guessing everyone. Unless you like such dark, vulgar films with no story, stay away.
Acting: 7.5/10 Story-Screenplay-Direction: 3/10 Technical Aspects: 6/10
Verdict: 4.5/10
Please visit sasikanth.me for more reviews :)
| 4 |
Hannibal is a truly remarkable series. The acting is as good as it gets in television or film and the story is very engrossing. I'm not someone that typically appreciates art the way many do but it is shot in the most beautiful and haunting way. It is too bad that the show didn't get the seasons it deserved but the three they gave us are gold.
| 10 |
There's very little not to like here
the cinematography is brilliant....it helps tell a huge chunk of the story
there's a period in the middle where it almost lost me...circling around what it had already established...but it quickly snatches itself out of it
you can't take away nothing from this show....
it's marvelous.
| 8 |
A movie that literally begins deep inside Adam Sandler's backside (during a colonoscopy), UNCUT GEMS has provided Sandler... as a jeweler in debt from reckless gambling... accolades for a different kind of performance...
And while not another goofy Happy Madison production, his "Screaming Guy" routine is nothing new... sans the soft-spoken baby talk before the inevitable Nirvana-like shift from clean to distorted loudness occurs...
For the most part, GEMS is a gritty New York City arthouse flick that never intentionally settles into one place comfortably; and a frantic, neurotic, fast-talking Sandler has its moments...
The problem is that the directors - throwing in too many characters and an annoying, intrusive score - keep trying to out-frantic their leading man, making it tough if impossible to know what's going on, or why.
Unlike the far superior, equally artistic PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE, the man simply gets lost in the shuffle.
| 2 |
All around solid show. Better then expected.
Strenghts: interesting character development, cool consept, fun.
Weaknes: weird at times, can be confusing.
One of the better marvel shows.
| 8 |
Very well crafted scenes one after another, great fun to watch if you don't care why they are doing what they are doing, or whether there is a storyline
| 3 |
Those who liked the movie. Imagine Ironman in a reboot as a villain who makes weapons to get richer and richer and then makes the suit to be the King of the World.
This is why people don't like this movie. That's what they did to the character.
Imagine Luke as being the rebellion, Vader and the Emperor being the good guys. They try to keep the whole universe together, give food and jobs to everyone, keep everyone calm to make it a peaceful universe with harmony in it and here comes that little rebellion with his fellas to conquer it not giving a damn about the people and other creatures in it.
How would you rate that movie? Would you really say that it is good? Can you possibly imagine that?
Not even talking about how weak the whole thing was in every aspect. The best performance was delivered by the older asian lady while she was following the girl. That was the most impressive part of the movie.
Average action and silly jokes in a story that was made in a thousand other before.. How is that good? Is your brain that weak? A to B simple story, nothing in it. Some car crash, CG everywhere, few jokes and that's a good movie for you? For real?
Almost as bad as the Predator...
| 5 |
The movie is basically a sequence of references of pop culture thrown down your throat. Wreck it! Ralph did a much better job!
| 4 |
The initial part of the movie approximately the first 45-50 minutes are very good but after that things start to fall apart. The baseless aspects of the movie kickin and destroy all the fun you had for first 50 minutes. Overall a one time watch movie which at the end feels baseless without any concrete logic. Just show people some flying bullets and high speed karate action and they will like it. Yeah that kind of a movie. Even though the movie is ranked 8+ on IMDb it fails to click.
| 5 |
Cast and crew was perfect but story telling screen play & action ....a completely disaster If ur the fan of video game u will never like this series literally I slept 😴 and its total disgrace to the witcher series.... make it more engaging with intense screen play and action!!
| 1 |
The topic is quite interesting, but everything depends on how you approach...
Summarize a topic as susceptible of different interpretations in terms of "good guys" and "bad guys", I think it is unwise. I'm not arguing for or against the decision of the jury, or if Andrew Beckett's company was responsible for unfair dismissal. I'm just saying that the movie is not objective from the beginning.
Anyway, is quite watchable in general. I therefore remain with Jonathan Demme's direction, concretely the first 5 min. of the movie, in which makes a lovely portrait of Philadelphia.
6/10
| 6 |
Couldn't even finish watching this drivel. Terrible acting and worse writing. The fiction in between the factual is awful. I saw an episode of American Greed that summed this story up in one episode that was more palatable and American Greed isn't even a good show.
| 1 |
First off the pros of the movie Eddie and venom's banter is highly entertaining the cgi isn't ugly like the first movie and even though they use a lot of whip shots the fights are easy to follow another huge plus is casting woody as carnage which he plays the part perfectly and it's always a treat when Andy serkis is involved with a project and I think he does a really good job behind the camera now the cons unfortunately it repeats some of the sins of the first movie having a villain that doesn't get enough screen time for us to feel the tension build up and this might be due to the incredible short run time the movie also feels kinda of cluster phobic I feel like we don't get to emerge ourselves in Eddie Brock's world similar to a tv show we only see like 3 locations but my biggest gripe is the same gripe I had with Zombieland 2 it's not necessarily a bad sequel but a pointless one it basically retells the same story as the first without taking any chances or adding anything new to the story i think most people forgave the first film for a lot of its mistakes because we were finally seeing a mostly comic book accurate venom on the big screen but unfortunately the nostalgic goggles have already worn off in time for the sequel also I think carnage is a type of character that doesn't need any justification for why he acts the way he does there is a small line towards the end that felt like what rob zombie tried to do with Michael Myers in his remake I went back and fourth between giving this movie a six or seven but I think a seven is a fair rating.
| 7 |
So basically why would you leave the ending like this, like mans here thinking omg the spinning thing is gonna drop because it's wobbling and then you have the audacity to cut the damn sceen WHAT DO YOU MEAN BROOO
| 2 |
It initially starts as comedic and funny how he doesn't like Charlie at first and how Charlie annoys him in the starting to there bonding over time and then ends with a well thought out ending its what I call beautiful. Fantastic 10 out of 10 movie. It also shows how deep connection you can form with a being who can not verbally communicate you and how he can make you a better person.
| 10 |
This was another film I decided to watch because of it's Oscar Nominations. Thankfully this one wasn't disappointing although I don't think it is a perfect film.
The plot for this story is great and the set up is done well. Jeffrey Wright plays the character "Monk", a black author who is fed up with how blacks are represented in the entertainment industry. He decides to write a book (using a pseudonym) that encapsulates the black stereotype in an effort to show how ridiculous it is. His book becomes a success and he must figure out what to do with this success since it is all based on a lie.
Jeffrey Wright gives a great performance by managing to be both funny and serious throughout the film. His character is well rounded and is shown to have a range of emotions. The character's thoughts and feelings are expressed well throughout the entire film. Even the supporting actors contribute to our understanding of his character.
The depth of his character is what stands out in this film because of how his character is used as the epitome of everything he despises in the entertainment industry.
There were many laughs to be had in this film even though the jokes were racially motivated. The humor was well incorporated into the story and used to explain the race relations between whites and blacks.
There weren't any bad performances in this film. However, there were unnecessary characters and that's why I don't believe this film is perfect.
Tracee Ellis Ross' character as Monk's sister was a complete waste of a role. She should have been eliminated entirely from the story or given more screen time.
I didn't see the point of having the mother's caretaker or her boyfriend in the film. The film could have done without them. I understand she was introduced as the mother's caretaker and later that responsibility would fall upon Monk after their mother got sick. However, that storyline about the mother getting sick could have been written without her involvement.
I'm not sure how Sterling K. Brown is getting a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination for this performance. He was barely in the film and didn't do anything spectacular to earn a nomination. His character wasn't dynamic in any way and his performance was just okay. He's another character I felt was unnecessary to tell the story this film was trying to tell. His character did help a bit in giving insight to who Monk was but that could have been done better through the mother.
The rest of the supporting roles were the most cohesive and actually did a better job in aiding the story. Keith David and Okieriete Onaodowan's cameo was done very well and it was enjoyable. I would have liked seeing more of their characters. They brought Monk's book to life and further elaborated on some of the black stereotypes.
I have read that some have been critical about the ending of this film but it's actually the best part. The ending sums up this story and its ideas of how blacks are viewed in society and entertainment. The ending is satisfying for how it uses Monk's character to show how he still fell victim to everything he was so against at the beginning.
Despite the roles of some of the characters I still felt this was a great film that deals with social commentary.
| 8 |
Ok Netflix, you tried (again and again...). Chris did well in this mediocre movie, but overall after 20 minutes I found myself getting bored. If you enjoy mind-numbing street shooting and no clear or reasonable plot, then you will enjoy this.
| 6 |
Avatar: The Last Air Bender is one of my favorite TV shows of all time, and not just animated shows, among all TV shows! The character development, the story arcs and simply everything about this show is amazing. I would recommend this show to anyone that likes adventure stories. Although it is a kid's TV show, this show is suitable for audience of any age. Highly recommend this show!
| 10 |
A light-hearted sitcom set in the fictional Greendale community college, Community presents the manifold (mis)adventures of a diverse study group and the members' interpersonal dynamics.
While it primarily functions as a portrayal of the evolution of a family of misfit students, the show's real strength lies in its ability to leverage an extensive array of mediums and genres in which to present its stories. Animation, puppetry, musicals, documentaries, game shows, horror vignettes, festive shorts, sci-fi concoctions ... you name it, they have it. The abundance of callbacks, popular culture references and fourth wall breaks injected into the gag-filled dialogue further serves to enhance the levity and rewatchability of the episodes. The characters may be stereotypical but their flawed natures and distinct personality traits render them relatable and mostly endearing while also making their individual journeys all the more satisfying. The acting is praiseworthy on the whole, the single-camera filming style is employed purposefully, the editing and effects are done well, and the music tends to aptly complement each scene.
Unfortunately, the show is guilty of overstaying its welcome, losing a lot of its creative flair and ingenuity in the later seasons. The writing lacked wit and humour, the "Save Greendale" theme became tiresome, and the loss of some of the original cast was keenly felt with characters becoming largely stagnant. Also, like most serialized sitcoms, Community had its share of poor episodes over the course of its runtime be that thanks to underwhelming plots, obnoxious characters (like Pierce and Chang) or other behind-the-scenes differences.
In conclusion, it might lose some of its sheen in the later seasons, but the first half of Community is a refreshing reinvention of the sitcom genre. It is the perfect combination of simple but heartfelt stories, creative storytelling and memorable characters that rarely fails to excite and entertain.
| 8 |
Beautiful cinematography. Perfect atmosphere, and unique I would say. Very good acting and the direction and the way the story is told, following the script, is done professionally and polished to the smallest detail.
At least from what I watched. Which is to say - somewhere by episode 2.
In general, I'd rather watch a documentary on the events surrounding Chernobyl than a historical TV series that more or less distorts the truth and somehow isn't my cup of tea.
Again saying, purely technically, at least from what I watched, the series is a 10/10. Or come on maybe at least 8/10, no less. Which is SUPER!!!
But purely historically I don't trust what they show completely, it was a bit boring to me and again I say - I'd rather watch a documentary on the events told from a true perspective.
Final score: 3/10.
| 3 |
Yeh nya HINDUSTAN hai yeh ghar mein ghusega bhi or marega bhi
| 10 |
It's a slow burner for the 1st few episodes but stay with it, what a series! Beautifully shot, great characters and a soundtrack that is unbelievable. Happy watching
| 9 |
I'm going to keep it short and simple. Overall, it was lacking in depth and emotion in all of the characters. They just weren't believable.
The story writing also left many holes, too many for me to risk an attempt at any rewatch. I fell asleep on the last 20 minutes, woke up to finish only to be disappointed that I woke up for it.
| 4 |
Loki proves that the God of Mischief does not need Thor to sparkle. Hiddleston is excellent once again and steals the show with his most impressive performance as the character to date. Wilson's Mobius is also a fine addition to the MCU, with the interactions between Mobius and Loki providing for fine entertainment. The plot is gripping and the locations and special effects are beautifully created. Overall, this show does everything that is expected of an MCU product and epitomises what the MCU is capable of with the launch of Disney+
| 9 |
I'll say this right away the Timon and Pumbaa parts were my favorite of the movie. Everything else just felt empty, cut and paste and the voice acting was just not there for me. For the most part all the animal looked real, but I felt they really messed the Hyena's up making them look worse than reality. It all felt off, they moved like real animals but not completely making it weird. Real lions in the wild show more expression than the one's in this movie.
I much prefer the animated version where everything is more vibrant and fun. Here it was just lots of boring walking with the classic songs that made the original movie great. It was really the only thing that got any reaction out of me though I do prefer the old singer and voices of the original.
Of course everyone should make there own opinion seeing as the person I went with felt it was a 10/10 and loved every moment of it. For me, it was just a shell of the former movie with all the animals needlessly made realistic and all the amazing visuals stripped out.
| 4 |
I expected two things from Jojo Rabbit when I seated myself in a cosily sized auditorium for the first public screening of a film since the pandemic upended our ritual of cinema-going. I knew there was going to be comedy; based on reviews, I was anticipating something deeper and more meaningful - an emotional "soul". It is typically the "soul" of a movie that fires up the ardour within me, that drives me to loud exultations and recommendations; that imparts enduring images and sentiments in my memory and my mind that continue to influence me for years to come. To my mind, only someone particularly superficial in character would want to "simply have fun" at the movies. Nothing in life is without even a little significance. So far as I can say, referring to my limited experience, for someone to truly enjoy a movie, it generally necessitates that the movie have what I'm calling a "soul". Beyond the lights and actions, the gigantic set pieces and talented visual effects, there must be even a hint of a story, a character-driven narrative, a progression from one thing to another. That is life. Anything that is otherwise is pointless, mundane, desolate. For crying out loud - even The Emoji Movie made some miserable attempt at giving the protagonist development, and insofar as it was successful, it gave meaning to the story. Though it marries the two fairly well, I am going to argue that Jojo Rabbit wasted valuable screen time on gratuitous gags that it ought to have spent building endearing characters.
I understand I differ from the majority of audiences on some things. So, while many may chuckle at the painfully vulgar words and expressions placed just-so in the mouths of pre-adolescent boys, this strikes me as plainly repellent. It is immature. And it reeks of the putrid odour that offended people of good taste when the recent Good Boys debuted a trailer on YouTube, in which one of the producers, Seth Rogen, explained to his juvenile cast that, despite perpetrating the actions themselves, they would not be allowed to legally watch this content, as they were underage. How is it that a child can legally provide MA-rated content he isn't legally permitted to watch? Moral of the story - human beings are nothing short of professional hypocrites.
But back to the point. While many of the emotional beats (especially from a special moment in the movie, when the genre almost switches - so forceful is the mood-change) land on the audience with impact, there are not an awful lot of them. The movie doesn't feel exactly tight, plot-wise - it has fun with its tangential quips and gags (some quite dispensable), and spends much time in the somewhat dishonest arena of cynicism. I take issue with the kind of comedic timing that simply leaves me doubting a sincere feeling behind a dialogue, and rather encourages me to search for the hilarity in the thing - or the subversion of expectation. Some of the best laughs originate from totally inane details or event emerging from pure circumstance - a misunderstanding in language, an accident. But much of modern comedy that I find repulsive comes from places of vice, which, while not always bad, can tend to be something less-than-funny. So when I am expected to laugh at the dysfunctional relationship between mother and son, or the casual meanness of the Nazi officers, my first reaction is something more akin to sadness than amusement.
Interestingly, despite feeling weighed down with so much effort to be funny, when the movie wants you to impact you, it comes down really hard! Without giving it away, the third act really switches gears - perhaps deliberately jarring the audience, so long entertained by far lighter content. This is the stuff that moves me - too bad it is limited to the third act. It would be so much better if the entire piece was better incorporated, so that it could encompass both comedy and drama at once.
The music is again a travesty. I can hardly abide by the modern interpretation of 1940s Germany. Led Zeppelin is out of place, and purposefully so - I just don't like it. For me, when I see the gorgeous set decoration, talent, costumes, and all the rest, I find myself wishing it weren't a farcical parody of our very real history. The potential there for something that means so much more, is difficult to turn a blind eye on. All this is not to say I disliked the film - it was a solid seven for me, and certainly one I would re-watch. Thomasin McKenzie is particularly striking in her contrastingly no-nonsense performance. At this point in time, it seems she has much to look forward to in her career. She isn't the main character - but without her, the film would be worthless. She provides the motivation for the protagonist to change, gives the plot all its momentum, and elevates the entire piece to something rather prettier and subtler.
In closing, the film certainly has merit; and I really enjoyed the emotional beats near the end, which were quite powerful. I think it is sincerity that I'm searching for, and in Jojo Rabbit, I find too much that is opposed to it - something contrived, not natural; something gratuitous, not measured; something ultimately less meaningful, because it is too concerned with generating laughs.
Criticus - Geelong Village Cinemas, Victoria
| 7 |
This adventure movie is fun and much in the way of accidents/recoveries and dramatic scenery.
However there are just too many improbable recoveries. Not to mention the endless supply of firewood in the barren grounds. But fun even with the Disneyesque animal bonding. A kids' movie overall. I am grateful they did not splice in a dinosaur from millions of years earlier.
| 6 |
Plus: 1. Episode 5 2. Episode 6 3. Oscar Isaac's performance 4. No MCU references Minus: 1. Less entertainment 2. Less action 3. No thrill in adventure 4. Many boring scenes 5. Weak villain Verdict: Moonknight does not suffer from the baggage of being a part of the MCU, oscar isaac brilliantly portrays his double role(i expect an eddie-venom kind of bromance between marc and steven in the future). There is no idea of how and where the events of this show connect with the MCU. The post credit scenes also don't have any connection. But the show lacks entertainment, it has very less action. Ethan hawke was less intimidating as the villain though he didn't do anything wrong. Episode 5 was the best as everything gets clear after that.
| 4 |
With powerhouse comedians Martin and Short this should be non stop funny. Unfortunately it's tiresome, slow, NY-centric annoying, and of course caters to the required intersectional nonsense which distracts unnecessarily from the core context of good story writing. Gomez cannot act, let alone open her mouth to speak properly. Martin is slow, somewhat funny but seems a bit past his prime. Short is funny and energetic but could be unleashed more to propel the show forward as the monotone Gomez and sleepy Steve Martin hold it back. Nice effort, good visuals, clever format, but too many neurotic cliches and not quite the zest I was looking for based on my expectations.
| 5 |
At the part, when the girl cried in front of her father's coffin.
| 10 |
That Avatar TV series is a wonderfully written well thought out Cartoon Series. The Characters aren't your usual two-dimensional types found in Kids TV. The characters are deep have their own strengths, weakness and in some cases fatal flaws.
This series gives kinds exposure to strong role models that I don't mind my children emulating. The characters are thoughtful, caring, noble and fun. The development of Prince Zuko's character through the series is very good.
This is show actually makes my children thing about philosophy, good and bad and what it means to be noble. But also it makes them think about why "bad" people may be they way they are.
| 8 |
Only good thing about the show was Zemo and US agent. I really feel bad for Bucky, such a great actor and having such an amazingly mysterious character in mcu didnot get what he deserved. His screen timing was hardly 10 percent in the show but he still made it!
Buckys character really connected well. I only watched the entire show for Bucky hoping his character will grow in mcu. But he is used as a side kick.
Falcon, I am sorry with this storyline I dont feel he his a great cap. It took Tony and Steve their lives to deal with governments. And this guy gave a speech and the entire system changed. Lame!
Give thors hammer to Falcon and he will be worthy. Give Tony's gadgets bcs he is nice and worthy. In the end give the metal arm and also zemos book to him and if still its not enough give time stone to him and he will be doctor strange.
| 5 |
Great Pilot, nothing good after that, just boring story and in the end waste of time.
| 1 |
Okay. Now I (surprisingly) see a lot of positive reviews for this film, but here's what I think.
I'm addicted to horror and have seen all of the Conjuring, Incidious and Sinister films and many more, and generally loved them.
This however, was shocking.
There is one scene at the beginning of this film where I thought 'oh, this could get good' (it won't spoil anything - but the part were they break down) from then on there is ZERO storyline, and I mean ZERO. Nothing to figure out, no narrative between the hauntings, it's literally just jump scares.
The whole thing was a mess and barely made sense. Very much a thumbs down!
| 2 |
Really good, but it just take to long to another season, and way to few episodes, but it's really good made.
| 9 |
The idea is cool, but it's almost as if the actors were instructed to not utter more than 3 words per minute. No matter the situation and the emotion, they talk very, verrry slowly, and when they're not talking very, verrry slowly, they stare vacuously at nothing.
There's some effort at showing the ultra cool life working at a top tech firm, but beyond that, it's boring. They threw in some tech jargon like qubits and AI in an attempt to look sleek, but there's actually no real meaningful technical conversation between any characters. There's a scene where two of them compete by narrating Fibonacci numbers (it wasn't explained, thankfully). In a real world, it'd be a terrible idea because one person is gonna lose eventually, and prove to be dumber than the other in front of all of their colleagues. The female lead is annoying, her facial expressions are worse than a piece of wood, and there's an ex-boyfriend who was dumped by her but is a some kind of hacker and very willing to help her hack her missing boyfriend's phone.
I couldn't get beyond the 2nd episode. And that too feels like time I'd have better spent reading a phone book.
| 3 |
Maudlin, paint-by-numbers biopic about math whiz John Nash that makes mental illness and marital strife look as pretty as a magazine cover.
Russell Crowe does give a good performance, I'll give the film that, but I wonder how much better a performance he could have given if under the guidance of a more interesting director than Ron Howard. Every Howard movie I see makes me feel like -- no matter what the subject matter -- he's determined to create a movie that would be o.k. for eight-year-old kiddies to watch. Works fine when you're dealing with mermaids and firemen, but not so much when dealing with material like this.
Jennifer Connelley proved that Joan Allen no longer necessarily cornered the market on mopey suffering wife roles, which turned out to be a good thing for us, because Allen was then free to play a hot CIA agent in the Bourne movies.
Grade: C
| 4 |
My favourite web series and of course no spoilers because "ITS CONFIDENTIAL" 😅😅. It starts a little slow but steadily paced up. Everyone would agree that its fun to watch superheroes beating the villain and saving the day . But what's more fun to watch is regular people putting their lives on line for the safety of people they don't even know. Throughout the series, the different characters bonded together as family and it feels very nice to see them go through their ups and downs. The way it upgraded season after season is just stunning.
| 10 |
This movie was nominated for several Oscars, including Best Picture and Best Actor in a Supporting Role (William H. Macy). It won Oscars for Best Actress in a Leading Role (Frances McDormand) and Best Writing (the Coen Brothers).
Fargo is certainly one of the Coen's finest and most famous movies. It claims to faithfully relate a true story that occurred between Fargo, North Dakota and Minnesota's Twin Cities in the late 1960s. The real story is anything but funny. But, this movie has its share of both humor and of black humor.
The movie begins in Fargo as Jerry Lundegaard (William H. Macy) is making contact with two "professional" thugs to arrange for his own wife's kidnapping. Jerry, a car dealer from Minneapolis, with big personal money problems, wants his wife kidnapped because he knows his father-in-law is very wealthy and will pay the ransom for his own daughter.
The idea is that once his father-in-law pays off the thugs and his wife is released, and he can split the ransom with the thugs. HOWEVER, once the deal is made and Jerry gives them one of the cars off of the lot, things start to go downhill when the quitter of the two thugs kills a policeman for stopping them to ask why the car has no tags. The killing of the policeman leads to two other passersby being killed.
After this triple homicide, Marge Gunderson (Frances McDormand), a pregnant cop is called into the case. As the movie develops—and the kidnapping scheme unravels—we are entertained by both the stories and characterizations of Marge's friends and family as well as Jerry Lundegaard's constantly frustrating and deteriorating predicament(s).
| 9 |
Overall an OK movie. One really jarring note when the horror alumni director chose to start the campy, lighthearted movie (Big with a superhero) off with an extended child abuse scene that segued into the origins of the Big Bad.
| 6 |
Leg and walking shoots everywhere.long takes just to make the movie longer for no reason. A boring movie with amazong actors wasted for peanuts. How this got 7.8 rating is beyond me.
| 5 |
Let me start by saying that I always enjoy watching this film. It is perhaps one of the ultimate Hollywood feel-good movies. However, to call a film one of the greatest of all time, you need to compare it with many films of all types, and from many sources. This film is above average Hollywood fayre, and does indeed look very good compared to most of the over-hyped brain-disengaged tosh Hollywood produces.
I am suspicious of most film top 100's, 10's etc etc in any case. They are as much a reflection of the average age and experience of those voting than any intrinsic value of the film.
Withouit wanting to be disrespectful, anyone who feels this film uniquely opens their eyes to certain fundamental truths about the human condition, would do better watching Sondeburgh's highly accessible, but more profound exploration on love, loss, faith, hope and redemption "Solaris". The adventurous might also check out Tarkovsky's 1972 Russian version!
| 5 |
The ONLY good thing about this movie is the pretty visuals of space tech, etc.
EVERYTHING else about this movie is just incredibly bad.
Sandra is amazingly annoying, especially when she freaks out after things start to go wrong, and she turns into a useless hysterical little girl. She is fantastically unlikeable and I didn't care at all if she lived or died.
And you won't be surprised that I TRIED watching this piece of junk 3 times previously, and each time, I turned it off. The only reason I stuck it out to watch it to the end this time, is I was bored, and wanted to see what happened.
What a waste of time. Don't make the mistake I did.
| 2 |
I don't recall ever seeing Tom Hardy attempt comedy, but he's in full Ace Ventura mode in Venom, Sony's latest (and successful) attempt to squeeze the dollars out of what few Marvel characters that remain under their ownership. After failing to reboot Spider-Man and coming to an agreement with Marvel Studios to share the character, Sony have been left with the web-slinger's rogue gallery, and with some kind of anti-superhero universe clearly in mind, they have kicked events off with their most popular villain, the hulking and long-tongued Venom. You may remember the character from the franchise-killing Spider-Man 3 in 2007, and you also may believe you've gone back in time over 10 years when watching this spectacularly dull and frustratingly origin story, which harks back to the dark days of the Ben-Affleck-headlined Daredevil and Tim Story's Fantastic Four.
A spaceship launched by the shadowy Life Foundation crashes down to Earth carrying four symbiotic alien lifeforms gathered from a nearby comet. Three are retrieved by the Foundation's Elon Musk-esque CEO Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed) and taken back to their San Francisco research facility for experimentation, but one escapes, latching itself on to an ambulance driver before hopping between various people in an attempt to find a suitable host. Enter Eddie Brock (Hardy), an investigative journalist who trades in exposing and bringing down corrupt organisations. When given the chance to interview Drake, Eddie naturally uses the opportunity to question the entrepreneur about some of the horrific allegations, including experimenting on humans. The interview is cut short, and soon Eddie finds himself fired and split from his fiancee Anne (Michelle Williams). He sees the chance to redeem himself when a disgruntled Life employee gives him access to their labs, which turn out to be holding cells for symbiote testing on the homeless. The rest you can guess: a symbiote finds its way onto Eddie and he spends the rest of the film dealing with newly-acquired powers (and taste for human heads).
Marvel Studios have got the formula down to a tee, endearing superheroes to millions of new fans who had never touched a comic-book in their lives. It's somewhat sad to see Venom try to take the genre back more than a decade, when many studios were under the impression that the only way an audience will buy into a world of superpowers is through forced humour. The MCU balances humour and drama in a way that almost guarantees your emotional investment, and if you're going to go for all-out comedy like Ant-Man or Thor: Ragnarok, y'know, make it funny. The sight of Hardy cooling down in a lobster tank or flashing expressions of gormless confusion for nearly two hours does not make for pleasing entertainment. The actor is incredibly bad, and his choice to go with a mumbled accent and hunched posture means that his character fails to convince as a journalist with serious credentials. The remainder of the cast don't fare much better, although its hardly their fault. It's a thankless role for Williams, who is given little to do other than playing the role of Eddie's conscience, and Ahmed has no dimension to play around with as the stock soulless corporate type. The climax is a forgettable smack-down featuring two indistinguishable CGI creations, something The Incredible Hulk did far better ten years ago. Despite all of this, Ruben Fleischer's bland fossil of a film raked in over $800 million worldwide, so I'm afraid a sequel is inevitable.
| 3 |
I was surprised how much better this move was than I expected.
Expected a typical, off the rack spy movie with predictable twists and turns, too much violence, car chases and gratuitous nudity. For the most part, Red Sparrow rises above all that.
There are several flaws in the story that broke my concentration. I will not spoil it for you, but some scenes are grossly unbelievable when the previous scene is considered.
Another issue I have is whether there is some pandering to anti-Eastern Europe bigotry that Americans are too quick to ignore. This movie is reminiscent of the Cold War era depiction of Russia, Eastern Europe and the struggle America had with dealing with them. The plot was too simple in that regard, almost lazy. I would have preferred for that philosophical rivalry to have been better explored/explained to really make this movie stand out from the rest.
| 8 |
As far as I'm concerned, this is the best series, I do not know if it's ever because I've lived only 19 years - but it's just great, fun and nostalgic. The series is of course a fantasy, in a world where there are people who can get out of their hands or spell or attack - of fire / water / air / earth The series tells the story of Aang, an air- spell whose nation was completely destroyed by the brutal fire nation. Aang, who froze himself in the glacier, awakens 100 years later with his flying bison Appa into a terrible world in which the fire nation approaches global domination, terrorist and dictatorial domination. Ang awakens when he is found by younger brothers from the water nation - Sokka and Katara, and together with them he sets out on a journey that has lasted 62 wonderful episodes, and 4 seasons. During the journey, Ang and Katara fall in love and the plot tells it perfectly. The plot of the series is fascinating, the best season in my opinion is the first. During the wonderful journey, so many wonderful and fascinating stories unfold in the children's journey, I prefer not to expose them to those who have not seen her - and to you who have not seen her - I just feel sorry for you, because you miss one of the best series the world has ever known. I'm not inclined to give a rating of 10 - and the series is one of the few pages on IMDb that will get me 10. It's hard to explain what's so good about it, you just have to see to understand. Finally, for me this is the best series I have ever seen, and the legend of Cora undoubtedly continues the excellence of an avatar - but for me it will always be less nostalgic than Avatar, and a little less good.
| 10 |
TOTAL waste of time, what is the purpose of such movie? And the End was soo bad. What kind of creature was that, and are they like going to live like that all their life? Plz avoid this nerve breaking movie, wich wanna make u crush ur head after watching it.
| 2 |
This is a superhero that turns superheroes into villains. It follows a rag-tag group of "boys" who are out for revenge against a corporation of corrupted superheroes.
The violence is gory and unexpected. The visuals are stunning. The writing, direction and acting are absolutely unnerving and phenomenal. You'll be on your edge of your seat during some scenes involving certain characters like Homelander and Butcher who keep you being unable to guess what their next move will be.
The soundtrack is pretty awesome too, I found myself Shazzaming certain songs and to this day still listen to them. Can't wait for the next season.
| 9 |
Yes, I found it that bad. 2001 space Odyssey was shot in 1969 and was (and still is) an epic movie. Interstellar will certainly NOT be remembered as such however pretentious it might be. I can't believe it got such a high rating by IMDb. It really sucks in most aspects: the story, the script, the locations, photography, nothing that goes on is beyond trivial.
The actors do a decent job but this doesn't save this movie from being one of the worst of it's genre I have been watching in the last few years if not in my entire life. I am a movie lover and as a general rule, no matter how slow the action may sometimes unfold, I patiently sit watching and try getting the message embedded until the very end.
This time I could really see nothing to spare, boredom was unbearable and eventually left the theater well before the end of the movie. Hasn't happened to me in the past twenty years I guess.
To put it in simple words: don't waste your time (and money) watching this.
It sucks big way
| 2 |
Too many plot holes and scenarios that don't line up with what was put in place in the previous MCU movies. Massive let down for the entire story arc. Best to have the MCU movies end with Infinity Wars.
| 2 |
The film opened with so much potential with great graphics and actual lol jokes on the Barbie world as well as Mattel making fun of itself. The movie even opens up the whole controversy about what Barbie stands for from the very beginning; that Barbie is suppose to be a symbol for girls to feel empowered to do whatever they want to do, but in many ways create the total opposite result. So this setup made me hopeful and expectant of a unique and profound perspective of self-image, patriarchy, parenting, etc.
However, it did none of that. It threw in some female characters in real life, gave them no dimensions, tossed in those tiring storylines about sophomoric "inspiring" speech that can rescue all. The end to Barbie makes no sense. No wonder everyone found Ken to be the best part of the movie.
I would like to think that the creators and writers had a much better original vision that somehow got derailed through the production process. It certainly felt that way.
| 5 |
After opening his film-making career with the violent, gritty 'Reservoir Dogs' Quentin Tarantino followed it up with 'Pulp Fiction'. Told with a similar, non-linear storyline the latter follows the criminal lives of many characters, some of which intersect by coincidence. Tarantino's style of film-making is often incoherent, messy, and just plain obnoxious. While one can praise his entertainment factor, it's not good enough by itself to make a remarkable film. Such is this case with 'Pulp Fiction' which often relies too much on clever editing, smart acting, and foul language.
The film starts off with two lovers talking in a diner: Pumpkin (Tim Roth) and Yolanda (Amanda Plummer). As they discuss previous criminal jobs, they suddenly decide to hold up the diner they're in. After they get up with guns, declaring their intentions the film goes to freeze frame and the opening credits role. To describe the entire plot of 'Pulp Fiction' would take too long, and is unnecessarily. It follows the lives of two hit men named Jules and Vincent (Academy Award nominees John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson), a Mob Boss (Ving Rhames), his oddball wife (Uma Thurman), and a boxer at the end of his prime (Bruce Willis). Intertwined among these criminal characters are a myriad of different personalities. There's the twisted Zed, the classy Winston Wolf, and of course Tarantino himself as Jimmy. These characters often come together through different segments and numerous situations. They include a desperate trip to recover a sacred Golden Watch, a case of someone very important overdosing on Heroine, and a botched getaway from a job. The cast is impressive, featuring smaller roles from the likes of Steve Buscemi, Eric Stoltz, and Christopher Walken. While Tarantino has an impressive cast list to boot, other elements of the film often go wrong.
The first thing that comes to mind in Tarantino's films is dialog. He works a labyrinth of different personalities, characters, and events while connecting them with one common theme. The main interaction in 'Pulp Fiction' is violence. It is sporadic, but it comes in bursts of graphic nature. There is, like in 'Reservoir Dogs' comedy mixed in with drama and even action. However, stylistically the combination is lacking. Tarantino ultimately has to use the f-word to establish a certain emotion or mood in his screenplay, rather than relying on directional technique. The cast emotes his dialog to their best of their abilities and the tough build of Jackson is impressive. He gets into his character and fully embodies the hit-man who grows a conscious. The rest of the cast are solid, but Jackson ultimately carries the show with his hilarious delivery and tone.
Technically speaking, 'Pulp Fiction' doesn't accomplish anything new. There is interesting editing by Sally Menke, although the photography by Andrzej Sekula looks dated. A good deal of Tarantino's filmography deals more with more with the "sound" than the "look". There is a fun soundtrack thrown into the mix, but everything looks fairly standard as intended. Tarantino's direction feels off base, mainly because the material he gives himself doesn't really go anywhere. 'Sin City' is an example of a film that is purely based on style and looks, while Tarantino as a filmmaker tries to get a combination of intelligence and entertainment. As these two heads collide, things get messy. Does 'Pulp Fiction' really do anything new for cinema? There's quite a bit of swearing, yes, and the film is looked up to as something out-of-this-world but these are not striking elements. In 'Kill Bill: Vol. 1' Tarantino once again heavily copies from other Kung Fu films, but in that regard he is able to create something distinctly entertaining and visually exuberant. The characters in 'Pulp Fiction' are degenerates, people who kill for a living and people who use drugs regularly. Tarantino has made personal remarks that he condemns this sort of behavior, yet the film stylizes both these elements as if there is a bigger mystique to them then there really is.
In the end, I give 'Pulp Fiction' more than it's fair share of points. It entertains and it has some solid acting-Tarantino's (lack of) ability to really pull everything together for a solid point ends up being his wrongdoing once again.
6/10
| 6 |
Just loved it,all 4 stories were really HEARTOUCHING, It was really fun to watch.loved it!!
| 10 |
Let's get it straight, as far as I'm concerned this is the best non-fiction I've ever seen from Steven Spielberg. That is, the best real-life story I've seen directed by him. All the leads are simply superb - not a surprise regarding Michelle Williams - I've seen her in so many role- never a bad one. But Paul Dano, whom I've seen in a few roles is simply breathtaking here; Judd Hirsch has such a tiny role, and still manages to work wonders performing it; and I could go on and on - I can't think of a role that wasn't splendidly written and excellently performed.
I also loved Spielberg's sense of balance, which I usually don't in his real-life stories. He doesn't ever go overboard. His characters ring true even when they're over-reacting or going haywire. They actually feel more human when they do. And the same sense of balance is true of the story itself.
Technically. I could never fault Spielberg, he's definitely a master of his trade, and always was. So, what's my problem with this movie, why didn't I rate it a perfect 10? - Here goes my title - It's not the first time I've seen great directors doing the story of their own biography in film. More often than not the end result is packed to the brim with details, tiny stories that draw a complex picture, a very complex, elaborate and meandering plotline that at the bottom line diminishes the impact of a would-be great film. The personal attachment to the life story we see stops even some of the best directors from cutting out scenes they should. This movie should've been at least 20 minutes shorter. It would've been a perfect 10 then, at least in my personal book.
| 8 |
Despite the phenomenal popularity of the (thus far) four installments of the "Pirates of the Caribbean (POC)" cinematic franchise, I've found it to be a monumental disappointment. Being such a fan of the original Disneyland ride ever since it first debuted back in 1967 (I once got off the ride and got right back in line for it seven times in a row
), I can't tell you how eager and excited I was to run out and see the first POC installment, "Curse of the Black Pearl," way back in 2003 especially since it starred one of my favorite cinematic actors, Johnny Depp. Oh how tragic to experience my initial eagerness and excitement quickly fade into bitter disappointment and frustration! What was immediately apparent to me was the almost complete disconnect between the vision and experience created by the ride and the vision now being projected up on the big screen. With all of its extravagant cinematography and special effects and over-the-top and even ridiculous characterizations of characters who never appeared in the ride, the film just didn't have the same creepy excitement and fantasy-world fun generated by the ride.
And these serious deficiencies have persisted throughout all three of the sequels. In particular, Johnny Depp's character of Jack Sparrow is just too fey, effete and just plain silly, Orlando Bloom (whom I despise) is too much of what he always is in every movie he's in – an inconsequential "pretty boy" that inspires absolutely no excitement or interest and Keira Knightly, a "pretty bit of fluff" who was "force fed" into the POC cinematic franchise purely out of political correctness, i.e., "we (the writers and producers of the POC films) must make sure that the world of the pirate which has been traditionally portrayed as all male is properly "updated" in our productions to be politically correct in including at least one woman main character..." Yes, there are the historical accounts of at least two very prominent women pirates, Anne Bonney and Mary Read, but I'm sure they didn't look or act anything like Keira Knightley's character – and she certainly was never even hinted at in the original Disneyland ride
As a result, she is completely out of place and really detracts and distracts from the plot lines of all of the POC installments. She doesn't even work successfully as a "love interest" for Orlando Bloom or Johnny Depp as Olivia de Havilland did with Errol Flynn in "Captain Blood" or Maureen O'Hara did with EF and Anthony Quinn in "Against All Flags" since her (Knightley's) character suffers the confused split personality of being that of a butch female swashbuckler (completely unbelievable and stupid!) and a sexy feminine dish (much more likely)....
Out of a real dedication to my affection for the original ride, despite my bitter disappointment with the first installment, I've forced myself to see every one of the sequels hoping against hope that "things would get better," i.e. the films would get closer to the look and spirit of the ride – and that Orlando Bloom and/or Keira Knightley would be killed off or otherwise just disappear! Praise be to Providence that this actually did come to pass in the third sequel – BUT it's too little too late and I'm still left with the feeling of a lover who has watched the "perfect woman of his dreams" become the "the nightmare hag from hell
"
| 3 |
This is a simple movie; it's not trying to be deep, meaningful, emotional, and it certainly isn't any of those. However, if you go in with right mindset, knowing it's just a dumb action movie you should be sufficiently entertained. I definitely was - Eddie Brock's bromance with Venom is great and they even break up somewhere in the middle. The action scenes are decent and I found the film consistently funny, for the intentional and unintentional comedy.
| 5 |
This is so pathetic when you have a great actor, good choreography and excellent team but the final product is an average movie. I felt like the action was very much tedious and it lacks the exposition of a movie.The conversation and accent was so disgusting and movie location was not good.Looks like the shot as taken in Somalia. Producer should have had a better background analysis. Chris Hemsworth did not disapoint us.
| 4 |
What a collosal waste of my time. I will never be able to get back the 2 hours I wasted watching Lost In Translation. Horribly boring, dreadfully slow, totally pointless. The only redeeming quality is that it had Bill Murray in it. I love his comedies but anyone that says he's hillarious in this movie (as a couple critics did) must have seen a different version of the film than I did.
Please, please, please don't waste your time watching this. I'm not is Good Movie Debt and I need to go watch something worthwhile to make up for watching LIT. Maybe I'll go home and watch What About Bob? or Groundhog Day to cheer me up.
| 2 |
Wow,"Stephanie Meyer" has learnt some history.3 stars are for Mathew.G's good acting.
| 3 |
I don't get the high reviews for this one. The characters are flat and for the most part dicks to each other. The premise, while somewhat interesting, lacks emotional resonance. I'm two episodes in and I just don't care how it turns out, ironic since it deals with the end of the world. Pacing is slow and dialog is decent overall but awful in a few places. Production quality is high. But I don't really like any of the characters, other than feeling sympathetic for Ellen Page whom everyone just constantly s***s on. It's not enough to keep me watching. And wtf with the chimpanzee butler? It just doesn't work. Plot holes abound and the rules of the universe are so loose it comes off as sloppy. The gunfight at the end of episode 2 is inexcusably ludicrous. Definitely should have worked more on the script. *snoorreee*
| 3 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.